Pope Gregory XII

(ANGELO CORRARIO, now CORRER).

Legal pope during the Western Schism; born at Venice, of a noble family, about 1327; died at Recanati, 18 October, 1417.

He became Bishop of Castello in 1380 and titular Patriarch of Constantinople in 1390. Under Pope Innocent VII he was made Apostolic secretary, the Legate of Ancona, and finally, in 1405, Cardinal-Priest of San Mareo. It was due to his great piety and his earnest desire for the end of the schism that after the death of Innocent VII the cardinals at Rome unanimously elected him pope on 30 Nov., 1406. He took the name of Gregory XII. Before the papal election each cardinal swore that in order to end the schism he would abdicate the papacy if he should be elected, provided his rival at Avignon (Benedict XIII) would do the same. Gregory XII repeated his oath after his election and to all appearances had the intention to keep it. On 12 Dec., 1406, he notified Benedict XIII of his election and the stipulation under which it took place, at the same time reiterating his willingness to lay down the tiara if Benedict would do the same. Benedict apparently agreed to the proposals of Gregory XII and expressed his desire to have a conference with him. After long negotiations the two pontiffs agreed to meet at Savona. The meeting, however, never took place. Benedict, though openly protesting his desire to meet Gregory XII, gave various indications that he had not the least intention to renounce his claims to the papacy; and Gregory XII, though sincere in the beginning, also soon began to waver. The relatives of Gregory XII, to whom he was always inordinately attached, and King Ladislaus of Naples, for political reasons used all their efforts to prevent the meeting of the pontiffs. The reason, pretended or real, put forth by Gregory XII for refusing to meet his rival, was his fear that Benedict had hostile designs upon him and would use their conference only as a ruse to capture him. The cardinals of Gregory XII openly showed their dissatisfaction at his procedure and gave signs of their intention to forsake him. On 4 May, 1408, Gregory XII convened his cardinals at Lucca, ordered them not to leave the city under any pretext, and created four of his nephews cardinals, despite his promise in the conclave that he would create no new cardinals. Seven of the cardinals secretly left Lucca and negotiated with the cardinals of Benedict concerning the convocation of a general council by them at which both pontiffs should be deposed and a new one elected. They summoned the council to Pisa and invited both pontiffs to be present. Neither Gregory XII nor Benedict XIII appeared. At the fifteenth session (5 June, 1409), the council deposed the two pontiffs, and elected Alexander V on 26 June, 1409. Meanwhile Gregory stayed with his loyal and powerful protector, Prince Charles of Malatesta, who had come to Pisa in person during the process of the council, in order to effect an understanding between Gregory XII and the cardinals of both obediences. All his efforts were useless. Gregory XII, who had meanwhile created ten other cardinals, convoked a council at Cividale del Friuli, near Aquileia, for 6 June, 1409. At this council, though only a few bishops had appeared, Benedict XIII and Alexander V were pronounced schismatics, perjurers, and devastators of the Church.

Though forsaken by most of his cardinals, Gregory XII was still the true pope and was recognized as such by Rupert, King of the Romans, King Ladislaus of Naples, and some Italian princes. The Council of Constance finally put an end to the intolerable situation of the Church. At the fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) a Bull of Gregory XII was read which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council. The cardinal then read a mandatory of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts. Hereupon Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly. The cardinals accepted the resignation, retained all the cardinals that had been created by him, and appointed him Bishop of Porto and perpetual legate at Ancona. Two years later, before the election of the new pope, Martin V, Gregory XII died in the odour of sanctity.

SALEMBIER, Le Grand Schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1900), 225-267, 357, 363; tr. M. D., The Great Schism of the West (New York, 1907), 218-258, 344-357; SAUERLAND, Gregor XII. von seiner Wahl bis zum Vertrag von Marseille in SYBEL'S Historische Zeitschrift (Munich, 1875), XXXIV, 74-120; FINKE, Papst Gregor XII. und Konig Sigismund im Jahre 1414 in Romische Quartalschrift (Rome, 1887), I, 354-69; LISINI, Papa Gregorio XII e i Senesi in Rassegna Nazionale (Florence, 1896), XCI.

MICHAEL OTT

Pope Gregory XIII

(UGO BUONCOMPAGNI).

Born at Bologna, 7 Jan., 1502; died at Rome, 10 April, 1585. He studied jurisprudence at the University of Bologna, from which he was graduated at an early age as doctor of canon and of civil law. Later, he taught jurisprudence at the same university, and had among his pupils the famous future cardinals, Alessandro Farnese, Cristoforo Madruzzi, Otto Truchsess von Waldburg, Reginald Pole, Carlo Borromeo, and Stanislaus Hosius. In 1539 he came to Rome at the request of Cardinal Parizzio, and Paul III appointed him judge of the Capitol, papal abbreviator, and referendary of both signatures. In 1545 the same pope sent him to the Council of Trent as one of his jurists. On his return to Rome he held various offices in the Roman Curia under Julius III (1550-1555), who also appointed him prolegate of the Campagna in 1555. Under Paul IV (1555-1559) he accompanied Cardinal Alfonso Caraffa on a papal mission to Philip II in Flanders, and upon his return was appointed Bishop of Viesti in 1558. Up to this time he had not been ordained a priest. In 1559 the newly-elected pope, Pius IV, sent him as his confidential deputy to the Council of Trent, where he remained till its conclusion in 1563. Shortly after his return to Rome, the same pope created him Cardinal Priest of San Sisto in 1564, and sent him as legate to Spain to investigate the case of Archbishop Bartolomé Carranza of Toledo, who had been suspected of heresy and imprisoned by the Inquisition. While in Spain he was appointed secretary of papal Briefs, and after the election of Pius V, 7 Jan., 1566, he returned to Rome to enter upon his new office. After the death of Pius V on 1 May, 1572, Ugo Buoncompagni was elected pope on 13 May, 1572, chiefly through the influence of Cardinal Antoine Granvella, and took the name of Gregory XIII. At his election to the papal throne he had already completed his seventieth year, but was still strong and full of energy.

His youth was not stainless. While still at Bologna, a son, named Giacomo, was born to him of an unmarried woman. Even after entering the clerical state he was worldly-minded and fond of display. But from the time he became pope he followed in the footsteps of his holy predecessor, and was thoroughly imbued with the consciousness of the great responsibility connected with his exalted position. His election was greeted with joy by the Roman people, as well as by the foreign rulers. Emperor Maximilian II, the kings of France, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, the Italian and other princes sent their representatives to Rome to tender their obedience to the newly-elected pontiff. At the first consistory he ordered the Constitution of Pius V, which forbade the alienation of church property, to be read publicly, and pledged himself to carry into execution the decrees of the Council of Trent. He at once appointed a committee of cardinals, consisting of Borromeo, Palcotti, Aldobrandini, and Arezzo, with instructions to find out and abolish all ecclesiastical abuses; decided that the cardinals who were at the head of dioceses were not exempt from the Tridentine decree of episcopal residence; designated a committee of cardinals to complete the Index of Forbidden Books, and appointed one day in each week for a public audience during which everyone had access to him. In order that only the most worthy persons might be vested with ecclesiastical dignities, he kept a list of commendable men in and out of Rome, on which he noted their virtues and faults that came to his notice. The same care he exercised in the appointment of cardinals. Thirty-four cardinals were appointed during his pontificate, and in their appointment he always had the had the welfare of the Church in view. He cannot be charged with nepotism. Two of his nephews, Filippo Buoncompagni and Filippo Vastavillano, he created cardinals because he considered them worthy of the dignity; but when a third one aspired after the purple, he did not even grant him an audience. His son Giacomo he appointed castellan of St. Angelo and gonfalonier of the Church, but refused him every higher dignity, although Venice enrolled him among its nobili and the King of Spain appointed him general of his army.

Like his holy predecessor, Gregory XIII spared no efforts to further an expedition against the Turks. With this purpose in view he sent special legates to Spain, France, Germany, Poland, and other countries, but the discord of the Christian princes among themselves, the peace concluded by the Venetians with the Turks, and the treaty effected by Spain with the Sultan, frustrated all his exertions in this direction.

For stemming the tide of Protestantism, which already had wrested entire nations from the bosom of the Church, Gregory XIII knew of no better means than a thorough training of the candidates for holy priesthood in Catholic philosophy and theology. He founded numerous colleges and seminaries at Rome and other suitable places and put most of them under the direction of the Jesuits. At least twenty-three such institutions of learning owe their existence or survival to the munificence of Gregory XIII. The first of these institutions that enjoyed the pope's liberality was the German College at Rome, which for lack of funds was in danger of being abandoned. In a Bull dated 6 August, 1573, he ordered that no less than one hundred students at a time from Germany and its northern borderland should be educated in the German College, and that it should have an annual income of 10,000 ducats, to be paid, as far as necessary, out of the papal treasury. In 1574 he gave the church and the palace of Sant' Apollinare to the institution, and in 1580 united the Hungarian college with it. The following Roman colleges were founded by Gregory XIII: the Greek college on 13 Jan., 1577; the college for neophytes, i.e. converted Jews and infidels, in 1577; the English college on 1 May, 1579; the Maronite college on 27 June, 1584. For the international Jesuit college (Collegium Romanum) he built in 1582 the large edifice known as the Collegio Romano which was occupied by the faculty and students of the Collegium Romanum (Gregorian University) until the Piedmontese Government declared it national property and expelled the Jesuits in 1870. Outside of Rome the following colleges were either founded or liberally endowed by Gregory XIII: the English college at Donai, the Scotch college at Pont-à-Mousson, the papal seminaries at Graz, Vienna, Olmutz, Prague, Colosvar, Fulda, Augsburg, Dillingen, Braunsberg, Milan, Loreto, Fribourg in Switzerland, and three schools in Japan. In these schools numerous missionaries were trained for the various countries where Protestantism had been made the state religion and for the missions among the pagans in China, India, and Japan. Thus Gregory XIII at least partly restored the old faith in England and the northern countries of Europe, supplied the Catholics in those countries with their necessary priests, and introduced Christianity into the pagan countries of Eastern Asia. Perhaps one of the happiest events during his pontificate was his arrival at Rome of four Japanese ambassadors on 22 March, 1585. They had been sent by the converted kings of Bungo, Arima, and Omura, in Japan, to thank the pope for the fatherly care he had shown their country by sending them Jesuit missionaries who had taught them the religion of Christ.

In order to safeguard the Catholic religion in Germany, he instituted a special Congregation of Cardinals for German affairs, the so-called Congregatio Germanica, which lasted from 1573-1578. To remain informed of the Catholic situation in that country and keep in closer contact with its rulers, he erected resident nunciatures at Vienna in 1581 and at Cologne in 1582. By his Bull "Provisionis nostrae" of 29 Jan., 1579, he confirmed the acts of his predecessor Pius V, condemning the errors of Baius, and at the same time he commissioned the Jesuit, Francis of Toledo, to demand the abjuration of Baius. In the religious orders Gregory XIII recognized a great power for the conversion of pagans, the repression of heresy and the maintenance of the Catholic religion. He was especially friendly towards the Jesuits, whose rapid spread during the pontificate was greatly due to his encouragement and financial assistance. Neither did he neglect the other orders. He approved the Congregation of the Oratory in 1574, the Barnabites in 1579, and the Discaleed Carmalites in 1580. The Premonstratensians he honoured by canonizing their founder, St. Norbert, in 1582.

Gregory XIII spared no efforts to restore the Catholic Faith in the countries that had become Protestant. In 1574 he sent the Polish Jesuit Warsiewicz to John III of Sweden in order to convert him to Catholicity. Being then unsuccessful, he sent another Jesuit, the Norwegian Lawrence Nielssen in 1576, who succeeded in converting the king on 6 May, 1578. The king, however, soon turned Protestant again from political motives. In 1581, Gregory XIII dispatched the Jesuit Antonio Possevino as nuncio to Russia, to mediate between Tsar Ivan IV and King Bathory of Poland. He not only brought about an amicable settlement between the two rulers, but also obtained for the Catholics of Russia the right to practice their religion openly. Gregory's efforts to procure religious liberty for the Catholics of England were without avail. The world knows of the atrocities committed by Queen Elizabeth on many Catholic missionaries and laymen. No blame, therefore, attaches to Gregory XIII for trying to depose the queen by force of arms. As early as 1578 he sent Thomas Stukeley with a ship and an army of 800 men to Ireland, but the treacherous Stukeley joined his forces with those of King Sebastian of Portugal against Emperor Abdulmelek of Morocco. Another papal expedition which sailed to Ireland in 1579 under the command of James Fitzmaurice, accompanied by Nicholas Sanders as papal nuncio, was equally unsuccessful. Gregory XIII had nothing whatever to do with the plot of Henry, Duke of Guise, and his brother, Charles, Duke of Mayenne, to assassinate the queen, and most probably knew nothing whatever about it (see Bellesheim, "Wilhelm Cardinal Allen", Mainz, 1885, p. 144).

Some historians have severely criticized Gregory XIII for ordering that the horrible massacre of the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572 be celebrated in Rome by a "Te Deum" and other marks of rejoicing. In defence of Gregory XIII it must be stated that he had nothing whatever to do with the massacre itself, and that he as well as Salviati, his nuncio in Paris, were kept in ignorance concerning the intended slaughter. The pope indeed participated in the Roman festivities, but he was probably not acquainted with the circumstances of the Parisian horrors and, like other European rulers, had been informed that the Huguenots had been detected in a conspiracy to kill the king and the whole royal family, and had been thus punished for their treacherous designs. But even if Gregory XIII was aware of all the circumstances of the massacre (which has never been proven), it must be borne in mind that he did not rejoice at the bloodshed, but at the suppression of a political and religious rebellion. That Gregory XIII did not approve of the massacre, but detested the cruel act and shed tears when he was apprised of it, is expressly stated even by the apostate Gregario Leti in his "Vita di Sisto V" (Cologne, 1706), I, 431-4, anad by Beautome, a contemporary of Gregory XIII, in his "Vie de M. l'Amiral de Chastillon" (Complete works, The Hague, 1740, VIII, 196). The medal which Gregory XIII had struck in memory of the event bears his effigy on the obverse, which ion the reverse under the legend Vgonotiorum Strages (overthrow of the Huguenots) stands an angel with cross and drawn sword, killing the Huguenots.

No other act of Gregory XIII has gained for him a more lasting fame than his reform of the Julian calendar which was completed and introduced into most Catholic countries in 1578. Closely connected with the reform of the calendar is the emendation of the Roman martyrology which was ordered by Gregory XIII in the autumn of 1580. The emendation was to consist chiefly in the restoration of the original text of Usuard's martyrology, which was in common use at the time of Gregory XIII. He entrusted the learned Cardinal Sirleto with the difficult undertaking. The cardinal formed a committee, consisting of ten members, who assisted him in the work. The first edition of the new martyrology, which came out in 1582, was full of typographical errors; likewise the second edition of 1583. Both editions were suppressed by Gregory XIII, and in January, 1584, appeared a third and better edition under the title of "Martyrologium Romanum Gregorii XIII jussu editum" (Rome, 1583). In a brief, dated 14 January, 1584, Gregory XIII ordered that the new martyrology should supersede all others. Another great literary achievement of Gregory XIII is an official Roman edition of the Corpus juris canonici. Shortly after the conclusion of the Council of Trent, Pius IV had appointed a committee which was to bring out a critical edition of the Decree of Gratian. The committee was increased to thirty-five members (correctores Romani) by Pius V in 1566. Gregory XIII had been a member of it from the beginning. The work was finally completed in 1582. In the Briefs "Cum pro munere", dated 1 July, 1580, and "Emendationem", dated 2 June, 1582, Gregory XIII ordered that henceforth only the emended official text was to be used and that in the future no other text should be printed.

It has already been mentioned that Gregory XIII spent large sums for the erection of colleges and seminaries. No expense appeared too high to him, if only it was made for the benefit of the Catholic religion. For the education of poor candidates for the priesthood he spent two million sendi during his pontificate, and for the good of Catholicity he sent large sums of money to Malta, Austria, England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands. In Rome he built the magnificent Gregorian chapel in the church of St. Peter, and the Quirinal palace in 1580; a capacious granary in the Thermae of Diocletian in 1575, and fountains at the Piazza Navona, the Piazza del Pantheon, and the Piazza del Popolo. In recognition of his many improvements in Rome the senate and the people erected a statue in his honour on the Capitoline Hill, when he was still living.

The large sums of money spent in this manner necessarily reduced the papal treasury. Acting on the advice of Bonfigliuoto, the secretary of the Camera, he confiscated various baronial estates and castles, because some forgotten feudal liabilities to the papal treasury had not been paid, or because their present owners were not the rightful heirs. The barons were in continual fear lest some of their property would be wrested from them in this way. The result was that the aristocracy hated the papal government, and incited the peasantry to do the same. The papal influence over the aristocracy being thus weakened, the barons of the Romagna made war against each other, and a period of bloodshed ensued which Gregory XIII was helpless to prevent. Moreover, the imposition of port charges at Aneona and the levy of import taxes on Venetian goods by the papal government, crippled commerce to a considerable extent. The banditti who infested the Campagna were protected by the barons and the peasantry and became daily more bold. They were headed by young men of noble families, such as Alfonso Piccolomim, Roberto Malatesta, and others. Rome itself was filled with these outlaws, and the papal officers were always and everywhere in danger of life. Gregory was helpless against these lawless bands. Their suppression was finally effected by his rigorous successor, Sixtus V.

CLAPPI, Compenitio delle attioni e santa vita di Gregorio XIII (Rome, 1591); BOMPLANI, Historia Pont. Greg. XIII (Dillingen, 1685); PALATIUS, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum (Venice, 1688), IV, 329-366; MAFFEL, Annales Gregorii XIII, 2 vols. (Rome, 1712); PAGI, Breviarium Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum (Antwerp, 1753), VI, 718-863; RANKE, Die romischen Papste, tr. FOSTER, History of the Popes (London, 1906), I, 319-333; BROSCH, Gesch. des Kirchenstaates (Gotha, 1880), I, 300 sqq.; MILEY, History of the Papal States.

MICHAEL OTT

Pope Gregory XIV

(NiccolÒ Spondrati).

Born at Somma, near Milan, 11 Feb., 1535; died at Rome, 15 Oct., 1591.

His father Francesco, a Milanese senator, had, after the death of his wife, been created cardinal by Pope Paul III, in 1544. Niccolò studied at the Universities of perugia and Padua, was ordained priest, and then appointed Bishop of Cremona, in 1560. He participated in the sessions of the Council of Trent, 1561-1563, and was created Cardinal-Priest of Santa Cecilia by Gregory XIII on 12 December 1583. Urban VII having died on 27 September, 1590, Sfondrati was elected to succeed him on 5 December, 1590, after a protracted conclave of more than two months, and took the name of Gregory XIV. The new pope had not aspired to the tiara. Cardinal Montalto, who came to his cell to inform him that the Sacred College had agreed on his election, found him kneeling in prayer before a crucifix. When on the next day he was elected he burst into tears and said to the cardinals: "God forgive you! What have you done?" From his youth he had been a man of piety and mortification. Before entering the ecclesiastical state he was a constant companion of Charles Borromeo, and when cardinal, he was an intimate friend of Philip Neri whose holy life he strove to imitate.

As soon as he became pope, he gave his energetic support to the French League, and took active measures against Henry of Navarre, whom Sixtus V, in 1585, had declared a heretic and excluded from succession to the French throne. In accordance with the Salic law, after the death of Henry III in 1589, Henry of Navarre was to succeed to the French throne, but the prevalent idea of those times was that no Protestant could become King of France, which was for the most part Catholic. The nobles, moreover, threatened to rise up against the rule of Henry of Navarre unless he promised to become a Catholic. In order to reconcile the nobility and the people to his reign, Henry declared on 4 August, 1589, that he would become a Catholic and uphold the Catholic religion in France. When Gregory XIV became pope, Henry had not yet fulfilled his promise and gave little hope of doing it in the near future. The pope, therefore, decided to assist the French League in its efforts to depose Henry by force of arms and in this he was encouraged by Philip II of Spain. In his monitorial letter to the Council of Paris, 1 March, 1591, he renewed the sentence of excommunication against Henry, and ordered the clergy, nobles, judicial functionaries, and the Third Estate of France to renounce him, under pain of severe penalties. He also sent a monthly subsidy of 15,000 sendi to Paris, and dispatched his nephew Ercole Sfondrati to France at the head of the papal troops. In the midst of these operations against Henry, Gregory XIV died. after a short pontificate of 10 months and 10 days.

Gregory XIV created five cardinals, among whom was his nephew Paolo Camillo Sfondrati. He vainly tried to induce Philip Neri to accept the purple. On 21 September, 1591, he raised to the dignity of a religious order the Congregation of the Fathers of a Good Death (Clerici regulares ministrantes infirmis) founded by St. Camillus de Lellis. In his Bull "Cogit nos", dated 21 March, 1591, he forbade under pain of excommunication all bets concerning the election of a pope, the duration of a pontificate, or the creation of new cardinals. In a decree, dated 18 April, 1591, he ordered reparation to be made to the Indians of the Philippines by their conquerors wherever it was possible, and commanded under pain of excommunication that all Indian slaves in the islands should be set free. Gregory XIV also appointed a commission to revise the Sixtine Bible and another commission to continue the revision of the Pian Breviary. The former commission had its first session on 7 Feb., 1591, the latter on 21 April, 1591. Concerning these two commissions see Bäumer, "Geschichte des Breviers" (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1895), pp. 479-90.

RANKE, History of the Popes (London, 1906), II, 33-8; BROSCH, Geschichte des Kirchenstaates (Gotha, 1880), I, 300 sq.; PALATIUS, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum (Venice, 1688), IV, 425-36; CIACONIUS-OLDONIUS, Historioe Romanorum Pontificum (Rome, 1677), IV, 213 sq.

MICHAEL OTT

Pope Gregory XV

(ALESSANDRO LUDOVISI).

Born at Bologna, 9 or 15 January, 1554; died at Rome, 8 July, 1623. After completing the humanities and philosophy under Jesuit teachers, partly at the Roman and partly at the German College in Rome, he returned to Bologna to devote himself to the study of jurisprudence. After graduating at the University of Bologna in canon and civil law, he went back to Rome and was appointed judge of the Capitol by Gregory XIII. Clement VIII made him referendary of both signatures and member of the rota, and appointed him vicegerent in temporal affairs of Cardinal Vicar Rusticuccio. In 1612 Paul V appointed him Archbishop of Bologna, and sent him as nuncio to Savoy, to mediate between Duke Charles Emmanuel of Savoy and King Philip of Spain in their dispute concerning the Duchy of Monferrat. In 1616 the same pope created him Cardinal-Priest of Santa Maria Transpontina. Henceforth Ludovisi remained at his see in Bologna until he came to Rome after the death of Pope Paul V to take part in the election of a new pope. On 9 February Ludovisi himself was elected successor of Paul V, chiefly through the influence of Cardinal Borghese, and took the name of Gregory XV. Although at his elevation to the papal throne he had already reached the age of 67 years and was, moreover, in a bad state of health, his pontificate of two years and five months was one of remarkable activity. He saw that he needed a strong and energetic man, in whom he could place implicit confidence, to assist him in the government of the Church. His nephew Ludovico Ludovisi, a young man of 25 years, seemed to him to be the right person and, at the risk of being charged with nepotism, he created him cardinal on the third day of his pontificate. On the same day, Orazio, a brother of the pope, was put at the head of the pontifical army. The future revealed that Gregory XV was not disappointed in his nephew. Ludovico, it is true, advanced the interests of his family in every possible way, but he also used his brilliant talents and his great influence for the welfare of the Church, and was sincerely devoted to the pope. Eleven cardinals in all were created by Gregory XV.

One of the most important pontifical acts of Gregory XV, affecting the inner affairs of the Church, was his new regulation concerning papal elections. In his Bull "Aeterni Patris" (15 Nov., 1621) he prescribes that in the future only three modes of papal election are to be allowed: scrutiny, compromise, and quasi-inspiration. His Bull "Decet Romanum Pontificem" (12 March, 1622) contains a ceremonial which regulates these three modes of election in every detail. The ordinary mode of election was to be election by scrutiny, which required that the vote be secret, that each cardinal give his vote to only one candidate and that no one vote for himself. Most of the papal elections during the sixteenth century were influenced by political conditions and by party considerations in the College of Cardinals. By introducing secrecy of vote Pope Gregory XV intended to abolish these abuses. The rules and ceremonies prescribed by Gregory XV are substantially the same as those that guide the papal elections of our day. Gregory XV took great interest in the Catholic missions in foreign countries. These missions had become so extensive and the missionary countries differed so greatly in language, manners, and civilization from the countries of Europe, that it was extremely difficult to keep a proper control over them. At the request of the Capuchin Girolamo da Narni and the Discalced Carmelite Dominicus a Jesu-Maria, the pope established on 6 January, 1622, a special congregation of cardinals who were to have supreme control over all foreign missions (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). Gregory XIII and Clement VIII had already previously formed temporary congregations of cardinals to look after the interest of particular foreign missions, but Gregory XV was the first to erect a permanent congregation, whose sphere of activity should extend over all foreign missions (see PROPAGANDA). For particulars concerning the rights and duties of the new congregation see the Bull "Inscrutabili" of 22 June, 1622, in "Bullarium Romanum", XII, 690-3.

Both Gregory XV and his nephew Ludovico held the religious orders in high esteem, especially the Jesuits. On 12 March, 1622, he canonized Ignatius of Loyola, their founder, and Francis Xavier, their most successful missionary. He had already permitted them on 2 October, 1621, to recite the office and celebrate the mass in honour of the angelic youth Aloysius of Gonzaga. Other religious orders he honoured in the same way. On 12 March, 1622, he canonized Philip Neri, the founder of the Oratorians, and Theresa, the reformer of the Carmelites in Spain. In the same year he beatified Albertus Magnus, the great Dominican theologian, and permitted the feast and the office of Ambrogio Sansedoni, another Dominican, to be celebrated as that of a saint. On 18 April, 1622, he beatified the Spanish Minorite, Peter of Alcantara, and on 17 Feb., 1623, he ordered the feast of St. Bruno, the founder of the Carthusians, to be entered in the Roman Breviary. One layman, the Spanish husbandman Isidore, he canonized on 22 March, 1622. During his short pontificate he approved the famous Maurist Congregation of Bénédictines, the Congregation of the French Benedictine nuns of Calvary (Benedictines de Notre-Dame du Calvaire), the Theatine nuns and the Theatine recluses, the Congregation of Pious Workmen (Pii Operarii), the Priests of St. Briget in Belgium (Fratres novissimi Brigittini), and raised the Piarists and the Priests of the Mother of God (Clerici regulares Matria Dei) to the dignity of a religious order. On 18 March, 1621, he founded at Rome an international college for the Benedictines, the Collegium Gregorianum which was the cradle of the now famous international Benedictine college of St. Anselm. Before passing to the political achievements of Gregory XV, mention must be made of his Constitution "Omnipotentis Dei", issued against magicians and witches on 20 March, 1623. It is the last papal ordinance against witchcraft. Former punishments were lessened, and the death penalty was decreed only upon those who were proved to have entered into a compact with the devil, and to have committed homicide with his assistance.

The great activity which Gregory XV displayed in the inner management of the Church was equalled by his efficacious interposition in the politics of the world, whenever the interests of Catholicity were involved. He gave great financial assistance to Emperor Ferdinand II in regaining the Kingdom of Bohemia and the hereditary dominions of Austria. Gregory XV then sent Carlos Caraffa as nuncio to Vienna, to assist the emperor by his advice in his efforts to suppress Protestantism, especially in Bohemia and Moravia, where the Protestants considerably outnumbered the Catholics. To a great extent it was also due to the influence of Gregory XV that, at a meeting of princes at Ratisbon, the Palatinate and the electoral dignity attached to it were granted to Duke Maximilian of Bavaria in the early part of January, 1623. In order to effect this grant, the pope had previously sent the Capuchin Father Hyacinth, a skilled diplomat, to the imperial court at Vienna. The transfer of the Palatinate Electorate from a Protestant (Frederick V) to a Catholic was of great consequence, since it secured a Catholic majority in the supreme council of the empire. Out of gratitude to Pope Gregory XV, Maximilian presented him with the Palatinate library of Heidelberg, containing about 3500 manuscripts. Early in 1623 Gregory XV sent the Greek theologian Leo Allatius to transport the valuable collection to Rome, where it was put up as the "Gregoriana" in the Vatican Library. Thirty-nine of these manuscripts, which had come to Paris in 1797, were returned to Heidelberg at the Peace of Paris in 1815, and Pius VII returned 852 others as a gift in 1816.

The relations between England and the Roman See assumed a more friendly character during the pontificate of Gregory XV. For a time it seemed probable that, through the intended marriage of the Prince of Wales (afterwards King Charles I) with the Spanish Infanta Maria, Catholicity could be restored in England. Though the pope favored the marriage, it never took place. The treatment, however, of the Catholic subjects of James I became more tolerable and, to some extent at least, they enjoyed religious liberty. In France, the power of the Huguenots was on the decrease, owing to the influence of Gregory XV with King Louis XIII. Here the Capuchins, the Jesuits, and the Franciscans converted large numbers of heretics to Catholicity. Even in the Netherlands, that stronghold of Protestantism, a Catholic reaction set in, despite the fact that the Catholic priests were persecuted and expelled from the country.

The Catholic rulers respected the authority of Gregory XV, not only in religious affairs, but also in matters of a purely political nature. This was noticeable when an international dispute arose concerning the possession of the Valtelline (1620) the Spaniards occupied that district, while the Austrians took possession of the Grisons passes and were in close proximity to the Spaniards. The proximity of the two allied armies endangered the interests of France, Venice, and Savoy. These three powers, therefore, combined to compel the Austrians and Spaniards to evacuate the Valtelline, by force of arms if necessary. Upon request, Pope Gregory XV intervened by sending his brother Orazio at the head of the pontifical troops to take temporary possession of the Valtelline. After a little reluctance on the part of Archduke Leopold of Austria, the disputed territory with its fortresses was yielded to Orazio, and the impending war was thus averted.

RANKE, History of the Popes (London, 1906), II, 202-38; PALATIUS, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum (Venice, 1688), IV, 522-36; CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Historioe Rom. Pontif. (Rome, 1677), IV, 465 sq.; BROSCH, Geschichte des Kirchenstaates (Gotha, 1880), I, 371 sq.; L'AREZIO, La politica della Santa Sede risp. alla Valtellina dal concord. d'Avignone alla morte di Gregorio XV (Cagliari, 1899).

MICHAEL OTT

Pope Gregory XVI

(MAURO, or BARTOLOMEO ALBERTO CAPPELLARI).

Born at Belluno, then in the Venetian territory, 8 September, 1765; died at Rome, 9 June, 1846. His father, Giovanni Battista, and his mother, Giulia Cesa-Pagani, were both of the minor nobility of the district and the families of both had in former times been prominent in the service of the state. When eighteen, Bartolomeo gave evidence of a religious vocation, and after some opposition on the part of his relations, was clothed in 1783 as a novice in the Camaldolese monastery of San Michele di Murano, taking the name Mauro. Here, three years later, he was solemnly professed, and was ordained priest in 1787. The young monk soon showed signs of unusual intellectual gifts. He devoted himself to the study of philosophy and theology, and was set to teach these to the juniors at San Michele. In 1790 he was appointed censor librorum for his order, as well as for the Holy Office at Venice. Five years later he was sent to Rome, where he lived at first in a small house (since destroyed) in the Piazza Veneta, afterwards in the great monastery of San Gregorio on the Coelian Hill. The times were not favourable to the papacy. In 1798 took place the scandalous abduction of Pius VI by General Berthier, at Napoleon's orders, and in the following year the death of the pope in exile at Valence. It was this very year, 1799, that Dom Mauro chose for the publication of his book, "Il trionfo della Santa Sede", upholding papal infallibility and the temporal sovereignty. The work, according to Gregory himself, did not attract great attention till after he had become pope, yet it attained three editions and was translated into several languages. In 1800 Cardinal Chiaramonti was elected pope at Venice, and took the name of Pius VII, and returned to Rome the same year. Early in that year Dom Mauro had been nominated Abbot Vicar of San Gregorio, and in 1805 the pope appointed him abbot of that ancient house. He retired to Venice to rest, but returned in 1807 as procurator general, only to be driven out in the following year, when General Miollis repeated on the person of Pius VII the outrage of Berthier on Pius VI. Dom Mauro returned to Venice, but San Michele was closed as a monastery the next year by the emperor's orders. In spite of this the religious remained, in secular habit, at the monastery, and Dom Mauro taught philosophy to the students of the Camaldolese college at Murano. But, in 1813, the college was transferred to the Camaldolese convent of Ognissanti at Padua, Venice being too disturbed and inimical. The following year Napoleon fell from power, Pius VII returned to Rome, and Dom Mauro was at once summoned thither. In rapid succession the learned Camaldolese was appointed consultor of various Congregations, examiner of bishops, and again Abbot of San Gregorio. Twice he was offered a bishopric and twice he refused. It was considered certain that he would become a cardinal, and it caused general surprise when, in 1823, Pius VII chose in his stead the geographer, Dom Placisdo Zurla (also a Camaldolese). In that year the pope died, and Cardinal della Genga, who took the name of Leo XII, was elected. On 21 March, 1825, the new pope created Dom Mauro cardinal in petto, and the creation was published the following year. Cappillaria became Cardinal of San Callisto and Prefect of the Congregation of Propaganda. It was in this office that he successfully arranged a concordat between the Belgian Catholics and King William of Holland in 1827, between the Armenian Catholics and the Ottoman Empire in 1829. On St. George's Day of the latter year Cardinal Capillaria had the joy of learning that Catholic Emancipation had become a fact in the British Isles.

On 10 February, 1829, Leo XII died, and Pius VIII, broken by the revolutions in France and in the Netherlands, followed him to the grave on 1 December, 1830. A fortnight later the conclave began. It lasted for seven weeks. At one time Cardinal Giustiniani appeared likely to secure the requisite number of votes, but Spain interposed with a veto. At last the various parties came to an agreement, and on the Feast of the Purification, Cardinal Capillaria was elected by thirty-one votes out of forty-five. He took the name of Gregory XVI, in honour of Gregory XV, the founder of Propaganda. Hardly was the new pope elected when the Revolution, which for some time had been smouldering throughout Italy, broke into flame in the Papal States. Already on 2 February the Duke of Modena had warned Cardinal Albani that the conclave must come to a speedy decision, as a revolution was imminent. The next day the duke caused the house of his erstwhile friend, Ciro Menotti, at Modena, to be surrounded, and arrested him and several of his fellow conspirators. At once a revolt broke out at Reggio, and the duke fled to Mantua, taking the prisoners with him. The disturbance spread with prearranged rapidity. On 4 February Bologna revolted, drove the pro-legate out of the town, and by the eighth had hoisted the tricolour instead of the papal flag. Within a fortnight nearly the whole of the Papal States had repudiated the sovereignty of the pope, and on the nineteenth Cardinal Benvenuti, who was sent to quell the rebellion, became a prisoner of the "Provisional Government". Even in Rome itself a rising projected for 12 February was only averted by the ready action of Cardinal Bernetti, the new secretary of state. In these conditions, the papal forces being obviously unable to cope with the situation, Gregory decided to appeal to Austria for help. It was immediately forthcoming. On 25 February a strong Austrian force started for Bologna, and the "Provisional Government" soon fled to Ancona. Within a month the whole movement had collapsed, and on 27 March Cardinal Benvenuti was released by the rebel leaders, on the understanding that an amnesty should be granted by the pope. The cardinal's action, however, was without authority and was not endorsed, either by the papal government or by the Austrian general. But the rebellion, for the moment, was crushed, and after an abortive attempt to seize Spoleto, from which they were dissuaded by Archbishop Mastai-Ferretti, all the leaders who were able to do so fled the country. On 3 April the pope was able to assert that order was re-established.

In the same month, the representatives of the five powers, Austria, Russia, France, Prussia and England, met in Rome to consider the question of the "Reform of the Papal States". On 21 May they issued a joint Memorandum urging on the papal government reforms in the judiciary, the introduction of laymen into the administration, popular election of the communal and municipal councils, the administration of the finances by a skilled body selected largely from the laity. Gregory undertook to carry out such of these proposed reforms as he deemed practicable, but on two points he was determined not to yield: he would never admit the principle of popular election to the councils, and he would never permit the establishment of a council of State, composed of laymen, parallel to the Sacred College. By a succession of edicts, dated 5 July, 5 October, and 5 and 21 November, a comprehensive scheme of reform of the administration and of the judiciary was set afoot. The delegations were to be divided into a complex hierarchy of central, provincial and communal governments. At the head of each of these bodies respectively was to be a pro-legate, a governor or a mayor, representing the pope, and assisted by, and (in financial matters) controlled by, a council who was selected, out of a triple-elected list, by the government. All these bodies were to keep the pope informed as to the wished and requirements of his subjects. The reform of the judiciary, as regards civil litigation, was even more thorough. An end was put to the confusing multiplicity of tribunals (in Rome no less than twelve out of the fifteen conflicting jurisdictions, including that of the arbitrary uditore santissimo, were abolished), and three hierarchies, composed each of three civil courts, one for Bologna and the legations, one for Romagna and the Marches, and one for Rome, were established. In each of these the agreement of any two courts inhibited further appeal, and most of the courts were to be composed largely of laymen skilled in the law. The criminal courts were not so radically reformed, but even in these an end was made of the vexatious and often tyrannous secrecy and irregularity that had hitherto prevailed.

All these reforms, however, despite their extent, were far from satisfying the aims of the revolutionary party. The Austrian troops were withdrawn on 15 July, 1831, but by December much of the Papal States was again in revolt. Papal troops were dispatched to the aid of the legations, but the only result was the concentration of 2000 revolutionists at Cesena. Cardinal Albani, who had been appointed commissioner-extraordinary of the legations, appealed on his own authority for aid to the Austrian General Radetsky, who at once sent troops. These forces joined the papal troops at Cesena, attacked and defeated the rebels, and by the end of January had taken triumphant possession of Bologna. This time France intervened, and as a protest against the Austrian occupation, seized and held Ancona, in sheer violation of international law. The pope and Bernetti protested energetically and even Prussia and Russia disapproved of this act, but though, after long negotiations, the French commander was ordered to restrain the outrages of the revolutionists in Ancona, the French troops were not withdrawn from that city until the final departure of the Austrians from the Papal States in 1838. The rebellion, however, was quelled and no further serious outbreak occurred for thirteen years. But, amidst all these disturbances in his own kingdom, Gregory had not been free from anxieties for the Faith and the Universal Church. The revolutions in France and the Netherlands had created a difficult situation: the pope had been expected by the one party to condemn the change, by the other to accept it. In August, 1831, he issued the Brief, "Sollicitudo Ecclesiarum", in which he reiterated the statements of former Pontiffs as to the independence of the Church and its refusal to be entangled in dynastic politics. In November of the same year, the Abbé de Lamennais and his companions came to Rome to submit to the pope the questions in dispute between the French episcopate and the directors of "L'Avenir". Gregory received them kindly, but caused them to be given more than one hint that the result of their appeal would not be favourable, and that they would be wise not to press for a decision. In spite, however, of the representations of Lacordaire, Lamennais persisted, with the result that, on the feast of the Assumption, 1832, the pope issued the Encyclical "Mirari vos", in which were condemned, not only the policy of "L'Avenir", but also many of the moral and social doctrines that were then put forward by most of the revolutionary schools. The Encyclical, which certainly cannot be considered favourable to ideas that have since become the commonplaces of secular politics, aroused a storm of criticism throughout Europe. It is well to remember, however, that some of its adversaries have not read it with great attention, and it has been sometimes criticized for statements that are not to be found in the text. Two years after its publication, the pope found it necessary to issue a further Encyclical, "Singulari nos", in which he condemned the "Paroles d'un croyant", the reply of Lamennais to "Mirari vos".

But it was not only in France that errors had to be met. In Germany the followers of Hermes were condemned by the Apostolic Letter, "Dum acerbissima", of 26 September, 1835. And in 1844, near the end of his reign, he issued the Encyclical, "Inter praecipuas machinationes", against the unscrupulous anti-Catholic propaganda in Italy of the London Bible Society and the New York Christian Alliance, which then, as now, were chiefly successful in transforming ignorant Italian Catholics into crudely anti-clerical free-thinkers. While he was engaged in combating the libertarian movements of current European thought, Gregory was obliged also to struggle with the rulers of States for justice and toleration for the Catholic Church in their realms. In Portugal the accession of Queen Maria da Gloria was the occasion of an outburst of anti-clerical legislation. The nuncio at Lisbon was commanded to leave the capital and the nunciature was suppressed. All ecclesiastical privileges were abolished, bishoprics filled by the ex-king, Dom Miguel, were declared vacant, religious houses were suppressed. The pope protested in consistory, but his protest only led to severer measures, and no efforts on his part were successful until 1841, when the growing popular uneasiness forced the queen to come to terms.

In Spain, too, the regent, Queen Maria Cristina, was able, during the minority of her daughter, Queen Isabella, to carry out an anti-clerical programme. In 1835 the religious orders were suppressed. Then the secular clergy were attacked: twenty-two dioceses were left without bishops, Jansenist priests were admitted to the committee appointed to "reform the Church", the salaries of the priests were confiscated. In 1840 bishops were driven from their sees, and when the nuncio protested against arbitrary acts of the government in power, he was conducted to the frontier. Peace was not restored to the Church in Spain till after Gregory's death.

In Prussia, at the very commencement of his reign, the question of mixed marriages was causing trouble. Pius VIII had dealt with these in a Brief of 28 March, 1830. This, however, did not satisfy the Prussian Government, and von Bunsen, the Prussian ambassador, exhausted every means, honest and dishonest, of bringing about a modification of the Catholic policy. The Archbishop of Cologne and the Bishops of Paderborn, Munster, and Trier were induced, in 1834, to enter into a convention not to put into execution the papal legislation. But the archbishop died the following year, and his successor, von Droste zu Vischering, was a man of very different calibre. In 1836 the Bishop of Trier, feeling his end approach, revealed the whole plot to the pope. Events moved quickly. The new Archbishop of Cologne announced his intention of obeying the Holy See, and was in consequence imprisoned by the Prussian Government. His arrest caused general indignation throughout Europe, and Prussia endeavoured to justify its action by inventing charges against the prelate. Nobody, however, believed the official story, and the Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, who had imitated the courageous example of his brother of Cologne, was also imprisoned. But his arbitrary action aroused the indignation of German Catholics, and when King Frederick William III died in 1840 his successor was more ready to come to terms. In the end Archbishop Droste zu Vischering was given a coadjutor, and retired to Rome; the Archbishop of Gnesen was released unconditionally and the question at issue was quickly allowed to be decided in favour of the Catholic doctrine.

But no such success was possible in Poland and France. In the former unhappy country the Catholic religion was, then as now, inextricably united with the nationalist aspirations. As a consequence the whole force of the Russian autocracy was employed to crush it. With monstrous cruelty the Ruthenian Uniats were driven or cajoled into the Orthodox communion, the heroic nuns of Minsk were tortured and enslaved, more than 160 priests were deported to Siberia. The Catholics of the Latin rite were no better treated, bishops being imprisoned and prelates deported. Gregory protested in vain, and in 1845, when the Emperor Nicholas visited him in Rome, rebuked the autocrat for his tyranny. We are told that the Czar made promises of reform in his treatment of the Church, but, as might have been expected, nothing was done.

In France, the success of the Catholic revival had been so great that the anti-clericals were infuriated. Pressure was brought to bear upon the Government to obtain the suppression of the Jesuits, always the first to be attacked. M. Guizot sent to Rome Pellegrino Rossi, a former leader of the revolutionary party in Switzerland, to negotiate directly with Cardinal Lambruschini, who had replaced Bernetti in 1836 as secretary of state. But Gregory and Lambruschini were both firmly opposed to any attack on the society. Rossi, therefore, turned his attention to Father Roothan, the General of the Jesuits, and through the Congregation of Ecclesiastical Affairs, was successful in obtaining a letter to the French provincials advising that the novitiates and other houses should be gradually diminished or abandoned.

The reign of Gregory was drawing to its close. In August, 1841, with the intention of entering into closer relations with his people, he undertook a tour throughout some of the provinces. He travelled through Umbria to Loreto, thence to Aneona, and on to Fabriano, where he visited the relics of St. Romuald, the founder of the Camaldolese. He returned by Assisi, Viterbo and Orvieto, reaching Rome by the beginning of October. The progress had cost 2,000,000 francs, but it is very doubtful whether it had the intended result. Cardinal Lambruschini, to whom the pope as he grew older confided more and more of the actual direction of state affairs, was even more arbitrary and less accessible to modern political doctrines than Bernetti; the discontent grew and threatened. In 1843 there were attempts at revolt in Romagna and Umbria, which were suppressed with relentless severity by the special legates, Cardinals Vannicelli and Massimo. In September, 1845, the city of Rimini was again captured by a revolutionary force, which, however, was obliged to retire and seek safety in Tuscany. But the impassioned appeals of Niccolini, of Gioberti, of Farini, of d'Azeglio, were spread throughout Italy and all Europe, and the fear was only too well founded that the Papal States could not long outlast Gregory XVI. On 20 May, 1846, he felt himself failing, and ordered Cretineau-Joly to write the history of the secret societies, against which he had struggled vainly. A few days later the pope was taken ill with erysipelas in the face. At first the attack was not thought to be serious, but on 31 May his strength suddenly failed, and it was seen that the end was near. He died early on 9 June, with but two attendants near him. His tomb, by Amici, is in St. Peter's.

Gregory XVI has been treated with but scant respect by later historians, but he has by no means deserved their contempt. It is true that in political questions he showed himself almost as opposed as his immediate predecessors to even a minimum of democratic progress. But in this he was but similar to most rulers of his time, England itself, as Bernetti sarcastically remarked, being ready enough to suggest to other reforms it would not try at home. Gregory believed in autocracy, and neither his inclinations nor his experience was such as to make him favourable to increased political freedom. Probably the policy of his predecessors had made it very difficult for any but a very strong pope to oppose the growing revolution by efficient reforms. In any case both his temperament and his policy were such that he left to his successor an almost impossible task. But Gregory was by no means an obscurantist. His interest in art and all forms of learning is attested by the founding of the Etruscan and Egyptian museums at the Vatican, and of the Christian museum at the Lateran; by the encouragement given to men like Cardinals Mai and Mezzofanti, and to Visconti, Salvi, Marchi, Wiseman, Hurter, Rohrbacher, and Gueranger; by the lavish aid given to the rebuilding of St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls and of Santa Maria degli Angioli, at Assisi; by researches encouraged in the Roman Forum and in the catacombs. His care for the social welfare of his people is seen in the tunnelling of Monte Catillo to prevent the devastation of Tivoli by the floods of the river Anio, in the establishment of steamboats at Ostia, of a decimal coinage in the Roman States, of a bureau of statistics at Rome, in the lightening of various imposts and the re-purchase of the appanage of Eugene Beauharnais, in the foundation of public baths and hospitals and orphanages. During his reign the losses of the Church in Europe were more than balanced by her gains in the rest of the world. Gregory sent missionaries to Abyssinia, to India, to China, to Polynesia, to the North American Indians. He doubled the number of Vicars-Apostolic in England, he increased greatly the number of bishops in the United States. During his reign five saints were canonized, thirty-three servants of God declared Blessed, many new orders were founded or supported, the devotion of the faithful to the Immaculate Mother of God increased. In private as in public life, Gregory was noted for his piety, his kindliness, his simplicity, his firm friendship. He was not, perhaps, a great pope, or fully able to cope with the complicated problems of his time, but to his devotion, his munificence, and his labours Rome and the Universal Church are indebted for many benefits.

BIANCHI, Storia documentata della diplomazia europea in Italia dall' anno 1814 al 1861 (Turin, 1865-72), III; Cambridge Modern History, X, iv, v (Cambridge, 1907); CIPOLLETTA, Memorie politiche sui conclavi da Pio VII a Pio IX (Milan, 1863); COPPI, Annalo d'Italia dal 1750, VIII (Florence, 1859); CRETINEAU-JOLY, L'Eglise romaine en face de la Revolution (Paris, 1859); DARDANO, Diario dei conclavi del 1829-30-31 (Florence, 1879); DARRAS and FEVRE, Histoire de l'Eglise, XL (Paris, 1886); DASSANCE, Gregoire XVI in Biographie Universelle, XVII (Paris, 1857); DOLLINGER, The Church and the Churches (London, 1862); FARINI, Lo stato romano dall' anno 1815 (Turin, 1850-3); GIOVAGNOLI, Pellegrino Rossi e la rivoluzione romana (Rome, 1898); GUIZOT, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de mon temps (Paris, 1858-67); KING, History of Italian Unity (London, 1899); LAVISSE and RAMBAUD, Histoire generale du IVe siecle a nos jours, X (Paris, 1898); LUBIENSKI, Guerres et revolutions d"Italie (Paris, 1852); MAYNARD, J. Cretineau-Joly (Paris, 1875); METTERNICH, Memoires (Paris, 1880-4); Nielsen, Gregor XVI in Realeneyk. fur prot. Theol., VII (Leipzig, 1899); NIELSEN, History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century, 11, 51-101 (London, 1875); ORSI, Modern Italy, 1748-1898 (London, 1900); PHILLIPS, Modern Europe, 1815-1899 (London, 1902); SILVAGNI, La corte e la societa romana ne' secoli XVIII e XIX, III (Rome, 1885); SYLVAIN, Gregoire XVI et son Pontificat (Lille, 1889); VON REUMONT, Zeitgenossen, Biografien u. Karakteristiken, I (Berlin, 1862); WARD, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, I (London, 1897); WISEMAN, Recollections of the last four Popes and of Rome in their times (London, 1858).

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Gregory Bæticus

Bishop of Elvira, in the province of Baetica, Spain, from which he derived his surname; d. about 392. Gregory is first met with as Bishop of Elvira (Illiberis) in 375; he is mentioned in the luciferian "Libellus precum ad Imperatores" (Migne, P.L., XIII, 89 sq.) as the defender of Nicean creed, after Bishop Hosius of Cordova had given his assent in Sirmium to the second Sirmian formulation of doctrine, in the year 357. He proved himself at any rate an ardent opponent of Arianism, stood for the Nicean creed at the Council of Rimini, and refused to enter into ecclesiatical intercourse with the Arian Bishops Ursacius and Valens. He took, in fact, the extreme view, in common with Bishop Lucifer of Calaris (Cagliari), that it was unlawful to make advances to bishops or priests who at any time had been tainted with the Arian heresy, or to hold any religious communion with them. This Luciferian party found adherents in Spain, and on the death of Lucifer (370 or 371) Gregory of Elvira became the head and front of the movement. Such at least is the mention found of him in the "Libellus precum" above referred to, as well as in St. Jerome's chronicle (Migne, P.L. XXVII, 659). However, the progress made in Spain was by no means considerable.

Gregory found time also for literary labours. St. Jerome says of him that he wrote, until a very ripe old age, a diversity of treatises composed in simple and ordinary language (mediocri sermone), and produced an excellent book (elegantem librum), "De Fide", which is said to be still extant (Hieron., De viris ill., c. 105). The book "De Trinitate seu de Fide" (Rome, 1575), which was ascribed to Gregory Bæticus by Achilles Statius, its first editor, did not come from his pen, but was written in Spain at the end of the fourth century. On the other hand early historians of literature, e.g. Quesnel, and quite recently Morin, have attributed to him the treatise "De Fide orthodoxa", which is directed against Arianism, and figures among the works of St. Ambrose (Migne, P.L., XVII, 549-568) and of Vigilius of Thapsus (Migne, P.L., LXII, 466-468; 449-463). The same may be said of the first seven of the twelve books "De Trinitate", the authorship of which has been ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus (Migne, P.L., LXII, 237-334). A few inquiring commentators have also sought to prove that Gregory Bæticus was the writer of the tractatus "De Libris Sacarum Scripturarum", published by Batiffol (Paris, 1900) as the work of Origen. But so far it has been impossible to ascertain positively the authorship in question. There is preserved a letter to him from Eusebius of Vercelli (Migne, P.L., X, 713). As from Eusebius of Vercelli (Migne, P.L., X, 713). As St. Jerome, in his "De Viris Illustribus", written in 392, does not mention Gregory as being dead, the supposition is that the latter was still living at the time. He must, however, have been then a very old man and cannot in any event have long survived the year 392. He is venerated in Spain as a saint, his feast being celebrated on 24 April.

FLORIO, De Sancto Gregorio Illiberitano, libelli de Fide auctore (Bologna, 1789); MORIN, Les Nouveaus Tractatus Origenis et l'heritage litteraire de l'eveque espagnol, Gregoire d'Illiberis in Revue d'historie et de litterature relig. (1900, V, 145 sq.); BARDENHEWER, Patrologie, tr. SHADAN (St. Louis, 1908), 415; GAMS, Kirchengeschichte vom Spanien (Ratisborn, 1864), II, 256 sq.; KRUGER, Lucifer, Bischof von Calaris, und das Schisma der Luciferianer (Leipzig, 1886), 76 sq.; LECLERQU, L'Espagne chretienne (Parish, 1906), 130 sq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Gregory of Heimburg

Humanist and Statesman, b. at Würzburg in the beginning of the fifteenth century; d. at Tharandt near Dresden, August, 1472. About 1430 he received the degree of Doctor of Both Laws at the University of Padua. Filled with the prevalent ideas of reform, this ardent and eloquent jurist was naturally attracted to the Council of Basle, convened, according to the assembled prelates, for "the extirpation of heresy, and of the Greek schism. . . .and for the reformation of the Church in her Head and members". While at the council he became the secretary of Æneas Sylvius. He left Basle in 1433, when he was elected syndic of Nuremburg, in which capacity he served until 1461. After the election of Albert II of Austria, he was sent, with John of Lysura to the Council of Basle to demand that the proceedings against the pope be suspended, and then to Eugene IV at Ferrara to propose that the negotiations with the Greeks be carried on in a German city. In 1446 he was again placed at the head of an embassy to Eugene IV. The pope had deposed the Archbishops of Cologne and Trier, both electoral princes, who favoured the antipope Felix V. The other electors now demanded of Eugene (1) his approval of certain decrees of Basle; (2) the convocation of a general council in a German city within three months; (3) the acceptance of the article on the superiority of the council over the pope; and (4) the reinstating of the two deposed archbishops. But Gregory's mission was unsuccessful. On the advice of Frederick III the pope sent Cardinals Tommaso de Sarzana and Carvajal, with Nicholas of Cusa, as legates to the Diet of Frankfort, 14 Sept., 1446. With them was Æneas Sylvius, now the private secretary of Frederick III. Some of the electors were won over to the cause of the pope; a new embassy was organized; and in February, 1447, shortly before the death of Eugene, the four Bulls constituting the Concordat of the Princes was promulgated. In February, 1448, a complete agreement was reached in the Concordat of Vienna, concluded between Frederick III and Nicholas V. Gregory, who had considered even the declaration of neutrality and ignoble concession, was disappointed at this turn of events and decided to abandon ecclesiastical politics. During the negotiations between the pope and the electors there appeared the anonymous "Admonitio de injustis usurpationibus paparum" or, as Flacius entitles it, "Confutatio primatus papæ", which is generally ascribed to Gregory.

In 1458 Gregory entered the service of Albert of Austria and his opposition to papal authority was again aroused. Æneas Sylvius had ascended the papal throne as Pius II the same year, and soon afterwards (1459) summoned the princes of Christendom to Mantua to plan a crusade against the Turks. Gregory was present as the representative of Bavaria-Landshut, Kurmainz, and the Archduke Albert of Austria. The failure of the project was partly due to his influence. Sigismund of Austria, on his return from the Congress of Mantua, imprisoned Nicholas of Cusa, Bishop of Brixen, with whom he was quarrelling over certain fiefs. He was excommunicated 1 June, 1460, and through Gregory of Heimburg appealed to a general council. Gregory went to Rome, but to no avail, and on his return journey posted the duke's appeal on the doors of the cathedral of Florence. The pope then excommunicated him and ordered the Council of Nuremberg to confiscate his property (18 October, 1460). Gregory answered in January, 1461, with an appeal to a general council. Pius II renewed the excommunication and commissioned Bishop Lelio of Feltre to reply to Gregory's appeal. The "Replica Theodori Lælii episcopi Feltrensis pro Pio Papa II et sede Romanâ" brought forth from Gregory his "Apologia contra detractationes et blasphemias Theodori Lælii" together with his "Depotestate ecclesiæ Romanæ", in which he defended the theories of Basle. His next important writing, "Invectiva in Nicolaum de Cusa", appeared in 1461. Shortly before the death of Pius II in 1464, Sigismund made his peace with the Church, but Gregory was not absolved. In 1466 he was taken into the service of George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia, and exercised a great influence on the Bohemian king's anti-Roman policy. In two apologies for Podiebrad Gregory violently attacked Pope Paul II, whom he charged with immorality. He was again excommunicated and his property at Dettlebach confiscated. After the death of Podiebrad (22 March, 1471) Gregory took refuge in Saxony. Writing to the Council of Würzburg as early as 22 January, 1471, he said he was never accused of having erred in one article of Christian faith. He applied by letter to Sixtus IV, who gave the Bishop of Meissen full power to absolve him. He was buried in the Kreuzkirche at Dresden. His writings were published at Frankfort in 1608 under the title "Scripta nervosa justiaque plena ex manuscriptis nunc primum eruta". They may be found in Goldast, "Monarchia", in Freher, "Scriptores rerum Germanicarum", and in Joachimsohn (see below).

Brockhaus, Gregor von Heimburg (Leipzig, 1861); Joachimsohn, Gregor Heimburg (Bamberg, 1891); Pastor, The History of the Popes, tr. Antrobus (2nd ed., St. Louis, 1902), IV; Staminger in Kirchenlex., s.v. Heimburg; Tschackert in Realencyck. für. Prot. Theol., s. v. Gregor von Heimburg; Knöpfler in Kirchliches Handlex., s. v. Heimburg.

LEO A. KELLY

St. Gregory of Nazianzus

Doctor of the Church, born at Arianzus, in Asia Minor, c. 325; died at the same place, 389. He was son -- one of three children -- of Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus (329-374), in the south-west of Cappadocia, and of Nonna, a daughter of Christian parents. The saint's father was originally a member of the heretical sect of the Hypsistarii, or Hypsistiani, and was converted to Catholicity by the influence of his pious wife. His two sons, who seem to have been born between the dates of their father's priestly ordination and episcopal consecration, were sent to a famous school at Caesarea, capital of Cappadocia, and educated by Carterius, probably the same time who was afterwards tutor of St. John Chrysostom. Here commenced the friendship between Basil and Gregory which intimately affected both their lives, as well as the development of the theology of their age. From Caesarea in Cappadocia Gregory proceeded to Caesarea in Palestine, where he studied rhetoric under Thespesius; and thence to Alexandria, of which Athanasius was then bishop, through at the time in exile. Setting out by sea from Alexandria to Athens, Gregory was all but lost in a great storm, and some of his biographers infer -- though the fact is not certain -- that when in danger of death he and his companions received the rite of baptism. He had certainly not been baptized in infancy, though dedicated to God by his pious mother; but there is some authority for believing that he received the sacrament, not on his voyage to Athens, but on his return to Nazianzus some years later. At Athens Gregory and Basil, who had parted at Caesarea, met again, renewed their youthful friendship, and studied rhetoric together under the famous teachers Himerius and Proaeresius. Among their fellow students was Julian, afterwards known as the Apostate, whose real character Gregory asserts that he had even then discerned and thoroughly distrusted him. The saint's studies at Athens (which Basil left before his friend) extended over some ten years; and when he departed in 356 for his native province, visiting Constantinople on his way home, he was about thirty years of age.

Arrived at Nazianzus, where his parents were now advanced in age, Gregory, who had by this time firmly resolved to devote his life and talents to God, anxiously considered the plan of his future career. To a young man of his high attainments a distinguished secular career was open, either that of a lawyer or of a professor of rhetoric; but his yearnings were for the monastic or ascetic life, though this did not seem compatible either with the Scripture studies in which he was deeply interested, or with his filial duties at home. As was natural, he consulted his beloved friend Basil in his perplexity as to his future; and he has left us in his own writings an extremely interesting narrative of their intercourse at this time, and of their common resolve (based on somewhat different motives, according to the decided differences in their characters) to quit the world for the service of God alone. Basil retired to Pontus to lead the life of a hermit; but finding that Gregory could not join him there, came and settled first at Tiberina (near Gregory's own home), then at Neocaesarea, in Pontus, where he lived in holy seclusion for some years, and gathered round him a brotherhood of cenobites, among whom his friend Gregory was for a time included. After a sojourn here for two or three years, during which Gregory edited, with Basil some of the exegetical works of Origen, and also helped his friend in the compilation of his famous rules, Gregory returned to Nazianzus, leaving with regret the peaceful hermitage where he and Basil (as he recalled in their subsequent correspondence) had spent such a pleasant time in the labour both of hands and of heads. On his return home Gregory was instrumental in bringing back to orthodoxy his father who, perhaps partly in ignorance, had subscribed the heretical creed of Rimini; and the aged bishop, desiring his son's presence and support, overruled his scrupulous shrinking from the priesthood, and forced him to accept ordination (probably at Christmas, 361). Wounded and grieved at the pressure put upon him, Gregory fled back to his solitude, and to the company of St. Basil; but after some weeks' reflection returned to Nazianzus, where he preached his first sermon on Easter Sunday, and afterward wrote the remarkable apologetic oration, which is really a treatise on the priestly office, the foundation of Chrysostom's "De Sacerdotio", of Gregory the Great's "Cura Pastoris", and of countless subsequent writings on the same subject.

During the next few years Gregory's life at Nazianzus was saddened by the deaths of his brother Caesarius and his sister Gorgonia, at whose funerals he preached two of his most eloquent orations, which are still extant. About this time Basil was made bishop of Caesarea and Metropolitan of Cappadocia, and soon afterwards the Emperor Valens, who was jealous of Basil's influence, divided Cappadocia into two provinces. Basil continued to claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as before, over the whole province, but this was disputed by Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, the chief city of New Cappadocia. To strengthen his position Basil founded a new see at Sasima, resolved to have Gregory as its first bishop, and accordingly had him consecrated, though greatly against his will. Gregory, however, was set against Sasima from the first; he thought himself utterly unsuited to the place, and the place to him; and it was not long before he abandoned his diocese and returned to Nazianzus as coadjutor to his father. This episode in Gregory's life was unhappily the cause of an estrangement between Basil and himself which was never altogether removed; and there is no extant record of any correspondence between them subsequent to Gregory's leaving Sasima. Meanwhile he occupied himself sedulously with his duties as coadjutor to his aged father, who died early in 374, his wife Nonna soon following him to the grave. Gregory, who was now left without family ties, devoted to the poor the large fortune which he had inherited, keeping for himself only a small piece of land at Arianzus. He continued to administer the diocese for about two years, refusing, however, to become the bishop, and continually urging the appointment of a successor to his father. At the end of 375 he withdrew to a monastery at Seleuci, living there in solitude for some three years, and preparing (though he knew it not) for what was to be the crowning work of his life. About the end of this period Basil died. Gregory's own state of health prevented his being present either at the death-bed or funeral; but he wrote a letter of condolence to Basil's brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and composed twelve beautiful memorial poems or epitaphs to his departed friend.

Three weeks after Basil's death, Theodosius was advanced by the Emperor Gratian to the dignity of Emperor of the East. Constantinople, the seat of his empire, had been for the space of about thirty years (since the death of the saintly and martyred Bishop Paul) practically given over too Arianism, with an Arian prelate, Demophilus, enthroned at St. Sophia's. The remnant of persecuted Catholics, without either church or pastor, applied to Gregory to come and place himself at their head and organize their scattered forces; and many bishops supported the demand. After much hesitation he gave his consent, proceeded to Constantinople early in the year 379, and began his mission in a private house which he describes as "the new Shiloh where the Ark was fixed", and as "an Anastasia, the scene of the resurrection of the faith". Not only the faithful Catholics, but many heretics gathered in the humble chapel of the Anastasia, attracted by Gregory's sanctity, learning and eloquence; and it was in this chapel that he delivered the five wonderful discourses on the faith of Nicaea -- unfolding the doctrine of the Trinity while safeguarding the Unity of the Godhead -- which gained for him, alone of all Christian teachers except the Apostle St. John, the special title of Theologus or the Divine. He also delivered at this time the eloquent panegyrics on St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, and the Machabees, which are among his finest oratorical works. Meanwhile he found himself exposed to persecution of every kind from without, and was actually attacked in his own chapel, whilst baptizing his Easter neophytes, by a hostile mob of Arians from St. Sophia's, among them being Arian monks and infuriated women. He was saddened, too, by dissensions among his own little flock, some of whom openly charged him with holding Tritheistic errors. St. Jerome became about this time his pupil and disciple, and tells us in glowing language how much he owed to his erudite and eloquent teacher. Gregory was consoled by the approval of Peter, Patriarch of Constantinople (Duchesne's opinion, that the patriarch was from the first jealous or suspicious of the Cappadocian bishop's influence in Constantinople, does not seem sufficiently supported by evidence), and Peter appears to have been desirous to see him appointed to the bishopric of the capital of the East. Gregory, however, unfortunately allowed himself to be imposed upon by a plausible adventurer called Hero, or Maximus, who came to Constantinople from Alexandria in the guise (long hair, white robe, and staff) of a Cynic, and professed to be a convert to Christianity, and an ardent admirer of Gregory's sermons. Gregory entertained him hospitably, gave him his complete confidence, and pronounced a public panegyric on him in his presence. Maximus's intrigues to obtain the bishopric for himself found support in various quarters, including Alexandria, which the patriarch Peter, for what reason precisely it is not known, had turned against Gregory; and certain Egyptian bishops deputed by Peter, suddenly, and at night, consecrated and enthroned Maximus as Catholic Bishop of Constantinople, while Gregory was confined to bed by illness. Gregory's friends, however, rallied round him, and Maximus had to fly from Constantinople. The Emperor Theodosius, to whom he had recourse, refused to recognize any bishop other than Gregory, and Maximus retired in disgrace to Alexandria.

Theodosius received Christian baptism early in 380, at Thessalonica, and immediately addressed an edict to his subjects at Constantinople, commanding them to adhere to the faith taught by St. Peter, and professed by the Roman pontiff, which alone deserved to be called Catholic. In November, the emperor entered the city and called on Demophilus, the Arian bishop, to subscribe to the Nicene creed: but he refused to do so, and was banished from Constantinople. Theodosius determined that Gregory should be bishop of the new Catholic see, and himself accompanied him to St. Sophia's, where he was enthroned in presence of an immense crowd, who manifested their feelings by hand-clappings and other signs of joy. Constantinople was now restored to Catholic unity; the emperor, by a new edict, gave back all the churches to Catholic use; Arians and other heretics were forbidden to hold public assemblies; and the name of Catholic was restricted to adherents of the orthodox and Catholic faith.

Gregory had hardly settled down to the work of administration of the Diocese of Constantinople, when Theodosius carried out his long-cherished purpose of summoning thither a general council of the Eastern Church. One hundred and fifty bishops met in council, in May, 381, the object of the assembly being, as Socrates plainly states, to confirm the faith of Nicaea, and to appoint a bishop for Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE, THE FIRST COUNCIL OF). Among the bishops present were thirty-six holding semi-Arian or Macedonian opinions; and neither the arguments of the orthodox prelates nor the eloquence of Gregory, who preached at Pentecost, in St. Sophia's, on the subject of the Holy Spirit, availed to persuade them to sign the orthodox creed. As to the appointment of the bishopric, the confirmation of Gregory to the see could only be a matter of form. The orthodox bishops were all in favor, and the objection (urged by the Egyptian and Macedonian prelates who joined the council later) that his translation from one see to another was in opposition to a canon of the Nicene council was obviously unfounded. The fact was well known that Gregory had never, after his forced consecration at the instance of Basil, entered on possession of the See of Sasima, and that he had later exercised his episcopal functions at Nazianzus, not as bishop of that diocese, but merely as coadjutor of his father. Gregory succeeded Meletius as president of the council, which found itself at once called on to deal with the difficult question of appointing a successor to the deceased bishop. There had been an understanding between the two orthodox parties at Antioch, of which Meletius and Paulinus had been respectively bishops that the survivor of either should succeed as sole bishop. Paulinus, however, was a prelate of Western origin and creation, and the Eastern bishops assembled at Constantinople declined to recognize him. In vain did Gregory urge, for the sake of peace, the retention of Paulinus in the see for the remainder of his life, already fare advanced; the Fathers of the council refused to listen to his advice, and resolved that Meletius should be succeeded by an Oriental priest. "It was in the East that Christ was born", was one of the arguments they put forward; and Gregory's retort, "Yes, and it was in the East that he was put to death", did not shake their decision. Flavian, a priest of Antioch, was elected to the vacant see; and Gregory, who relates that the only result of his appeal was "a cry like that of a flock of jackdaws" while the younger members of the council "attacked him like a swarm of wasps", quitted the council, and left also his official residence, close to the church of the Holy Apostles.

Gregory had now come to the conclusion that not only the opposition and disappointment which he had met with in the council, but also his continued state of ill-health, justified, and indeed necessitated, his resignation of the See of Constantinople, which he had held for only a few months. He appeared again before the council, intimated that he was ready to be another Jonas to pacify the troubled waves, and that all he desired was rest from his labours, and leisure to prepare for death. The Fathers made no protest against this announcement, which some among them doubtless heard with secret satisfaction; and Gregory at once sought and obtained from the emperor permission to resign his see. In June, 381, he preached a farewell sermon before the council and in presence of an overflowing congregation. The peroration of this discourse is of singular and touching beauty, and unsurpassed even among his many eloquent orations. Very soon after its delivery he left Constantinople (Nectarius, a native of Cilicia, being chosen to succeed him in the bishopric), and retired to his old home at Nazianzus. His two extant letters addressed to Nectarius at his time are note worthy as affording evidence, by their spirit and tone, that he was actuated by no other feelings than those of interested goodwill towards the diocese of which he was resigning the care, and towards his successor in the episcopal charge. On his return to Nazianzus, Gregory found the Church there in a miserable condition, being overrun with the erroneous teaching of Apollinaris the Younger, who had seceded from the Catholic communion a few years previously, and died shortly after Gregory himself. Gregory's anxiety was now to find a learned and zealous bishop who would be able to stem the flood of heresy which was threatening to overwhelm the Christian Church in that place. All his efforts were at first unsuccessful, and he consented at length with much reluctance to take over the administration of the diocese himself. He combated for a time, with his usual eloquence and as much energy as remained to him, the false teaching of the adversaries of the Church; but he felt himself too broken in health to continue the active work of the episcopate, and wrote to the Archbishop of Tyana urgently appealing to him to provide for the appointment of another bishop. His request was granted, and his cousin Eulalius, a priest of holy life to whom he was much attached, was duly appointed to the See of Nazianzus. this was toward the end of the year 383, and Gregory, happy in seeing the care of the diocese entrusted to a man after his own heart, immediately withdrew to Arianzus, the scene of his birth and his childhood, where he spent the remaining years of his life in retirement, and in the literary labours, which were so much more congenial to his character than the harassing work of ecclesiastical administration in those stormy and troubled times.

Looking back on Gregory's career, it is difficult not to feel that from the day when he was compelled to accept priestly orders, until that which saw him return from Constantinople to Nazianzus to end his life in retirement and obscurity, he seemed constantly to be placed, through no initiative of his own, in positions apparently unsuited to his disposition and temperament, and not really calculated to call for the exercise of the most remarkable and attractive qualities of his mind and heart. Affectionate and tender by nature, of highly sensitive temperament, simple and humble, lively and cheerful by disposition, yet liable to despondency and irritability, constitutionally timid, and somewhat deficient, as it seemed, both in decision of character and in self-control, he was very human, very lovable, very gifted -- yet not, one might be inclined to think, naturally adapted to play the remarkable part which he did during the period preceding and following the opening of the Council of Constantinople. He entered on his difficult and arduous work in that city within a few months of the death of Basil, the beloved friend of his youth; and Newman, in his appreciation of Gregory's character and career, suggests the striking thought that it was his friend's lofty and heroic spirit which had entered into him, and inspired him to take the active and important part which fell to his lot in the work of re-establishing the orthodox and Catholic faith in the eastern capital of the empire. It did, in truth, seem to be rather with the firmness and intrepidity, the high resolve and unflinching perseverance, characteristic of Basil, than in his own proper character, that of a gentle, fastidious, retiring, timorous, peace-loving saint and scholar, that he sounded the war-trumpet during those anxious and turbulent months, in the very stronghold and headquarters of militant heresy, utterly regardless to the actual and pressing danger to his safety, and even his life which never ceased to menace him. "May we together receive", he said at the conclusion of the wonderful discourse which he pronounced on his departed friend, on his return to Asia from Constantinople, "the reward of the warfare which we have waged, which we have endured." It is impossible to doubt, reading the intimate details which he has himself given us of his long friendship with, and deep admiration of, Basil, that the spirit of his early and well-loved friend had to a great extent moulded and informed his own sensitive and impressionable personality and that it was this, under God, which nerved and inspired him, after a life of what seemed, externally, one almost of failure, to co-operate in the mighty task of overthrowing the monstrous heresy which had so long devastated the greater part of Christendom, and bringing about at length the pacification of the Eastern Church.

During the six years of life which remained to him after his final retirement to his birth-place, Gregory composed, in all probability, the greater part of the copious poetical works which have come down to us. These include a valuable autobiographical poem of nearly 2000 lines, which forms, of course, one of the most important sources of information for the facts of his life; about a hundred other shorter poems relating to his past career; and a large number of epitaphs, epigrams, and epistles to well-known people of the day. Many of his later personal poems refer to the continuous illness and severe sufferings, both physical and spiritual, which assailed him during his last years, and doubtless assisted to perfect him in those saintly qualities which had never been wanting to him, rudely shaken though he had been by the trails and buffetings of his life. In the tiny plot of ground at Arianzus, all (as has already been said) that remained to him of his rich inheritance, he wrote and meditated, as he tells, by a fountain near which there was a shady walk, his favourite resort. Here, too, he received occasional visits from intimate friends, as well as sometimes from strangers attracted to his retreat by his reputation for sanctity and learning; and here he peacefully breathed his last. The exact date of his death is unknown, but from a passage in Jerome (De Script. Eccl.) it may be assigned, with tolerable certainty, to the year 389 or 390.

Some account must now be given of Gregory's voluminous writings, and of his reputation as an orator and a theologian, on which, more than on anything else, rests his fame as one of the greatest lights of the Eastern Church. His works naturally fall under three heads, namely his poems, his epistles, and his orations. Much, though by no means all, of what he wrote has been preserved, and has been frequently published, the editio princeps of the poems being the Aldine (1504), while the first edition of his collected works appeared in Paris in 1609-11. The Bodleian catalogue contains more than thirty folio pages enumerating various editions of Gregory's works, of which the best and most complete are the Benedictine edition (two folio volumes, begun in 1778, finished in 1840), and the edition of Migne (four volumes XXXV - XXXVIII, in P.G., Paris, 1857 - 1862).

Poetical Compositions

These, as already stated, comprise autobiographical verses, epigrams, epitaphs and epistles. The epigrams have been translated by Thomas Drant (London, 1568), the epitaphs by Boyd (London, 1826), while other poems have been gracefully and charmingly paraphrased by Newman in his "Church of the Fathers". Jerome and Suidas say that Gregory wrote more than 30,000 verses; if this is not an exaggeration, fully two-thirds of them have been lost. Very different estimates have been formed of the value of his poetry, the greater part of which was written in advanced years, and perhaps rather as a relaxation from the cares and troubles of life than as a serious pursuit. Delicate, graphic, and flowing as are many of his verses, and giving ample evidence of the cultured and gifted intellect which produced them, they cannot be held to parallel (the comparison would be an unfair one, had not many of them been written expressly to supersede and take the place of the work of heathen writers) the great creations of the classic Greek poets. Yet Villemain, no mean critic, places the poems in the front rank of Gregory's compositions, and thinks so highly of them that he maintains that the writer ought to be called, pre-eminently, not so much the theologian of the East as "the poet of Eastern Christendom".

Prose Epistles

These, by common consent, belong to the finest literary productions of Gregory's age. All that are extant are finished compositions; and that the writer excelled in this kind of composition is shown from one of them (Ep. ccix, to Nicobulus) in which he enlarges with admirable good sense on the rules by which all letter-writers should be guided. It was at the request of Nicobulus, who believed, and rightly, that these letters contained much of permanent interest and value, that Gregory prepared and edited the collection containing the greater number of them which has come down to us. Many of them are perfect models of epistolary style -- short, clear, couched in admirably chosen language, and in turn witty and profound, playful, affectionate and acute.

Orations

Both in his own time, and by the general verdict of posterity, Gregory was recognized as one of the very foremost orators who have ever adorned the Christian Church. Trained in the finest rhetorical schools of his age, he did more than justice to his distinguished teachers; and while boasting or vainglory was foreign to his nature, he frankly acknowledged his consciousness of his remarkable oratorical gifts, and his satisfaction at having been enabled to cultivate them fully in his youth. Basil and Gregory, it has been said, were the pioneers of Christian eloquence, modeled on, and inspired by, the noble and sustained oratory of Demosthenes and Cicero, and calculated to move and impress the most cultured and critical audiences of the age. Only comparatively few of the numerous orations delivered by Gregory have been preserved to us, consisting of discourses spoken by him on widely different occasions, but all marked by the same lofty qualities. Faults they have, of course: lengthy digressions, excessive ornament, strained antithesis, laboured metaphors, and occasional over-violence of invective. But their merits are far greater than their defects, and no one can read them without being struck by the noble phraseology, perfect command of the purest Greek, high imaginative powers, lucidity and incisiveness of thought, fiery zeal and transparent sincerity of intention, by which they are distinguished. Hardly any of Gregory's extant sermons are direct expositions of Scripture, and they have for this reason been adversely criticized. Bossuet, however, points out with perfect truth that many of these discourses are really nothing but skillful interweaving of Scriptural texts, a profound knowledge of which is evident from every line of them.

Gregory's claims to rank as one of the greatest theologians of the early Church are based, apart from his reputation among his contemporaries, and the verdict of history in his regard, chiefly on the five great "Theological Discourses" which he delivered at Constantinople in the course of the year 380. In estimating the scope and value of these famous utterances, it is necessary to remember what was the religious condition of Constantinople when Gregory, at the urgent instance of Basil, of many other bishops, and of the sorely-tried Catholics of the Eastern capital, went thither to undertake the spiritual charge of the faithful. It was less as an administrator, or an organizer, than as a man of saintly life and of oratorical gifts famous throughout the Eastern Church, that Gregory was asked, and consented, to undertake his difficult mission; and he had to exercise those gifts in combating not one but numerous heresies which had been dividing and desolating Constantinople for many years. Arianism in every form and degree, incipient, moderate, and extreme, was of course the great enemy, but Gregory had also to wage war against the Apollinarian teaching, which denied the humanity of Christ, as well as against the contrary tendency -- later developed into Nestorianism -- which distinguished between the Son of Mary and the Son of God as two distinct and separate personalities.

A saint first, and a theologian afterwards, Gregory in one of his early sermons at the Anastasia insisted on the principle of reverence in treating of the mysteries of faith (a principle entirely ignored by his Arian opponents), and also on the purity of life and example which all who dealt with these high matters must show forth if their teaching was to be effectual. In the first and second of the five discourses he develops these two principles at some length, urging in language of wonderful beauty and force the necessity for all who would know God aright to lead a supernatural life, and to approach so sublime a study with a mind pure and free from sin. The third discourse (on the Son) is devoted to a defence of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and a demonstration of its consonance with the primitive doctrine of the Unity of God. The eternal existence of the Son and Spirit are insisted on, together with their dependence on the Father as origin or principle; and the Divinity of the Son is argued from Scripture against the Arians, whose misunderstanding of various Scripture texts is exposed and confuted. In the fourth discourse, on the same subject, the union of the Godhead and Manhood in Christ Incarnate is set forth and luminously proved from Scripture and reason. The fifth and final discourse (on the Holy Spirit) is directed partly against the Macedonian heresy, which denied altogether the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and also against those who reduced the Third Person of the Trinity to a mere impersonal energy of the Father. Gregory, in reply to the contention that the Divinity of the Spirit is not expressed in Scripture, quotes and comments on several passages which teach the doctrine by implication, adding that the full manifestation of this great truth was intended to be gradual, following on the revelation of the Divinity of the Son. It is to be noted that Gregory nowhere formulates the doctrine of the Double Procession, although in his luminous exposition of the Trinitarian doctrine there are many passages which seem to anticipate the fuller teaching of the Quicumque vult. No summary, not even a faithful verbal translation, can give any adequate idea of the combined subtlety and lucidity of thought, and rare beauty of expression, of these wonderful discourses, in which, as one of his French critics truly observes, Gregory "has summed up and closed the controversy of a whole century". The best evidence of their value and power lies in the fact that for fourteen centuries they have been a mine whence the greatest theologians of Christendom have drawn treasures of wisdom to illustrate and support their own teaching on the deepest mysteries of the Catholic Faith.

Acta SS.; Lives prefixed to MIGNE, P.G. (1857) XXXV, 147-303; Lives of the Saints collected from Authentick Records (1729), II; BARONIUS, De Vita Greg. Nazianz. (Rome, 1760); DUCHESNE, Hist. Eccl., ed. BRIGHT (Oxford, 1893), 195, 201, etc.; ULLMAN, Gregorius v. Nazianz der Theologe (Gotha, 1867), tr. COX (Londone, 1851); BENOIT, Saint Greg. de Nazianze (Paris, 1876); BAUDUER, Vie de S. Greg. de Nazianze (Lyons, 1827); WATKINS in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Gregorius Nazianzenus; FLEURY, Hist. Ecclesiastique (Paris, 1840), II, Bk. XVIII; DE BROGLIE, L'eglise et l'Empire Romain au IV siecle (Paris, 1866), V; NEWMAN, The arians of the Fourth Century (London, 1854), 214-227; IDEM, Church of the Fathers in Historical Sketches; BRIGHT, The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903), I, 408-461; PUSEY, The Councils of the Church A.D. 31 - A.D. 381 (Oxford, 1857), 276-323; HORE, Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church (London, 1899), 162, 164, 168, etc; TILLEMONT, Mem. Hist. Eccles., IX; MASON, Five Theolog. Discourses of Greg. of Nazianz. (Cambridge, 1899).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

St. Gregory of Neocaesarea

Known at THAUMATURGUS, (ho Thaumatourgos, the miracle-worker).

Born at Neocaesarea in Pontus (Asia Minor) about 213; died there 270-275. Among those who built up the Christian Church, extended its influence, and strengthened its institutions, the bishops of Asia Minor occupy a high position; among them Gregory of Neocaesarea holds a very prominent place. His pastoral work is but little known, and his theological writings have reached us in a very incomplete state. In this semi-obscurity the personality of this great man seems eclipsed and dwarfed; even his immemorial title Thaumaturgus (the wonder-worker) casts an air of legend about him. Nevertheless, the lives of few bishops of the third century are so well authenticated; the historical references to him permit us to reconstruct his work with considerable detail.

Originally he was known as Theodore (the gift of God), not an exclusively Christian name. Moreover, his family was pagan, and he was unacquainted with the Christian religion till after the death of his father, at which time he was fourteen years old. He had a brother Athenodorus, and, on the advice of one of their tutors, the young men were anxious to study law at the law-school of Beirut, then one of the four of five famous schools in the Hellenic world. At this time, also, their brother-in-law was appointed assessor to the Roman Governor of Palestine; the youths had therefore an occasion to act as an escort to their sister as far as Caesarea in Palestine. On arrival in that town they learned that the celebrated scholar Origen, head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, resided there. Curiosity led them to hear and converse with the master, and his irresistible charm did the rest. Soon both youths forgot all about Beirut and Roman law, and gave themselves up to the great Christian teacher, who gradually won them over to Christianity. In his panegyric on Origen, Gregory describes the method employed by that master to win the confidence and esteem of those he wished to convert; how he mingled a persuasive candour with outbursts of temper and theological argument put cleverly at once and unexpectedly. Persuasive skill rather than bare reasoning, and evident sincerity and an ardent conviction were the means Origen used to make converts. Gregory took up at first the study of philosophy; theology was afterwards added, but his mind remained always inclined to philosophical study, so much so indeed that in his youth he cherished strongly the hope of demonstrating that the Christian religion was the only true and good philosophy. For seven years he underwent the mental and moral discipline of Origen (231 to 238 or 239). There is no reason to believe that is studies were interrupted by the persecutions of maximinus of Thrace; his alleged journey to Alexandria, at this time, may therefore be considered at least doubtful, and probably never occurred.

In 238 or 239 the two brothers returned to their native Pontus. Before leaving Palestine Gregory delivered in presence of Origen a public farewell oration in which he returned thanks to the illustrious master he was leaving. This oration is valuable from many points of view. As a rhetorical exercise it exhibits the excellent training given by Origen, and his skill in developing literary taste; it exhibits also the amount of adulation then permissible towards a living person in an assembly composed mostly of Christians, and Christian in temper. It contains, moreover, much useful information concerning the youth of Gregory and his master's method of teaching. A letter of Origen refers to the departure of the two brothers, but it is not easy to determine whether it was written before or after the delivery of this oration. In it Origen exhorts (quite unnecessarily, it is true) his pupils to bring the intellectual treasures of the Greeks to the service of Christian philosophy, and thus imitate the Jews who employed the golden vessels of the Egyptians to adorn the Holy of Holies. It may be supposed that despite the original abandonment of Beirut and the study of Roman law, Gregory had not entirely given up the original purpose of his journey to the Orient; as a matter of fact, he returned to Pontus with the intention of practising law. His plan, however, was again laid aside, for he was soon consecrated bishop of his native Caesarea by Phoedimus, Bishop of Amasea and Metropolitan of Pontus. This fact illustrates in an interesting way the growth of the hierarchy in the primitive Church, for we know that the Christian community at Caesarea was very small, being only seventeen souls, and it was given a bishop. We know, moreover, from ancient canonical documents, that it was possible for a community of even ten Christians to have their own bishop. When Gregory was consecrated he was forty years old, and he ruled his diocese for thirty years. Although we know nothing definite as to his methods, we cannot doubt that he must have shown much zeal in increasing the little flock with which he began his episcopal administration. From an ancient source we learn a fact that is at once a curious coincidence, and throws light on his missionary zeal; whereas he began with only seventeen Christians, at his death there remained but seventeen pagans in the whole town of Caesarea. The many miracles which won for his the title of Thaumaturgus were doubtless eprformed during these years. The Oriental mind revels so naturally in the marvellous that a serious historian cannot accept unconditionally all its product; yet if ever the title of "wonder-worker" was deserved, Gregory had a right to it.

It is to be noted here that our sources of information as to the life, teaching, and actions of Gregory Thaumaturgus are all more or less open to criticism. Besides the details given us by Gregory himself, and of which we have already spoken, there are four other sources of information, all, according to Kötschau, derived from oral tradition; indeed, the differences between them force the conclusion that they cannot all be derived from one common written source. They are:

• Life and Panegyric of Gregory by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 893 sqq.);
• Historia Miraculorum, by Russinus;
• an account in Syriac of the great actions of Blessed Gregory (sixth century manuscript);
• St. Basil, De Spirtu Sancto.

Gregory of Nyssa with the help of family traditions and a knowledge of the neighbourhood, has left us an account of the Thaumaturgus that is certainly more historical than any other known to us. From Rufinus we see that in his day (c. 400) the original story was becoming confused; the Syriac account is at times obscure and contradictory. Even the life by Gregory of Nyssa exhibits a legendary element, though its facts were all supplied to the writer by his grandmother, St. Macrina the Elder. He relates that before his episcopal consecration Gregory retired from Neocaesarea into a solitude, and was favoured by an apparition of the Blessed Virgin and the Apostle St. John, and that the latter dictated to him a creed or formula of Christian faith, of which the autograph existed at Neocaesarea when the biography was being written. The creed itself is quite important for the history of Christian doctrine (Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen zur Gesch, d. Taufsymols und der Glaubernsregel, Christiania, 1879, 1-64). Gregory of Nyssa describes at length the miracles that gained for the Bishop of Caesarea the title of Thaumaturgus; herein the imaginative element is very active. It is clear, however, that Gregory's influence must have been considerable, and his miraculous power undoubted. It might have been expected that Gregory's name would appear among those who took part in the First Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VII, xxviii); probably he took part also in the second council held there against the same heresiarch, for the letter of that council is signed by a bishop named Theodore, which had been originally Gregory's name (Eusebius, op. cit., VII, xxx). To attract the people to the festivals in honour of the martyrs, we learn that Gregory organized profane amusements as an attraction for the pagans who could not understand a solemnity without some pleasures of a less serious nature than the religious ceremony.

Writings of Gregory

The Oratio Panegyrica in honour of Origen describes in detail that master's pedagogical methods. Its literary value consists less in its style than in its novelty, it being the first attempt at autobiography in Christian literature. This youthful work is full of enthusiasm and genuine talent; moreover, it proves how fully Origen had won the admiration of his pupils, and how the training Gregory received influenced the remainder of a long and well spent life. Gregory tells us in this work (xiii) that under Origen he read the works of many philosophers, without restriction as to school, except that of the atheists. From this reading of the old philosophers he learned to insist frequently on the unity of God; and his long experience of pagan or crudely Christian populations taught him how necessary this was. Traces of this insistence are to be met with in the Tractatus ad Theopompum, concerning the pasibility and impassibility of God; this work seems to belong to Gregory, though in its general arrangement it reminds us of Methodius. A similar trait was probably characteristic of the lost Dialogus cum Aeliano (Pros Ailianon dialexis), which we learn of through St. Basil, who frequently attests the orthodoxy of the Thaumaturgus (Ep. xxviii, 1, 2; cciv, 2; ccvii, 4) and even defends him against the Sabellians, who claimed him for their teaching and quoted as his formula: patera kai ouion epinoia men einai duo, hypostasei de en (that the Father and the Son were two in intelligence, but one in substance) from the aforesaid Dialogus cum Aeliano. St. Basil replied that Gregory was arguing against a pagan, and used the words agonistikos not dogmatikos, i.e. in the heat of combat, not in calm exposition; in this case he was insisting, and rightly, on the Divine unity. he added, moreover, that a like explanation must be given to the words ktisma, poiema (created, made) when applied to the Son, reference being to Christ Incarnate. Basil added that the text of the work was corrupt.

The "Epostola Canonica", epistole kanonike (Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, III, 251-83) is valuable to both historian and canonist as evidence of the organization of the Church of Caesarea and the other Churches of Pontus under Gregory's influence, at a time when the invading Goths had begun to aggravate a situation made difficult enough by the imperial persecutions. We learn from this work how absorbing the episcopal charge was for a man of conscience and a strict sense of duty. Moreover it helps us to understand how a man so well equipped mentally, and with the literary gifts of Gregory, has not left a greater number of works.

The Ekthesis tes pisteos (Exposition of the Faith) is in its kind a theological document not less precious than the foregoing. It makes clear Gregory's orthodoxy apropos of the Trinity. Its authenticity and date seem now definitely settled, the date lying between 260-270. Caspari has shown that this confession of faith is a development of the premises laid down by Origen. Its conclusion leaves no room for doubt:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing greater or less (literally, nothing subject) in the Trinity (oute oun ktiston ti, he doulon en te triadi), nothing superadded, as though it had not existed before, but never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit; and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever.

Such a formula, stating clearly the distinction between the Persons in the Trinity, and emphasizing the eternity, equality, immortality, and perfection, not only of the Father, but of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, proclaims a marked advance on the theories of Origen.

A Metaphrasis eis ton Ekklesiasten tou Solomontos, or paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, is attributed to him by some manuscripts; others ascribe it to Gregory of Nazianzus; St. Jerome (De vir. illust., c. lxv, and Com. in eccles., iv) ascribes it to our Gregory. The Epistola ad Philagrium has reached us in a Syriac version. It treats of the Consubstantiality of the Son and has also been attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus (Ep. ccxliii; formerly Orat. xiv); Tillemont and the Benedictines, however, deny this because it offers no expression suggestive of the Arian controversy. Draeseke, nevertheless, calls attention to numerous views and expressions in this treatise that recall the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus. The brief Treatise on the Soul addressed to one Tatian, in favour of which may be cited the testimony of Nicholas of Methone (probably from Procupius of Gaza), is now claimed for Gregory.

The Kephalaia peri pisteos dodeka or Twelve Chapters on Faith do not seem to be the work of Gregory. According to Caspari, the Kata meros pistis or brief exposition of doctrine concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, attributed to Gregory, was composed by Apollinaris of Laodicea about 380, and circulated by his followers as a work of Gregory (Bardenhewer). Finally, the Greek, Syriac, and Armenian Catenæ contain fragments attributed more or less correctly to Gregory. The fragments of the De Resurrectione belong rather to Pamphilus Apologia for Origen.

Gregory's writings wree first edited by Voss (Mainz, 1604) and are in P.G., X. For the Tractatus ad Theopompum see DE LAGARDE, Aanlecta Syriaca (Londond, 1858), 46-64; and PITRA, Analecta Sacra (Paris, 1883), IV. See also RYSSEL, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, sein Leben, und seine Schriften (Leipzig, 1880); KOTSCHAU, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes (Frieburg, 1894); BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1908), 170-175. For an English version of the literary remains of Gregory see Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1896), VI, 9-74.; cf. also REYNOLDS in Dict. Chr. Biog., s.v. Greorius (3).

H. LECLERCQ

St. Gregory of Nyssa

Date of birth unknown; died after 385 or 386. He belongs to the group known as the "Cappadocian Fathers", a title which reveals at once his birthplace in Asia Minor and his intellectual characteristics. Gregory was born of a deeply religious family, not very rich in worldly goods, to which circumstances he probably owed the pious training of his youth. His mother Emmelia was a martyr's daughter; two of his brothers, Basil of Cæsarea and Peter of Sebaste, became bishops like himself; his eldest sister, Macrina, became a model of piety and is honoured as a saint. Another brother, Naucratius, a lawyer, inclined to a life of asceticism, but died too young to realize his desires. A letter of Gregory to his younger brother, Peter, exhibits the feelings of lively gratitude which both cherished for their elder brother Basil, whom Gregory calls "our father and our master". Probably, therefore, the difference in years between them was such as to have enabled Basil to supervise the education of his younger brothers. Basil's training was an antidote to the lessons of the pagan schools, wherein, as we know from a letter of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa spent some time, very probably in his early youth, for it is certain that while still a youth Gregory exercised the ecclesiastical office of rector. His family, it would seem, had endeavoured to turn his thoughts towards the Church, for when the young man chose a secular career and began the study of rhetoric, Basil remonstrated with him long and earnestly; when he had failed he called on Gregory's friends to influence him against that objectionable secular calling. It was all in vain; moreover, it would seem that the young man married. There exists a letter addressed to him by Gregory of Nazianzus condoling with him on the loss of one Theosebeia, who must have been his wife, and with whom he continued to live, as with a sister, even after he became bishop. This is also evident from his treatise "De virginitate".

Some think that Gregory spent a certain time in retreat before his consecration as bishop, but we have no proof of the fact. His extant letters make no mention of such retirement from the world. Nor are we better informed of the circumstances of his election to the See of Nyssa, a little town on the banks of the Halys, along the road between Cæsarea and Ancyra. According to Gregory of Nazianzus it was Basil who performed the episcopal consecration of his brother, before he himself had taken possession of the See of Sozima; which would place the beginning of Gregory of Nyssa's episcopate about 371. Was this brusque change in Gregory's career the result of a sudden vocation? St. Basil tells us that it was necessary to overcome his brother's repugnance, before he accepted the office of bishop. But this does not help us to an answer, as the episcopal charge in that day was beset with many dangers. Moreover in the fourth century, and even later, it was not uncommon to express dislike of the episcopal honour, and to fly from the prospect of election. The fugitives, however, were usually discovered and brought back, and the consecration took place when a show of resistance had saved the candidate's humility. Whether it was so in Gregory's case, or whether he really did feel his own unfitness, we do not know. In any case, St. Basil seems to have regretted at times the constraint thus put on his brother, now removed from his influence; in his letters he complains of Gregory's naive and clumsy interference with his (Basil's) business. To Basil the synod called in 372 by Gregory at Ancyra seemed the ruin of his own labours. In 375 Gregory seemed to him decidedly incapable of ruling a Church. At the same time he had but faint praise for Gregory's zeal for souls.

On arriving in his see Gregory had to face great difficulties. His sudden elevation may have turned against him some who had hoped for the office themselves. It would appear that one of the courtiers of Emperor Valens had solicited the see either for himself or one of his friends. When Demosthenes, Governor of Pontus, convened an assembly of Eastern bishops, a certain Philocares, at one of its sessions, accused Gregory of wasting church property, and of irregularity in his election to the episcopate, whereupon Demosthenes ordered the Bishop of Nyssa to be seized and brought before him. Gregory at first allowed himself to be led away by his captors, then losing heart and discouraged by the cold and brutal treatment he met with, he took an opportunity of escape and reached a place of safety. A Synod of Nyssa (376) deposed him, and he was reduced to wander from town to town, until the death of Valens in 378. The new emperor, Gratian, published an edict of tolerance, and Gregory returned to his see, where he was received with joy. A few months after this (January, 379) his brother Basil died; whereupon an era of activity began for Gregory. In 379 he assisted at the Council of Antioch which had been summoned because of the Meletian schism. Soon after this, it is supposed, he visited Palestine. There is reason for believing that he was sent officially to remedy the disorders of the Church of Arabia. But possibly his journey did not take place till after the Council of Constantinople in 381, convened by Emperor Theodosius for the welfare of religion in that city. It asserted the faith of Nicæa, and tried to put an end to Arianism and Pneumatism in the East. This council was not looked on as an important one at the time; even those present at it seldom refer to it in their writings. Gregory himself, though he assisted at the council, mentions it only casually in his funeral oration over Meletius of Antioch, who died during the course of this assembly.

An edict of Theodosius (30 July, 381; Cod. Theod., LXVI, tit. I., L. 3) having appointed certain episcopal sees as centres of Catholic communion in the East, Helladius of Cæsarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Otreius of Melitene were chosen to fill them. At Constantinople Gregory gave evidence on two occasions of his talent as an orator; he delivered the discourse at the enthronization of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also the aforesaid oration over Meletius of Antioch. It is very probable that Gregory was present at another Council of Constantinople in 383; his "Oratio de deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti" seems to confirm this. In 385 or 386 he preached the funeral sermon over the imperial Princess Pulcheria, and shortly afterwards over Empress Flaccilla. A little later we meet him again at Constantinople, on which occasion his counsel was sought for the repression of ecclesiastical disorders in Arabia; he then disappears from history, and probably did not long survive this journey. From the above it will be seen that his life is little known to us. It is difficult to outline clearly his personality, while his writings contain too many flights of eloquence to permit final judgment on his real character.

Works

Exegetical

Most of his writings treat of the Sacred Scriptures. He was an ardent admirer of Origen, and applied constantly the latter's principles of hermeneutics. Gregory is ever in quest of allegorical interpretations and mystical meanings hidden away beneath the literal sense of texts. As a rule, however, the "great Cappadocians" tried to eliminate this tendency. His "Treatise on the Work of the Six Days" follows St. Basil's Hexæmeron. Another work, "On the Creation of Man", deals with the work of the Sixth Day, and contains some curious anatomical details; it was translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus. His account of Moses as legislator offers much fine-spun allegorizing, and the same is true of his "Explanation of the Titles of the Psalms". In a brief tractate on the witch of Endor he says that the woman did not see Samuel, but only a demon, who put on the figure of the prophet. Besides a homily on the sixth Psalm, he wrote eight homilies on Ecclesiastes, in which he taught that the soul should rise above the senses, and that true peace is only to be found in contempt of worldly greatness. He is also the author of fifteen homilies on the Canticle of Canticles (the union of the soul with its Creator), five very eloquent homilies on the Lord's Prayer, and eight highly rhetorical homilies on the Beatitudes.

Theological

In theology Gregory shows himself more original and more at ease. Yet his originality is purely in manner, since he added little that is new. His diction, however, offers many felicitous and pleasing allusions, suggested probably by his mystical turn of mind. These grave studies were taken up by him late in life, hence he follows step by step the teaching of St. Basil and of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Like them he defends the unity of the Divine nature and the trinity of Persons; where he loses their guidance, our confidence in him tends to decrease. In his teaching on the Eucharist he appears really original; his Christological doctrine, however, is based entirely on Origen and St. Athanasius. The most important of his theological writings is his large "Catechesis", or "Oratio Catechetica", an argumentative defence in forty chapters of Catholic teaching as against Jews, heathens, and heretics. The most extensive of his extant works is his refutation of Eunomius in twelve books, a defence of St. Basil against that heretic, and also of the Nicene Creed against Arianism; this work is of capital importance in the history of the Arian controversy. He also wrote two works against Apollinaris of Laodicea, in refutation of the false doctrines of that writer, viz. that the body of Christ descended from heaven, and that in Christ, the Divine Word acted as the rational soul. Among the works of Gregory are certain "Opuscula" on the Trinity addressed to Ablabius, the tribune Simplicius, and Eustathius of Sebaste. He wrote also against Arius and Sabellius, and against the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; the latter work he never finished. In the "De anima et resurrectione" we have a dialogue between Gregory and his deceased sister, Macrina; it treats of death, resurrection, and our last end. He defends human liberty against the fatalism of the astrologers in a work "On Fate", and in his treatise "On Children", dedicated to Hieros, Prefect of Cappadocia, he undertook to explain why Providence permits the premature death of children.

Ascetical

He wrote also on Christian life and conduct, e.g. "On the meaning of the Christian name or profession", addressed to Harmonius, and "On Perfection and what manner of man the Christian should be", dedicated to the monk Olympius. For the monks, he wrote a work on the Divine purpose in creation. His admirable book "On Virginity", written about 370, was composed to strengthen in all who read it the desire for a life of perfect virtue.

Sermons and Homilies

Gregory wrote also many sermons and homilies, some of which we have already mentioned; others of importance are his panegyric on St. Basil, and his sermons on the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Correspondence

A few of his letters (twenty-six) have survived; two of them offer a peculiar interest owing to the severity of his strictures on contemporary pilgrimages to Jerusalem.

For a discussion of his peculiar doctrine concerning the general restoration (Apocatastasis) to divine favour of all sinful creatures at the end of time, i.e. the temporary nature of the pains of hell, see the articles APOCATASTASIS and MIVART. The theory of interpolation of the writings of Gregory and of Origen, sustained among others by Vincenzi (below), seems, in this respect at least, both useless and gratuitous (Bardenhewer).

Notes

The writings of Gregory are best collected in P.G., XLIV-XLVI. There is no critical edition as yet, though one was begun by FORBES and OEHLER (Burntisland, 1855, 61); of another edition planned by Oehler, only one volume appeared (Halle, 1865). The best of the earlier editions is that of FRONTO DUCÆUS (Paris, 1615). Cf. VINCENZI, In Gregorii Nysseni et Origenis scripta et doctrinam nova recensio, etc. (Rome, 1864-69); BAUER, Die Trostreden des Gregorios von Nyssa in ihrem Verhältniss zur antiken Rhetorik (Marburg, 1892); BOUËDRON, Doctrines philosophiques de Saint Grégoire de Nysse (Nantes, 1861); KOCH, Das mystische Schauen beim hl. Gr. v. Nyssa in Theol. Quartalschrift (1898), LXXX, 397-420; DIEKAMP, Die Gotteslehre des hl. Gregor von Nyssa: ein Beitrag zur Dogmengesch. der patristischen Zeit (Münster, 1897); WEISS, Die Erziehungslehre der Kappadozier (Freiburg, 1903); HILT, St. Gregorii episcopi Nysseni doctrina de angelis exposita (Freiburg, 1860); KRAMPF, Der Urzustand des Menschen nach der Lehre des hl. Gregor von Nyssa, eine dogmatisch-patristische Studie (Würzburg, 1889); REICHE, Die kunstlerischen Elemente in der Welt und Lebens-Anschauung des Gregor von Nyssa (Jena, 1897); and on the large Catechesis (logos katechetikos ho megas), generally known as Oratio Catechetica, see SRAWLEY in Journal of Theol. Studies (1902), III, 421-8, also his new edition of the Oratio (Cambridge, 1903). For an English version of several works of Gregory see Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series (New York, 1893), II, v; and for a German version of some works, HAYD in the Kemptener Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (1874).

H. LECLERCQ

Gregory of Rimini

An Augustinian theologian; born at Rimini, Italy, in the second half of the thirteenth century; died at Vienna, 1358. After completing his studies, he became professor and subsequently rector of the Augustinian seminary in his native city. But it was not long before he was called to Paris to take a professorship at the Sorbonne, where he achieved great distinction as a teacher. He was one of the chief leaders of the Nominalists in the controversy over the nature of "universals", and his disciples conferred most respectful titles on him, such as Doctor acutus, Lucerna splendens, and especially Doctor authenticus. Many people even called him "beatus" not only out of esteem for his remarkable erudition, but for his heroic and virtuous qualities. As a theologian he belonged naturally to the older Augustinian school founded by the Augustinian Ægidius of Colonna, commonly known as the Schola Aegidiana. In some respects, however, his views diverged from those of the founder of the school. For, while the latter's views on the disposition of sinners towards grace by no means coincide with the opinions of St. Augustine, and are far more nearly akin to Semipelagianism, Gregory on the other hand was a most pertinacious champion of the teachings of this saint, and had no hesitation in opposing the general teaching of the Scholastics with respect to the need for grace in fallen man and the punishment of original sin, even though the Ægidian school followed in general St. Thomas. These views of Gregory found many zealous supporters again in the seventeenth century, Cardinal Noris in particular defending them vigorously. Gregory's opponents delighted to call him the "Infantium Tortor" (Tormentor of children), because he held, in opposition to the other Scholastics, the severe and extreme views concerning the fate of children who died unbaptized. In 1357 he succeeded the equally famous Thomas of Strasburg as General of the Augustinian Hermits, but died the next year at Vienna. Of his writings, the "Commentaries" on the "Books of the Sentences" have appeared in print (Lectura in primum et secundum librum Sententiarum, Paris, 1482, 1487; Milan, 1494; Valentia, 1500; Venice, 1518); also a treatise on the prohibition of usury (De usuris, Rimini, 1522, 1622). Commentaries on the Epistles of St. James and St. Paul are also attributed to him.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

St. Gregory of Tours

Born in 538 or 539 at Arverni, the modern Clermont-Ferrand; died at Tours, 17 Nov., in 593 or 594. He was descended from a distinguished Gallo-Roman family, and was closely related to the most illustrious houses of Gaul. He was originally called Georgius Florentius, but in memory of his maternal great-grandfather, Gregory, Bishop of Langres, took later on the name of Gregory. At an early age he lost his father, and went to live with an uncle, Gallus, Bishop of Clermont, under whom he was educated after the manner of all ecclesiastics in his day. An unexpected recovery from a serious illness turned his mind towards the service of the Church. Gallus died in 554, and Gregory's mother went to live with her friends in Burgundy, leaving her son at Clermont in the care of Avitus, a priest, later Bishop of Clermont (517-594). Avitus directed his pupil towards the study of the Scriptures. According to Gregory, rhetoric and profane literature were sadly neglected in his case, an omission that he ever after earnestly regretted. In his writings he complains of his ignorance of the laws of grammar, of confounding the genders, employing the wrong cases, not understanding the correct use of prepositions, and the syntax of phrases, self-reproaches that need not be taken too seriously. Gregory knew grammar and literature as well as any man of his time; it is a mere affectation on his part when he poses as ill-instructed; perhaps he hoped thereby to win praise for his learning. Euphronius, Bishop of Tours, died in 573, and was succeeded by Gregory, Sigebert I being then King of Austrasia and Auvergne (561-576). Charibert's death (567) had made him master of Tours. The new king was acquainted with Gregory and insisted that in deference to the wishes of the people of Tours he should become their bishop; thus it came to pass that Gregory went to Rome for consecration. The poet, Fortunatus, celebrated the elevation of the new bishop in a poem full of sincere enthusiasm whatever its defects ("Ad cives Turonicos de Gregorio episcopo"). Gregory justified this confidence, and his episcopal reign was highly creditable to him and useful to his flock; the circumstances of the time offered peculiar difficulties, and the office of bishop was onerous both from a civil and a religious point of view.

I. GREGORY AS BISHOP

He undertook with great zeal the heavy task imposed on him. In the near past King Clovis had both used and abused his power, but his services to the social order and the fame of his exploits caused the abuses of his reign to be in great part forgiven. His successors, however, had fewer merits, and when they sought to increase their authority by deeds of violence, almost endless civil war was the result. Might overcame right so often that the very notion of the latter tended to disappear. Barbarian fierceness and cruelty were everywhere rampant. During the war between Sigebert and Chilperic, Gregory could not restrain his just indignation at the sight of the woes of his people. "This", he wrote, "has been more hurtful to the Church than the persecution of Diocletian". In Gaul, at least, such may have been the case. The Teutonic tribes newly established in Gaul, or loosely wandering throughout the whole Roman Empire, were well aware of their physical prowess, and disinclined to recognize any rights save that of conquest. Their chiefs claimed whatever they desired, and the army took the rest. Whoever ventured to oppose them was put out of the way with pitiless rapidity. The civilization on which they so suddenly entered was for them a source of annoyance and confusion; coarse material pleasures appealed to them far more than the higher ideals of Roman life. Drunkenness was prevalent in all classes, and even the proverbial chastity of the Franks was soon a forgotten glory. Vengeance threw off all restraint of religion; the powerful and the lowly, clergy and laity, were a law unto themselves. Queen Clotilda, the model of women, was popularly thought to have nourished feelings of revenge against the Burgundians for more that thirty years (see, however, for a rehabilitation, G. Kurth, "Sainte Clotilde", 8th. ed., Paris, 1905, and article CLOTILDA). Guntram, one of the best of the Frankish kings, put to death two physicians because they were unable to restore Queen Austrechilde to health. This being the moral temper of the upper classes, it is needless to speak of the Gallo-Frankish multitude. It is greatly to St. Gregory's honour that amid these conditions he fulfilled the office of bishop with admirable courage and firmness. His writings and his actions exhibit a tender solicitude for the spiritual and temporal interests of his people, whom he protected as best he could against the lawlessness of the civil power.

Amid his labours for the general welfare he upheld always what was right and just with prudence and courage. By his office he was the protector of the weak, and as such always opposed their oppressors. In him the Merovingian episcopate appears at its best. The social morality of the sixth century has no braver or more intelligent exponent that this cultivated gentleman. Gregory explains the government of the world by the constant intervention of the supernatural: direct assistance of God, intercession of saints, and recourse to the miracles wrought at their tombs. He also played a prominent part in increasing the number of churches, which were then the centres of religious life in Gaul. The cathedral church at Tours, burnt down under his predecessor, was rebuilt, and the church of St. Perpetuus restored and decorated. Since the days of Clovis the Church had held, through her bishops, a preponderating position in the Frankish world. In the eyes of the people the bishops were the direct representatives of God, and dispensed His heavenly graces quite as the king bestowed earthly favours. This was not owing, however, to their moral or religious position, but rather to their social influence. With the spread of the rude barbarian civilization in Gaul the old Roman civilization, especially in municipal administration, was unable to cope. The civil authority was unequal to the former responsibilities it assumed, and was soon oblivious of its obligations. The public offices, however, which it neglected corresponded to pressing social needs that must somehow be satisfied. At this juncture the bishops stepped into the breach and became at once politically more important under Frankish than they had been under Roman rule. The Frankish kings gladly recognized in them indispensable auxiliaries. They alone possessed science and learning, while they rendered signal services on different missions freely intrusted to them, and which they alone were capable of fulfilling. On the other hand they were slow to reprove their barbarian masters or to resist them. Gregory himself says in his reply to Childeric: "If one of us were to leave the path of justice, it would be for you to set him right; should you, however, chance to stray, who could correct or resist?". The only duty the bishops seem to have preached to the Frankish kings was a conscientious fulfilment of the royal duties for the good of souls. This duty the kings did not deny, though they often failed to execute it or took refuge in a too liberal conscience.

Tours, which had long possessed the tomb of Saint Martin, was one of the most difficult sees to rule. The city was continually changing masters. On the death of Clotaire (561) it fell to Charibert, and when he died it reverted to the kingdom of Sigebert, King of Austrasia, but not till after a lively conflict. In 573, Chilperic, King of Neustria, seized it, but was soon constrained to abandon the city. He seized it again only to lose it once more; at last, on the assassination of Sigebert in 576, Chilperic became its final master, and held it till he died in 584. Though Gregory took no direct part in these struggles of princes, he has described for us the sufferings they caused his people, also his own sorrows. It is easy to see that he did not love Chilperic; in return the king hated the Bishop of Tours, who suffered much from the attacks of royal partisans. A certain Leudot, who had been deprived of his office through Gregory's complaints, accused the bishop of defamatory statements concerning Queen Fredegunde. Gregory was cited before the judges, and asserted his innocence under oath. At the trial his bearing was so full of dignity and uprightness that he astonished his enemies, and Chilperic himself was so impressed that ever afterwards he was more conciliatory in his dealings with such an opponent. After the death of Chilperic, Tours fell into the hands of Guntram, King of Burgundy, whereupon began for the bishop an era of peace and almost of happiness. He had long known Guntram and was known and trusted by him. In 587, the Treaty of Andelot brought about the cession of Tours by Guntram to Childebert II, son of Sigebert. This king, as well as his mother Brunehaut, honoured Gregory with particular confidence, called him often to court, and entrusted to him many important missions. This favour lasted until his death.

II. GREGORY AS A HISTORIAN

From the time of his election to the episcopate Gregory began to write. His subjects seem to have been chosen, at the beginning of his literary activity, less for their importance than for the purpose of edification. The miracles of St. Martin were then his main theme, and he always cherished most the themes of the hagiographer. Even in his strictly historical writings, biographical details retain a place often quite disproportionate to their importance. His complete works deal with many subjects, and are by himself summarized as follows: "Decem libros historiarum, septem miraculorum, unum de vita patrum scripsi; in psalterii tractatu librum unum commentatus sum; de cursibus etiam ecclesiasticis unum librum condidi", i.e. I have written ten books of "historia", seven of "miracles", one on the lives of the Fathers, a commentary in one book on the psalter, and one book on ecclesiastical liturgy. The "Liber de miracles b. Andreae apostoli" and the "Passio ss. martyrum septem dormientium apud Ephesum" are not mentioned by him, but are undoubtedly from his hand. His hagiographical writings must naturally be read in keeping with the spirit and tastes of his own times. An edict of King Guntram, taken from the "Historia Francorum", illustrates both quite aptly: "We believe that the Lord, who rules all things by His might, will be appeased by our endeavours to uphold justice and right among all people. Being our Father and our King, ever ready to succour human weakness by His grace, God will grant our needs all the more generously when He sees us faithful in the observance of His precepts and commandments". The mental attitude of the king differed little, of course, from that of his people. Nearly all were deeply persuaded that all events were divinely foreseen; but sometimes even to a superstitious extreme. Thus, despite the contemporary social degradation and crimes, the people were ever on the alert for supernatural manifestations, or for what they believed to be such. In this way arose a religious devotion, real and active, indeed, but also impulsive and not properly controlled by reason. Providence seemed to intervene so directly in every minute detail that men blindly thanked God for an enemy's death just as they would for some wonderful grace that had been granted them. The supernatural world was always quite near to the men of that age; God and His saints seemed ever to deal intimately and immediately with the affairs of men. The tombs and relics of the saints became the centres of their miraculous activity. In the contemporary hagiographical narratives those who refuse to believe in the miracles are the exception, and are generally represented as coming to an evil end unless they repent of their incredulity. Occasionally one notes a reaction against this excessive credulity; here and there an individual ventures to assert that certain miracles are fictive, and sometimes impostures. Sensible men endeavour to calm the too ardent credulity of many. Gregory tells us of an abbot who severely punished a young monk who believe he had wrought a miracle: "My son", said the abbot, "endeavour in all humility to grow in the fear of the Lord, instead of meddling with miracles."

Gregory himself, though he relates a great many miracles, seems occasionally to have doubted some of them. He knew that unscrupulous men were wont to abuse the credulity of the faithful, and many agreed with him. Not everyone was willing to consider a dream as a supernatural manifestation. This distrust, however, affected only particular cases; as a rule belief in the multiplicity of miracles was general. The first work of Gregory was an account in four books of the miracles of St. Martin, the famous thaumaturgus of Gaul. The first book was written in 575, the second after 581, the third was completed about 587; the fourth was never completed. After finishing the first two books he began an account of the miracles of an Auvergne saint then famous, "De passione et virtutibus sancti Juliani martyris". Julian had died in the neighbourhood of Clermont-Ferrand and his tomb at Brioude was a well known place of pilgrimage. In 587, Gregory began his "Liber in gloria martyrum", or "Book of the Glories of the Martyrs". It deals almost exclusively with the miracles wrought in Gaul by the martyrs of the Roman persecutions. Quite similar is the "Liber in gloria confessorum" a vivid picture of contemporary or quasi-contemporary customs and manners. The "Liber vitae Patrum", the most important and interesting of Gregory's hagiographical works, gives us much curious information concerning the upper classes of the period.

Gregory's fame as a historian rests on his "Historia Francorum" in ten books, intended, as the author assures us in the preface, to hand down to posterity a knowledge of his own times. Book I contains a summary of the history of the world from Adam to the conquest of Gaul by the Franks, and thence to the death of St. Martin (397). Book II treats of Clovis, founder of the Frankish empire. Book III comes down to the reign of Theodebert (548). Book IV ends with Sigebert (575), and contains the story of many events within the personal knowledge of the historian. According to Arndt these four books were written in 575. Books V and VI treat of events that took place between 575 and 584, and were written in 585. The remaining four books cover the years between 584 and 591, and were written at intervals that cannot be exactly determined. Gregory relates, indeed, as stated above, the story of his age, but in the narrative he himself always plays a prominent part. The art of exposition, of tracing effects to their causes, of discovering the motives which influenced the characters he described, was unknown to Gregory. He tells a plain unvarnished tale of what he saw and heard. Apart from what concerns himself, he always tries to state the truth impartially, and in places even attempts some sort of criticism. This work is unique in its kind. Without it the historical origin of the Frankish monarchy would be to no small extent unknown to us. Did Gregory, however, correctly appreciate the spirit and tendencies of his age? It is open to question. His mind was always busied with extraordinary events: crimes, miracles, wars, excesses of every kind; for him ordinary events were too commonplace for notice. Nevertheless, to grasp clearly the religious or secular history of a people, it is more important to know the daily popular life than to learn of the mighty deeds of the reigning house. The morality of the people is often superior to that of its governing classes. In Gregory's day, great moral and religious forces, beloved by the people, must have been leavening the country, counterbalancing the brute force and immorality of the Frankish kings, and saving the strong new race from wasting away in civil strife. From Gregory's account, however, one could scarcely conclude that the people were altogether satisfied with their religion. What Gregory failed to note in a discriminating way, perhaps because it did not enter into the scope of the work, a contemporary, the Greek Agathias, has observed and put on record.

GREGORY AS A THEOLOGIAN

The theological ideas of Gregory appear not only in the introductions of his various works, and especially to his "Historia Francorum", but also incidentally throughout his writings. His theological education was not very profound; and he wrote but one work immediately theological in character, his commentary on the psalms. The book entitled "De cursu stellarum ratio" (on the courses of the stars) was written for a practical purpose to settle the time, according to the position of the stars, when the night office should be sung. The "Historia Francorum" makes known, in its opening pages, Gregory's theological views. The teaching of Nicaea was his guide; the doctrine of the Church was beyond all discussion. God the Father could never have been without wisdom, light, life, truth, justice; the Son is all these; the Father therefore was never without the Son. In Jesus Christ Gregory saw the Lord of Eternal Glory and the Judge of mankind. He sometimes speaks of the death and the blood of Christ as the means of redemption, though it is not clear that he grasped the inner meaning of this doctrine. He saw in Christ's Death a crime committed by the Jews; in the Resurrection, on the other hand, it seemed to him he beheld the Redemption of mankind. From the psalms he had learned that Jesus had saved the world by His blood, but Gregory's idea of Christ was not that of the Lamb slain for the sins of "the world"; it was rather that of a great king who had left an inheritance to his people. Generally speaking his theological writings exhibited the influence of the Frankish idea of royalty. He does not seem to have been deeply versed in the teaching and the writings of the Fathers on the Incarnation and Death of Christ. This is evident from the story he tells of a discussion he had one day in the presence of King Chilperic with a Jewish merchant. The Jew had questioned the possibility of the fact of the Incarnation and Death of Jesus, and Gregory, without making a direct reply, went on to assert that the Incarnation and Death of the Son of God were necessary, seeing that guilty man was in the power of the Devil and could only be saved by an incarnate God. The Jew, pretending to be convinced, made answer: "But where was the necessity for God to suffer in order to redeem man?" Gregory reminded him that sin was an offence, and that the death of Jesus was the only means of placating God. The Jew in turn asked why God could not have sent a prophet or an apostle to win mankind back to the path of salvation, rather than humble Himself by taking human flesh. Gregory could only reply by lamenting the incredulity of those who would not believe the prophets, and who put those who preached penance to death. And so the Jew remained unanswered. This controversy displays Gregory's lack of dialectical and theological skill.

H. LECLERCQ

St. Gregory of Utrecht

Abbot; b. about 707 or 708; d. 775 or 780. Gregory was born of a noble family at Trier. His father Alberic was the son of Addula, who, as widow, was Abbess of Pfalzel (Palatiolum) near Trier. On account of the similarity of names, and in consequence of a forged last will, Addula has been frequently confounded with Adala (Adela), daughter of Dagobert II of Austrasia--thus falsely making Gregory a scion of the royal house of the Merovingians. He received his early education at Pfalzel. When, in 722, St. Boniface passed through Trier on his way from Frisia to Hessia and Thuringia, he rested at this convent. Gregory was called upon to read the Sacred Scriptures at the meals. St. Boniface gave an explanation and dwelt upon the merits of an apostolic life, in such warm and convincing terms that the heart of Gregory was filled with enthusiasm. He announced his intention of going with St. Boniface and nothing could move him from his resolution. He now became the disciple and in time the helper of the great Apostle of Germany, sharing his hardships and labours, accompanying him in all his missionary tours, and learning from the saint the secret of sanctity. In 738 St. Boniface made his third journey to Rome; Gregory went with him and brought back many valuable additions for his library. About 750 Gregory was made Abbot of St. Martin's, in Utrecht. In 744 St. Willibrord, the first Bishop of Utrecht, had died but had received no successor. St. Boniface had taken charge and had appointed an administrator. In 754 he started on his last missionary trip and took with him the administrator, St. Eoban, who was to share his crown of martyrdom. After this Pope Stephen II (III) and Pepin ordered Gregory to look after the diocese. For this reason some (even the Mart. Rom.) call him bishop, though he never received episcopal consecration. The school of his abbey, a kind of missionary seminary, was now a centre of piety and learning. Students flocked to it from all sides: Franks, Frisians, Saxons, even Bavarians and Swabians. England, though it had splendid schools of its own, sent scholars. Among his disciples St. Liudger is best known. He became the first Bishop of Munster later, and wrote the life of Gregory. In it (Acta SS., Aug., V, 240) he extols the virtues of Gregory, his contempt of riches, his sobriety, his forgiving spirit and his almsdeeds. Some three years before Gregory's death, a lameness attacked his left side and gradually spread over his entire body. At the approach of death he had himself carried into church and there breathed his last. His relics were religiously kept at Utrecht, and in 1421 and 1597 were examined at episcopal visitations. A large portion of his head is in the church of St. Amelberga at Sustern, where an official recognition took place 25 Sept., 1885, by the Bishop of Roermond (Anal. Boll., V, 162). A letter written by St. Lullus, Bishop of Mainz, to St. Gregory is still extant (P.L., XCVI, 821).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Gregory of Valencia

Professor of the University of Ingolstadt, b. at Medina, Spain, March, 1550 (1540, 1551?); d. at Naples, 25 April, 1603. The "Annales Ingolstadiensis Academiae" formally announce in 1598: "During the current year the faculty of theology lost a celebrated man and a veteran teacher, Gregory of Valencia, who left Ingolstadt 14 Feb.; the General of the Society of Jesus had summoned him to Rome to take part in the discussions concerning grace which were to be held in presence of the pope. When Duke Maximilian heard of this he requested Gregory to travel to Italy by way of Munich, where supplied him with horses, servants, and money for the journey, thus showing his high regard for the man who, during twenty-four years, had rendered such important services to the university, to Bavaria, and to the Catholic cause in general." In its tribute to him the theological faculty has this statement: "Gregory of Valencia, S.J. a native of Medina, Spain, and doctor of theology, was sent by his superiors to Rome in 1598. He was a peer among the learned theologians of his time; Paris was eager to secure him as was also Stephen, King of Poland; he was an ornament to our university in which he spent twenty-four years; for sixteen years as professor of theology he gave general satisfaction and contributed to the progress of science. In the controvesies of the day, he took a prominent part, combating error, and always with success, by means of his polemical writings. His work in four volumes, covering the whole field of scholastic theology at Rome for a number of years and held the position of prefect of studies in the Roman College until, broken in health through incessant work, he died at Naples, at the age of fifty-four years. Pope Clement VIII honoured him with the significant title of Doctor doctorum.

If this estimate of his age (54) be correct -- and it coincides with the necrology of the Neapolitan province of the Society of Jesus -- it would follow, since March is givn as the month of his birth, that he was born in March, 1550. Southwell in his "Biblioth. scriptorum S.J." says he was born in 1551, but he also states in two different places, "mortuus, anno aetatis 63" from which it would appear that Gregory was born in 1541. The date of his reception into the Society of Jesus, however is known. In 1565 Gregory was at Salamanca studying philosophy and jurisprudence. Attracted by the preaching of Father Ramirez, S.J. he sought admission into the recently founded Society of Jesus, and entered the novitiate 25 November of the same year under the guidance of Father Balthasar Alvarez, one of the spiritual directors of St. Teresa. After finishing his studies, but not yet ordained he was called in 1571 by St. Francis Borgia, superior general of the order, to teach philosophy in Rome. There he was ordained a priest. In a short time his intellectual attianments and his abilit as a teacher attracted such widespread attention that after the death of St. Francis Borgia and the election of his successor, Mercurian, the provincials of France and North Germany tried to secure Gregory for university work while the King of Poland desired his services for that country. He was ultimately affiliated with the German province and appointed by the provincial, Father Hoffaus, to the chair of theology at Dillingen, whence, two years later, he was transferred to a similar position at Ingolstadt. Here he remained seventeen years (1575-1592) teaching scholastic theology, during fifteen of which he was rector of studies.

This period was marked by intense religious ferment. Not only did the anti-Catholic movement started in that century continue, but the conflict among the various sectarian leaders, especially after Luther's death, became sharper. Lectures on theology had to be adapted to the altered circumstances of the times both in defence of Catholic dogma and in refutation of numerous errors. That Gregory realized the need of this course is evident from the dissertations produced under his direction and the disputations that were held by candidates for the doctor's degree at Ingolstadt. But what he chiefly aimed at was the positive construction of Catholic doctrine, as he shows in his commentary on the "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas which contains the substance of the lectures he delivered during many years. After resigning his professorship at Ingolstadt, he devoted most of his time (1592-97) to the revision and publication of these lectures. They appeared under the title "Commentariorum theologicorum tomi quatutor"; the first volume was published at Ingolstadt (1591); a second edition of this appeared in 1592 together with the second volume; the third was published in 1595, the fourth in 1597. After another revisiion by the author they were republished in 1603, and again in 1611 after the author's death. Other editions appeared at Venice, 1600-08; Lyons, 1600-03-09-12. It was one of the first comprehensive theological works produced among the Jesuits. These editions brought out in such rapid succession attest the high rank occupied by this work in contemporaneous theological leterature. Its distincitve features are clearness, comprehensivesness, and depth in the treatment both of speculative and moral subjects.

His duties as professor, however, had not hindered him from publishing many polemical essays. These were directed principally against Jakob Heerbrand, who was a professor at Tübingen and a zealous adherent of Luther. The catalogue of the "Ingolstadter Annalen" (Mederer, II, 156) enumerates eight publications of this sort. Their principal purpose was to defend the veneration of the saints and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, e.g. "Apologeticus de Idololatria, adversus impium libellum Jacobi Herbrandi etc." (Ingolstadt, 1579); an enlarged edition was published in 1580. In the same year he published "De sacrosancto Missae sacrificio contra impiam disputationem Tubingae nuper a Jac. Herbrando propositam etc.", which was followed by the "Apologia de SS. Missae sacrificio" (Ingolstadt, 1581). Later he edited his polemical writings on the Blessed Sacrament, attacking the ubiquity theory of the Lutheran champion Jacob Schmidelin and the teachings of the Calvinists Crell and Sadeel (surnamed Chandieu) concerning the Sommervogel (in the Bibliothèque de la Comp. de J.) enumerates forty polemical pamphlets written by Gregory, many of which, however, are only compilations of various theses which formed the basis of disputations for the doctorate. In 1591 he published at Lyons a collective volume of his controversial writings with a preface (dated 4 Sept., 1590) saying that in response to the demand for his polemical writings he had collected, revised, added some later treatises, arranged the whole in a certain logical order and put them at the disposal of his publisher at Lyons, that place being the most likely centre for the purpose of distribution. After Gregory's death, this volume was republished (Paris, 1610) with over one hundred additional pages (unnumbered) of indexes. It was entitled: "De rebus fidei hoc tempore controversis". its weightiest and most comprehensive treatise is without a doubt, the "Analysis Fidei Catholica" which had been published first in 1585. This is a methodical demonstration that the true Christian faith is founded solely in the Roman Church, and that union with the pope is the only guarantee of right belief. As a demonstratio catholica, it retains its value to the present day.

It is worthy of note that the last two volumes culminated in the proof of papal infallibility. In fact some of Gregory's theses not only foreshadow but express wellnigh literally the dogmatic definition of the Vatican Council in 1870, e.g. "In the Roman Pontiff himself is vested the authority which the Church possesses to pass judgment in all controversies regarding matters of faith. Whensoever the Roman pontiff makes use of his authority in defining matters of faith, all the faithful are bound by Divine precept to accept as doctrine of faith that which he so defines. And they must further believe that he is using this authority whensoever, either in his own right or in union with a council of bishops, he decides upon controverted matters of faith in such wise as to make the decision binding upon the whole Church". Gregory also became a leading factor in other discussions, for instance, the theologico-economical questions of the so-called "five per cent contract" which caused consciences astray. Even then the modern capitalistic system was nascent, though economic conditions had not yet reached the stage where money to any amount could be profitably invested and interest rightfully demanded on loans simply as such. The Church remained firm in its stand against usury, and insisted that if interest were to be charged it should be put on some other basis than the mere fact of borrowing and lending. But as in passing upon the validity of different additional titles varying degrees of strictness were exercized, there resulted serious and even extreme differences in the direction of souls and in the practice of the confessional; the bishops themselves contradicted one another in their decrees on this subject; and meantime the five percent contract became the general custom.

During the last decades of the sixteenth century, confusion in matters of conscience was widespread, especially in Bavaria. Duke William of Bavaria, who was personally in favour of strictly enforcing the law, called on the University of Ingolstadt for a ruling and eventually besought the Holy See to settle the question. In both the decisions Gregory played a conspicuous part. He sought to have the practice of taking interest declared lawful on the basis of the so called contractus trinus and of a rental-purchase agreement which either party was free to terminate. (The latter arrangement had been devised and quite generally resorted to during the Middle Ages as a method of lending money without contravening the laws in regard to interest. It grew out of the earlier practice whereby the creditor acquired both possession and use of the property which secured the loan. By a later modification, the borrower retained possession and use, but ceded to the lender a real right in the property. Finally, the system here referred to was introduced, the creditor was entitled to an income from the property which, however, still belonged to the borrower; the lender purchased the rental. Originally such agreements were binding in perpetuity; but in course of time they were so framed that the parties might withdraw under mutually accepted conditions). He argued that contracts surrounded by such provisions were not contrary to natural law and were therefore permissible in all cases where no positive law forbade them. He also advocated these views as collaborator in the opinion which a theological commission, by order of Gregory XIII, elaborated in 1581. It was in connection with this matter that Gregory's superiors sent him to Rome, where his personal acquaintance with conditions in Germany would enable him to state all the more accurately the question at issue and its significance. On other matters of importance also he was consulted by the Duke of Bavaria and by his own superiors in the society. In the witchcraft question Gregory unfortunately did not have the grasp of the situation subsequently shown by Friedrich von Spee of the same society. Sorcery he thought was a frequently occuring fact; hence in the opinion which he expressed in 1590, he aimed, not to set aside the juridical procedure then in vogue, but simply to temper the undue severity of its application. Still it was unjust to reproach him for the statement (Commentarii, div. III, col. 200S, sqq.), that where the guilt (of sorcery) is legally established the judge must inflict penalty even though he were personally convinced of the nullity of the charge.

In this matter Gregory only followed the then prevalent teaching taken from St. Thomas Aquinas, viz. that a judge's personality and private knowledge should not be allowed to affect his official decisions; in the special case of witchcraft Gregory could not consistently make an exception. This opinion indeed is controverted; it seems to grate on natural feeling; but this apparent harshness vanishes when we further consider what is laid down by the adherents of this view, especially Gregory, in their treatment of the more general question, namely that a judge is under grave obligations to make all possible use of his private knowledge towards securing the acquittal of the accused person, and if needs be to refer the case to a higher court or to endorse and support a well-grounded plea for clemency. That Gregory meant this principle to apply in the case of condemnation for sorcery is quite obvious; moreover, in the very passage for which he is criticzed (III, 2009), he refers to an earlier part of his work (III, 1380) in which he discusses the duties of a judge. In 1592 Gregory resigned as professor at Inglostadt to devote himself more fully to the editing of his "Commentarii theologici". In 1598 he was sent to Rome to teach scholastic theology. A more important work, however, awaited him there; the vindication of the Society's teaching on grace. A book by Molina (d. 1600) entitled "De Concorida liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis etc." had created a stir. On many points in which it set forth essentially the Society's doctrine regarding grace, it was suspected of heresy and was formally denounced by the Dominicans. Pope Clement VIII ordered both parties to debate the matter publicly before him and the College of Cardinals. Acquaviva, the General of the Jesuits, selected Gregory as champion of the Molinistic doctrine.

At the first public disputation, 20 March, 1602, Gregory had to prove that Molina had not deviated from St. Augustine's teaching by any undue extension of man's freedom. He maintained his position so ably against the objections of Father Didacus Alvarez, O.P., that friend and opponent alike awarded him the palm. Then the method of debate was changed. Isolated statements taken from Molina's book had to be compared with similar passages all through the works of St. Augustine. It turned out to be a laborious and seemingly endless undertaking. The second debate was not held until 8 July. Tomas de Lemos was selected to represent the Dominicans in this and in most of the subsequent debated (9 July, 22 July, etc.). The ninth occurred 30 Sept. Gregory's bodily strength, already reduced by illness and mental strain, gave way at the close of this debate, although the pope, contrary to custom, had permitted him to remain seated during his discourses. He was sent to Naples in the hope that his health would be restored and the debates were discontinued for a month and a half, the pope having expressed the wish that Gregory would be able to continue the defence. Only when this seemed hopeless were the public discussions resumed. Pedro Arrubal was then selected to take Valencia's place. The assertion that Gregory had tampered with certain texts of St. Augustine and had fainted when the pope charged him with it, is as mythical as the rumour that the Jesuits poisoned Clement VIII for fear lest he should pronounce their doctrine heretical.

MEDERER, Annales Ingolstadiensis Academiae (Ingolstadt, 1782); SOUTHWELL, Bibliotheca scriptorum S.J. (Rome, 1676); ELEUTHERIUS (MEYER), Historiae controversiarum de Auriliis (Antwerp, 1705); SOMMERVOGEL, bibliotheque de la Comp. de Jesus (Brussels and Paris, 1898); WERNER, Geschichte der kath. Theologie seit dem Trienter concil (Munich, 1866); HURTER, Nomenclator; DUHR, Geischichte der Jesuiten in den Landern deutscher Zunge im 16. Jahrh (Freiburg im Br., 1907).

AUG. LEHMKUHL.

Gregory the Illuminator

Born 257?; died 337?, surnamed the Illuminator (Lusavorich).

Gregory the Illuminator is the apostle, national saint, and patron of Armenia. He was not the first who introduced Christianity into that country. The Armenians maintain that the faith was preached there by the Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddaeus. Thaddaeus especially (the hero of the story of King Abgar of Edessa and the portrait of Christ) has been taken over by the Armenians, with the whole story. Abgar in their version becomes a King of Armenia; thus their land is the first of all to turn Christian. It is certain that there were Christians, even bishops, in Armenia before St. Gregory. The south Edessa and Nisibis especially, which accounts for the Armenian adoption of the Edessene story. A certain Dionysius of Alexandria (248-265) wrote them a letter "about penitence" (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xlvi). This earliest Church was then destroyed by the Persians. Ardashir I, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty (226), restored, even extended, the old power of Persia. Armenia, always the exposed frontier state between Rome and Persia, was overrun by Ardashir's army (Khosrov I of Armenia had taken the side of the old Arsacid dynasty); and the principle of uniformity in the Mazdean religion, that the Sassanids made a chief feature of their policy, was also applied to the subject kingdom. A Parthian named Anak murdered Khosrov by Ardashir's orders, who then tried to exterminate the whole Armenian royal family. But a son of Khosrov, Trdat (Tiridates), escaped was trained in the Roman army, and eventually came back to drive out the persians and restore the Armenian kingdom.

In this restoration St. Gregory played an important part. He had been brought up as a Christian at Caesarea in Cappadocia. He seems to have belonged to an illustrious Armenian family. He was married and had two sons (called Aristakes and Bardanes in the Greek text of Moses of Kkhorni; see below). Gregory, after being himself persecuted by King Trdat, who at first defended the old Armenian religion, eventually converted him, and with him spread the Christian faith throughout the country. Trdat became so much a Christian that he made Christianity the national faith; the nobility seem to have followed his example easily, then the people followed -- or were induced to follow -- too. This happened while Diocletian was emperor (284-305), so that Armenia has a right to her claim of being the first Christian State. The temples were made into churches and the people baptized in thousands. So completely were the remains of the old heathendom effaced that we know practically nothing about the original Armenian religion (as distinct from Mazdeism), except the names of some gods whose temples were destroyed or converted (the chief temple at Ashtishat was dedicated to Vahagn, Anahit and Astlik; Vanatur was worshipped in the North round Mount Ararat, etc.). Meanwhile Gregory had gone back to Caessarea to be ordained. Leontius of Caesarea made him bishop of the Armenians; from this time till the Monophysite schism the Church of Armenia depended on Casearea, and the Armenian primates (called Catholicoi, only much later patriarchs) went there to be ordained. Gregory set up other bishops throughout the land and fixed his residence at Ashtishat (in the province of Taron), where the temple had been made into the church of Christ, "mother of all Armenian churches". He preached in the national language and used it for the liturgy. This, too, helped to give the Armenian Church the markedly national character that it still has, more, perhaps, than any other in Christendom. Towards the end of his life he retired and was succeeded as Catholicos by his son Aristakes. Aristakes was present at the First General Council, in 325. Gregory died and was buried at Thortan. A monastery was built near his grave. His relics were afterwards taken to Constantinople, but apparently brough back again to Armenia. Part of these relics are said to have been taken to Naples during the Iconoclast troubles.

This is what can be said with some certainty about the Apostle of Armenia; but a famous life of him by Aganthangelos (see below) embellishes the narrative with wonderful stories that need not be taken very seriously. According to this life, he was the son of the Parthian Anak who had murdered King Khosrov I. Anak in trying to escape was drowned in the Araxes with all his family except two sons, of whom one went to Persia, the other (the subject of this article) was taken by his Christian nurse to Caesarea and there baptized Gregory, in accordance with what she had been told in vision. Soon after his marriage, Gregory parted from his wife (who became a nun) and came back to Armenia. Here he refused to take part in a great sacrifice to the national gods ordered by King Trdat, and declared himself a Christian. He was then tortured in various horrible ways, all the more when the king discovered that he was the son of his father's murderer. After being subjected to a variety of tortures (they scourged him, and put his head in a bag of ashes, poured molten lead over him, etc.) he was thrown into a pit full of dead bodies, poisonous filth, and serpents. He spent fifteen years in this pit, being fed by bread that a pious widow brought him daily. Meanwhile Trdat goes from bad to worse. A holy virgin named Rhipsime, who resists the king's advances and is martyred, here plays a great part in the story. Evenetually, as a punishment for his wickedness, the king is turned into a boar and possessed by a devil. A vision now reveals to the monarch's sisters that nothing can save him but the prayers of Gregory. At first no one will attend to this revelation, since they all think Gregory dead long ago. Eventually they seek and find him in the pit. He comes out, exorcizes the evil spirit and restores the king, and then begins preaching. Here a long discourse is put into the saint's mouth -- so long that it takes up more than half his life. It is simply a compendium of what the Armenian Church believed at the time that it was written (fifth century). It begins with an account of Bible history and goes on to dogmatic theology. Arianism, Nestorianism and all the other heresies up to Monophysite times are refuted. The discourse bears the stamp of the latter half of the fifth century so plainly that, even without the fact that earlier writers who quote Agathangelos (Moses of Khorni, etc.) do not know it, no one could doubt that it is the composition of an Armenian theologian of that time, inserted into the life that was already full enough of wonders. Nevertheles this "Confession of Gregory the Illuminator" was accepted as authentic and used as a kind of official creed by the Armenian Church during all the centuries that followed. Even now it is only the more liberal theologians among them who dispute its genuiness.

The life goes on to tell us of Gregory's fast of seventy days that followed his rescue from the pit, of the conversion, and of their journeys throughout the land with the army to put down paganism. The false gods fight against the army like men or devils, but are always defeated by Trdat's arms and Gregory's prayers and are eventually driven into the Caucasus. The story of the saint's ordination and of the establishment of the hierarchy is told with the same adornment. He baptized four million persons in seven days. He ordained and sent out twelve apostolic bishops, and sons of heathen priests. Eventually he ruled a church of four hundred bishops and priests too numerous to count. He and Trdat hear of Constantine's conversion; they set out with an army of 70,000 men to congratulate him. Constantine, who had just been baptized at Rome by Pope Silvester, forms an alliance with Trdat; the pope warmly welcomes Gregory (there are a number of forged letters between Silvester and Gregory, see below) -- and so on. It would not be difficult to find the models for all these stories. Gregory in the pit acts like Daniel in the lion's den. Trdat as a boar is Nabuchodonosor; the battles of the king's army against the heather and their gods have obvious precedents in the Old Testament. Gregory is now Elias, now Isaias, now John the Baptist, till his sending out his twelve apostles suggests a still greater model. The writer of the life calls himself Agathangelos, chamberlain or secretary of King Trdat. It was composed from vaious sources after the year 456 (see Gutschmid, below) in Armenian, though sources may have been partly Greek or Syriac (cf. Lagarde). The life was soon translated into Greek used by Symeon Metaphrastes, and further rendered into Latin in the tenth century. During the Middle Ages this life was the invariable source for the saint's history. The Armenians (Monophysites and Uniates) keep the feast of their apostle on 30 September, when his relics were deposed at Thortan. They have many other feasts to commemorate his birth (August 5), sufferings (February 4), going into the pit (February 28), coming out of the pit (October 19), etc. (Niles "Kalendarium Manuale", 2nd ed., Innsbruck 1897, II, 577). The Byzantine Church keeps his feast (Gregorios ho phoster) on 30 September, as do also the Syrians (Nilles, I, 290-292). Pope Gregory XVI, in September, 1837, admitted his namesake to the Reman Calendar; and appointed 1 October as his feast (among the festa pro aliquibus locis).

AGATHANGELOS'S Life of St. Gregory was published in Armenian by the MECHITARISTS at Venice, in 1835 (reprinted at Tiflis, in 1882); translated into french and Italian (Venice, 1843). the Greek text was edited by STILTING in the Acta SS., Sept. VIII, 320 sqq; and again by LAGARDE, Agathangelos in Alhandl. der Gottinger Gesellschaft (1889). See also GUTSCHMID, Agathangelos in Zeitschrift der Deutschen, Morgenland. Geselischaft (1877), I. MOSES OF KHORNI (MOYSES CHORENVENNIS) in his History of Aremnia (III books, VII or VIII cent., ed by the MERCHITARISTS, Venice, 1843; in French by LE VAILLANT DE FLORIVAL, Parish, 1847; italian by TOMMASEO, Venice 1850) uses Agathangelos. See GUTSCHMID, Moses von Chorene in his Kleine Schriften, III, 332 sqq.; and CARRIERE, Nouvelles sources de Moise de Kkhoren (Vienna, 1893). FAUSTUS OF BYZANTIUM (fifth century) tells the story of the conversion of Armenia (Aremnian tr., Venice, 1832); French by LANGLOIS, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Armenic (2 vols., Paris, 1867, 1869). I; German by LAUER (Cologne, 1879). GELZER, Die Anfange der armenischen Kirche in Sitzungsberichte der Gottinger Gesellschaft 91895), 109 sqq. THUMAIAN, Agathangelos et la doctrine de l'Eglise armenienne au V siècle (Lausanne, 1879). The so-called letters between Pope Silvester I and St. Gregory are printed in AZARIAN, Ecclesiae armeniae traditio de romani pontificis primatau (Rome, 1870).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

University of Greifswald

The oldest university of Prussia, founded in 1456. Even before this, Greifswald had, for a short time, been the seat of a university. In 1436, when on account of dissensions among the townspeople, the University of Rostock was placed under interdict by the Council of Basle, it was removed to Greifswald with the consent of the same council, where it remained for seven years. After the return of the university to Rostock, six professors remained at Greifswald, whereupon the burgomaster, Heinrich Rubenow, hismself a doctor of laws and a member of one of the most influential and aristocratic families of the city, conceived the idea of establishing a university in his native city. Pope Callistus III issued the Bull of foundation on 29 May, 1456, and on 17 October the dedication the new university took place, Rubenow, as vice-chancellor and first rector, admitting 173 students to matriculation. The bishop of Kammin was chancellor of the university, for the support of which Duke Wratislaw, IX, of Pomerania and his successors set apart, in addition to certain sums of money, the revenues from certain villages and monasteries. He and Rubenow also established, in connection with the church of St. Nicholas, a college of canons, the members of which were at the same time teachers in the university. During the first years the Greifswald professors were frequently drawn from Rostock and Leipzig, and among them, as among the students, were many Danes and Swedes. At the instance of the Greifswald council, the preacher Johann Knipstro proclaimed the reformed dectrines in the city. Duke Philipp I, who being the son of Palatine Princes Amalie, had been educated at the court of Heidelberg, in 1534 introduced the Reformation into his territories, thus becoming the founder of the Lutheran Church in Pomerania. The confusion and dissensions of these years affected the university seriously; for twelve years the lectures were entirely suspended. They were resumed in 1539, under the auspices of the Reformers, with one professor for each of the three upper faculties, the university being established in the suppressed Dominican monastery.

Philipp I and his sons, in compensation for its property which had been turned over to the Reformed Church, endowed the university with the land of suppressed monasteries. During the Thirty Years War the city and University of Greifswald suffered severely. In 1562 the last Duke of Pomerania, who was without issue, settled on the university as patrimony the former Cistercian Abbey of Eldena, with all its estates, including about twenty villages, in order that the arrears of salary might be paid to the professors, and their future provided for. Although this monastic property was in a sadly neglected condition and heavily burdened with debt, the ten professors accepted the royal gift, which, however, did not yield sufficient revenue to maintain the professors until after the war with Norway and Sweden. When, in 1637, Pomerania was annexed to Sweden of which it remained a possession after the Peace of Westphalia, 1648, Queen Christine repeatedly assisted the Greifswald professors from the royal treasury. During the war between Brandenburg and Sweden, and likewise during the Northern War, the university suffered frequent and serious injury, its property was confiscated and the university was almost deserted. Not until after the Peace of Stockholm (1720) was order restored. In 1730 the foundation of the Society for the Collection and Investigation of National History and Law (Gesellschaft zur Sammlung und Erforschung für die Landesgeschichte und das Landesrecht) and the German Language and German Poetry (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur die Veredulung der deutschen Sprache und Dichtung) occasioned lively literary activity.

In 1775 Gustavus III imposed on the university a new constitution affecting the organization of the teaching body, the several institutions of learning, the administration of its property, and laws governing the student body. By the second Peace of Vienna, in 1815, Swedish Pomerania was ceded to the Kingdom of Prussia, and the University of Greifswald, which had suffered greatly during the Napoleonic wars, gradually became a highly respected school for science, especially for medicine and positive theology. The institutions connected with the university were at the same time improved and enlarged, and many new ones were founded and organized along the most approved lines, e.g. the zoological, anatomical, and physiological institutes, the botanical garden, the institutes of chemistry and physics, the library, and the clinics. In the exhibition of modern lecture-halls, operating rooms, and equipment, at the World's Fair of St. Louis the surgical and woman's clinic of Greifswald received one of the five grand prizes that went to Germany. The increase in the revenues of the estates belonging to the university helped greatly to defray the expenses of the new institutions. The forest land alone yields an annual income of approximately twenty-five thousand dollars, and the rentals over a hundred thousand dollars. During the scholastic year 1908-09, 786 students attended the university. Of late years the competition of Kiel and Münster and of the universities established in the larger cities has so affected Greifswald that now the number of students enrolled is less than at any other Prussian university.

KOSEGARTEN, Geschichte der Universitat Greifswald (Greifswald, 1857); Die Matrikel der Universitat Greifswald (until 1700) (Leipzig, 1893).

KARL HOEBER

Karl Johann Greith

Bishop and church historian, b. at Rapperswyl, Switzerland, 25 May, 1897; d. at St. Gall, 17 May, 1882. He received his early education at St. Gall, then went to the lyceum at Lucerne and the University of Munich; at the university he studied theology, philosophy, and history, and was fortunate enough to meet with the fatherly protection of the famous Joseph von Gorres. In 1829 he went to Paris to perfect himself in library work; while there he decided to enter the priesthood and completed his theological studies in the Sulpician seminary of that city. He was ordained priest in 1831, and was made sub-librarian of St. Gall, also sub-regent and professor of the ecclesiastical seminary. During the ecclesiastico-political troubles which soon after distracted his fatherland, Greith was prominent with pen and voice in defence of the Catholic Church. He was, consequently, deprived of his offices, wherefore he went to Rome, at the instance of the English Government, for the purpose of collecting documents in the Roman libraries and archives relating to English history. After the restoration of peace he devoted himself to parochial work in St. Gall, was made dean of the cathedral in 1847, professor of philosophy in 1853, and was consecrated Bishop of St. Gall in 1862. From early youth he had been an intimate friend of Döllinger, and at the Vatican Council he held, in regard to the question of Papal Infallibility, that a dogmatic decision was unadvisable under existing circumstances. However, he accepted loyally the decision of the Council and used all his influence to induce Döllinger to do the same. Greith was a strong champion of ecclesiastical interests and continually defended the Church against the encroachments of the civil power. He could not prevent the suppression of his seminary for boys nor hinder the civil prohibition of missions and retreats; nevertheless he renewed the religious life of his diocese and called into being an educated clergy. He devoted himself with zeal to the study of history and corresponded with numerous scholars, among others Lasaberg, Pertz, Böhmer, Franz Pfeiffer, Schosser, Mone, Gall Morel, and others. His numerous ecclesiastico-political writings were only of transient importance, though they bear witness to his thoroughly Catholic sentiments. As an orator he was not infrequently called the Bossuet of Switzerland. In his sermons and pastoral letters he laid great stress on the greatness and majesty of God as exhibited in the Redemption and in the founding and continuous activity of the Catholic Church. He published: "Katholische Apologetik in Kanzelreden" in three volumes (Schaffhausen, 1847-52); he also wrote, in collaboration with the Benedictine Georg Ulber, "Handbuch der Philosophie fur die Schule und das Leben" (Frieburg, 1853-57). Greith had no sympathy with Scholastic philosophy and esteemed too highly Descarted and Leibnitz. His best and most lasting work was done in history. Among his historical publications were: "Spicilegium Vaticanum, Beiträge zur näheren Kenntniss der vatikanischen Bibliothek für deutsche Poesie des Mittelalters" (Frauenfeld, 1838); "Die deutsche Mystik im Predigerorden" (Freiburg, 1861); "Der heilge Gallus (St. Gall, 1864); "Die heiligen Glauensboten Columban und Gall (St. Gall, 1865); "Geschichte der altirischen Kirche und ihrer Verbindung mit Rom, Gallien und Alemannien, 430-630 (Freiburg, 1867). This last work is his chief literary monument and still retains its value as an exhaustive study of the foreign relations of the early Irish Church, especially its relations with Rome and its missionary work.

BAUMGARTNER, Erinnerungen an Karl Johann Greith in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XXIV, XXVI; ROTHENFLUE in Historisch-politische Blatter, XC, gives a bibliography of Greith's occsional addresses, sermons, Lenten and pastoral letters.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Gremiale

A square or oblong cloth which the bishop, according to the "Cæremoniale" and " Pontificale", should wear over his lap, when seated on the throne during the singing of the Kyrie, Gloria, and Credo by the choir, during the distribution of blessed candles, palms or ashes, and also during the anointments in connection with Holy orders. The gremiale is never used during pontifical Vespers. The primary object of the gremiale is to prevent the soiling of the other vestments, especially the chasuble. The gremiale used during the pontifical Mass is made of silk. It should be decorated by a cross in the centre, and trimmed with silk embroidery. Its colour must correspond with the colour of the chasuable. The gremiales used at other functions are made of linen, to facilitate their cleansing in case they be soiled. Little is known of its history; apparently its origin dates back to the later Middle Ages. The Roman Ordo of Gaetano Stefaneschi (c. 1311) mention it first (n. 48); soon after it is mentioned in the statutes of Grandison of Exeter (England) as early as 1339, In earlier times it was used not only any bishop but also by priests. It is not blessed and has no symbolical meaning.

BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Traité pratique de la construction . . . des églises, II (Paris, 1878), app.; DE HERDT. Praxis pontificalis, I (Louvain, 1873); BOCK, Geschichtes der liturgischen Gew nder, III (Bonn, 1871).

JOSEPH BRAUN

Grenoble

DIOCESE OF GRENOBLE (GRATIANOPOLITANA)

Now comprises the Department of Isère and the Canton of Villeurbanne (Rhône). The ancient diocese was a suffragan of Vienne and included the Deanery of see at Savoy, which in 1779, was made a bishopric with the see at Chambéry. By the Concordat, the Bishop of Grenoble was made a suffragan of the Archbishop of Lyons, thirteen archipresbyterates of the former Diocese of Vienne were affiliated to the Diocese of Grenoble, and there were annexes to it some parishes in the Dioceses of Belley, Gap, Lyons, and Die.

Domninus, the first Bishop of Grenoble known to history, attended the Council of Aquileia in 381. Among his successors are mentioned: St. Ceratus (441-52), celebrated in legend for his controversies against Arianism; St. Ferjus (Ferreolus) (at the end of the seventh century), who, according to tradition, was killed by a pagan while preaching; St. Hugh (1080-1132), noted for his zeal in carrying out Gregory VII's orders concerning reform and for his opposition to Guy of Burgundy, Bishop of Vienne, and subsequently pope under the title of Callistus II; Pierre Scarron (1621-1667), who, with the co-operation of many religious orders, restored Catholicism in Dauphiné; Cardinal Le Camus (1671-1707), organizer of charitable loan associations; Jean de Caulet (1726-1771), who brought about general acceptance of the Bull "Unigenitus", whose collection of books was the nucleus of the public library of the city, and during whose episcopate Bridaine, the preacher, after delivering a sermon on almsgiving went through the streets of the city with wagons and was unable to gather all the donations of linen, furniture and clothing that were offered. The Benedictines and Augustinians founded at an early date numerous priories in the diocese, that of Vizille dating from 994, but during St. Hugh's episcopal administration, monastic life attained a fuller development. The chapter-abbey of Saint-Martin de Miséré, whence originated many Augustinian priories, and the school of the priory of Villard Benoît at Pontcharra were important during twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But the peculiar monastic foundation of Dauphiné, contemporaneous with St. Hugh's regime, was that of the Carthusians under St. Bruno in 1084. The Frères du Saint-Esprit, who during the Middle Ages were scattered broadcast through the Diocese of Grenoble, did much to inculcate among the people habits of mutual assistance. The two sojourns at Grenoble in 1598 and 1600 respectively by Cotton, the Jesuit, later confessor to Henry IV, were prolific of some notable conversions from Protestantism; in memory of this the Constable de Lesdiguières, himself a convert in 1622, favoured the founding at Grenoble of a celebrated Jesuit house. In 1651 a college was established in connexion with the residence, and here Vaucanson, the well-known mechanician, studied. In 1700 the institution included theological courses in its curriculum. From the first half of the thirteenth century the French branch of the Waldenses had its chief seat in Dauphiné, from which country emanated Guillaume Farel, the most captivating preacher of the French Reformation. Pierre de Sébiville, an apostate Franciscan friar, introduced Protestantism into Grenoble in 1522. The diocese was sorely tried by the wars of religion, especially in 1562, when the cruel Baron des Andrets acted as the Prince de Condés lieutenant-general in Dauphiné. Pius VI, when taken a prisoner to France, spent two days at Grenoble in 1799. Pius VII, in turn was kept in close confinement in the prefecture of Grenoble from 21 July until 2 August, 1808, Bishop Simon not being permitted even to visit him.

The following saints may be mentioned as natives of what constitutes the present Diocese of Grenoble: St. Amatus, the anchorite (sixth century), founder of the Abbey of Remiremont, and St. Peter, Archbishop of Tarantaise (1102-1174), a Cistercian, born in the Ancient Archdiocese of Vienne. Moreover, it was in the chapel of the superior ecclesiastical seminary of Grenoble that J.-B. Vianney, the future Curé of Ars, was ordained a priest, 13 August, 1815. The Bishopric of Grenoble is in possession of an almost complete account of the pastoral visits made between 1339 and 1970, a palæographical record perhaps unique of its kind in France.

Archbishopric of Vienne

The legend according to which Crescens, the first Bishop of Vienne, is identical with the Crescens of II Tim., iv, 20 certainly postdates the letter of Pope Zosimus to the Church of Arles (417) and the letter of the bishops of Gaul in 451; because, although both these documents allude to the claims to glory which Arles owes to St. Trophimus, neither of them mentions Crescens. Archbishop Ado, of Vienne, (860-75) set afoot this legend of the Apostolic origin of the See of Vienne and put down St. Zachary, St. Martin, and St. Verus, later successors of Crescens, as belonging to the Apostolic period. This legend was confirmed by the "Recueil des privilèges de l'Eglise de Viene", which, however, was not compiled under the supervision of the future Pope Callistus II, as M. Gundlach has maintained, but a little earlier date, about 1060, as Mgr. Duchesne has proved. This collection contains the pretended letters of a series of popes, from Pius I to Paschal II, and sustains the claims of the Church of Vienne. "Le Livre épiscopal de l'archevêque Léger" (1030-1070) included both the inventions of Ado and the forged letters of the "Recueil".

It is historically certain that Verus, present at the Council of Arles in 314, was the fourth Bishop of Vienne. In the beginning the twelve cities of the two Viennese provinces were under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Vienne, but when Arles was made an archbishopric, at the end of the fourth century, the See of Vienne grew less important. The disputes that later arose between it and the See of Arles concerning their respective antiquity are well-known in ecclesiastical history. In 450 Leo I gave the Archbishop, or Vienne the right to ordain the Bishop of Tarantaise, Valance, Geneva, and Grenoble. Many vicissitudes followed, and the territorial limit of the powers of Metropolitan of Vienne followed the wavering frontier of the Kingdom of Burgundy and in 779, was considerably restricted by the organization of a new ecclesiastical province comprising Tarantaise, Aosta, and Sion. In 1120 Callistus II, who was Bishop of Vienne under the name of Guy of Burgundy, decided that the Archbishop of Vienne should have for suffragans the Bishops of Grenoble, Valence, Die, Viviers, Geneva, and Maurienne; that the Archbishop of Tarantaise should obey him, notwithstanding the fact that this archbishop himself had suffragans, that he should exercise the primacy over the provinces of Bourges, Narbonne, Bordeaux, Aix, Auch, and Embrun, and that, as the metropolitans of both provinces already bore the title of primate, the Archbishop of Vienne should be known as the "Primate of Primates". In 1023 the Archbishops of Vienne became lords paramount. They had the title of Count, and when in 1033 the Kingdom or Arles was reunited to the empire, they retained their independence and obtained from the empire the title of Archchancellors of the Kingdom or Arles (1157). Besides the four Bishops of Vienne heretofore mentioned, others are honoured as saints. In enumerating them we shall follow M. Duchesne's chronology: St. Justus, St. Dionysius, St. Paracodes, St. Florentius (about 374), St. Lupicinus, St. Simplicius (about 400), St. Paschasius, St. Nectarius, St. Nicetas (about 449), St. Mamertus (d. 475 or 476), who instituted the rogation days, whose brother Claudianus Mamertus was known as a theologian and poet, and during whose episcopate St. Leonianus held for forty years the post of grand penitentiary at Vienne; St. Avitus (494-5 Feb., 518), St. Julianus (about 520-533), St. Pantagathus (about 538), St. Namatius (d. 559), St. Evantius (d. 584-6), St. Verus (586), St. Desiderius (Didier) 596-611, St. Domnolus (about 614), St. Ætherius, St. Hecdicus, St. Chaoaldus (about 654-64), St. Bobolinus, St. Georgius, St. Deodatus, St. Blidrannus (about 680), St. Eoldus, St. Eobolinus, St. Barnardus (810-41), noted for his conspiracies in favour of the sons of Louis the Pious, St. Ado (860-875), author of a universal history and two martyrologies, St. Thibaud (end of the tenth century). Among its later bishops were Guy of Burgundy (1084-1119), who became pope under the title of Callistus II, Christophe de Beaumont, who occupied the See of Vienne for seven months of the year 1745 and afterwards became Archbishop of Paris, Jean Georges Le Franc de Pompignan (1774-90), brother of the poet and a great enemy of the "philosophers", and also d'Aviau (1790-1801), illustrious because of his strong opposition to the civil constitution of the clergy and the first of the emigré bishops to re-enter France (May, 1797), returning under an assumed name and at the peril of his life.

Michael Servetus was living in Vienne, whither he had been attracted by Archbishop Palmier, when Calvin denounced him to the Inquisition for his books. During the proceedings ordered by ecclesiastical authority of Vienne, Servetus fled to Switzerland (1553) In 1605 the Jesuits founded a college at Vienne, and here Massilon taught at the close of the seventeenth century. The churches of Saint-Pierre and Saint-André le Haut are ancient Benedictine foundations. (For the celebrated council held at Vienne in 1311 see TEMPLARS and VIENNE, COUNCIL OF.)

After the Concordat of 1801 the title of Vienne passed to the See of Lyons, whose titular was henceforth called "Archbishop of Lyons and Vienne," although Vienne belongs to the Diocese of Grenoble.

The principal places of pilgrimage in the present Diocese of Grenoble are: Notre-Dame de Parménie, near Rivers, re-established in the seventeenth century at the instance of a shepherdess; Notre-Dame de l'Osier, at Vinay, which dates from 1649 and Notre-Dame de la Salette, which owes its origin to the apparition of the Virgin, 19 September, 1846, to Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Mathieu, the devotion to Notre-Dame de la Salette being authorized by Bishop Bruillard, 1 May, 1852.

Before the enforcement of the law of 1901 there were in the Diocese of Grenoble Assumptionists, Olivétans, Capuchins, Regular Canons of the Immaculate Conception, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Fathers of Holy Ghost and the Holy Heart of Mary, Brothers of the Cross of Jesus, Brothers of the Holy Family, Brothers of the Christian Schools and Brothers of the Sacred Heart. The diocesan congregations of women were: the Sisters of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, devoted to hospital work and teaching, and founded by Cathiard, who, after having been an officer under Napoleon, died Archpriest of Pont de Beauvoisin; the Sisters of Providence, founded in 1841, devoted to hospital duty and teaching (mother-house at St. Marcellin), and the Sisters of Our Lady of the Cross, likewise devoted to hospital and educational work, founded in 1832 (mother-house at Murinais). Prior to the congregations law of 1901, the following institutions in the Diocese of Grenoble were in charge of religious orders: 65 infant schools, 1 asylum for incurable children, 2 asylums for deaf-mutes, 4 boys' orphanages, 8 girls' orphanages, 7 free industrial schools (ouvroirs), 2 houses of shelter, 33 hospitals, hospices, or private hospitals, 1 dispensary, and 18 houses for religious nurses caring for the sick in their homes. In 1905, when the Concordat ceased, the Diocese of Grenoble had a population of 601,940 souls, with 51 parishes, 530 succursales, and 87 curacies subventioned by the State.

II. UNIVERSITY OF GRENOBLE

Created by three Bulls of Benedict XII, 12 May, 27 May, and 30 September, 1339. On 25 July, 1339, the Dauphin Humbert II (the counts of Dauphiné bore the title of Dauphin) drew up a charter of the privileges granted to the students at Grenoble, promulgated measures to attract them, and stipulated that the university should give instruction in civil and canon law, medicine, and the arts. A curious ordinance issued 10 May, 1340 by Humbert II commanded the destruction of all the forges in the vicinity of Grenoble lest they should produce an irreparable famine of wood and charcoal. Humbert may have wished that life should be frugal where university was established. Finally on 1 August, 1340, he declared that the superior court of justice of Dauphiné (conseil delphinal), which he removed from Saint-Marcellin to Grenoble, should be composed of seven counsellors, four whom might be chosen from among the professors at Grenoble. Humbert's projects do not appear to have been completely realized. The university lacked resources, indeed arts and medicine were not taught, and even the chairs of law seem scarcely to have survived the reign of Humbert II. At all events, when Louis XI created the University of Valence in 1452, he declared that no institution of the kind existed at that time in Dauphiné. But in 1542 Francois de Bourbon, Count of Saint-Pol, great-uncle of Henry IV of France, and governor of Dauphiné, re-established the university. The Italian jurist Gribaldi, the Portuguese jurist Govea, and the French jurist Pierre Lorioz, called Loriol, attracted many students thither, but the orthodoxy of these professors was suspected. This was one of the reasons which, in April, 1565, led Charles IX to unite the University of Grenoble to that of Valence, for which in 1567 Bishop Montluc, well known as a diplomat and powerful at court, was able to obtain the noted jurist Cujas. The citizens of Grenoble protested and sent delegates to Paris, but the edict of union between the universities was strengthened by the circumstance that at the very time when Charles IX published his edict Govea and Loriol were compelled to institute a suite against the town of Grenoble in order to secure the payment of their arrears of salary. Equally ineffectual were the efforts for the renewal of the university frequently made by the town in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Napoleon I, on 1 November, 1805, re-established the faculty of law of Grenoble. Since 1896 the different faculties of Grenoble form the University of Grenoble.

I. DIOCESE: Gallia Christiana (Nova) (1866), XVI, 1-146; 217-264, instrumenta, 1-172; PRUDHOMME, Histoire de Grenoble (Grenoble, 1888); VERNET, Histore de Grenoble (3 vols., Grenoble, 1900-2); BELLET, Notes pour servir à la géographie et à l'histoire de l'ancien diociese de Grenoble Montbéliard, 1833); IDEM, De I'apostolicité de léglise de Vienne in Semaine Religieuse de Grenoble (1869-70); GUNDLACH, Der Streit der Bisth?mer Arles und Vienne (HANOVER, 1890); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, I, 84-206; Jules Chevalier, Mémoire sur les Héresies en Dauphiné (Valence, 1890); PRA, Les Jésuites à Grenoble (Lyons, 1901); COLLOMBET, Histoire de la sainte église de Vienne (4 vols., Vienne, 1847-48); MERMET, Chronique religieuse de la ville de Vienne (Vienne, 1856).

II. UNIVERSITY: MARCEL FOURNIER, Les statuts et privilèges des universités francaises, II (Paris, 1891), 723-28; PAUL FOURNIER, L'ancienne université de Grenoble; BUSQET, Documents relatifs à l'ancienne université in Livre du centenaire de la faculté de droit (Grenoble, 1906), 12-69, 115-261. GEORGES GOYAU.

Dietrich Gresemund

German humanist; b. in 1477, at Speyer; d. 1512, at Mainz. His father, also named Dietrich, was a native of Meschede in Westphalia, and was educated first at Erfurt, where he became magister, and subsequently in Italy. Having graduated in medicine at Speyer, he bacame court-physician and councillor to the Elector of Mainz, in which city young Dietrich grew up and attracted great attention at an early age by his learning and ability. As early as 1493 he became associated with Wimpfeling, Werner von Themar, and Abbot Trithemius, and in 1494 he published his first work. Even at that date Trithemius admitted him to his "Catalogus illustrium viroum" with warm eulogies, on the ground that the youth had far surpassed many men of mature age, including even doctors. Having received a thorough classical education from his father and attended lectures in dialectics at the University of Mainz, Dietrich studied law at Padua in 1495, and at Bologna in 1497. In 1498 he received the degree of doctor legum at Ferrara, and in 1499 he matriculated at Heidelberg. About 1501 he was in Rome to study antiquities, but soon had enough of the city, and wrote two very caustic epigrams upon Alexander VI. On his return to Mainz a succession of honours awaited him during the brief remnant of life that was allotted to him. In 1505 he became canon at St. Stephen's, in 1506 vicar-general, in 1508 prothonotary and judex generalis, in 1509 diffinitor cleri minoris at St. Stephen's, and in 1510 scholasticus in the same chapter. He was a sound and an upright judge, and led a pious, irreproachable life. He continued to apply himself to humanistic studies, cultivated as extensively friendly and literary intercourse, and was associated with the most renowned scholars of his day.

His first work was called "Lucubratiunculæ" (1494) and dedicated to Trithemius. The book is divided into three parts. The first of these, a dialogue in which is discussed the value of the seven liberal arts, met with special applause and was reprinted several times. It is worth remarking that this book contains the first plea from the Rhenish country for a reform in the teaching of grammar. His dialogue on the carnival deals with a humorous subject (1495) at Mainz, he delivered a discourse at a synod presided in the light of a stern censor of the moral life of the clergy. His longest poem -- a work of little merit -- tells in moralizing, didactic fashion the story of the mutilation of a crucifix by an actor ("Historia violate crucis", written about 1505, but not printed until 1512). Gresemund's hobby was the collection of ancient coins and inscriptions. In 1510 he issued an edition of short texts in Roman archaelogy. Death prevented the publication of his works on antiquities, and the manuscripts had been lost. Individual poems were written for the publications of his friends. He died of hernia in the prime of life. Erasmus paid him a splendid tribute in his edition of St. Jerome in 1516, and Gebwiler describes him in the following words: "Dietrich was slender of body and of medium height, with well-moulded features, dark hair, grey eyes, even-tempered, without rancour, without presumption, without pride, without affectation, gentle in his manner, and truthful".

GEIGER in Allgem, deutshce Biog., IX (Leipzig, 1879), 640; BAUCH in Archiv fur Literaturgesch, XII (Leipzig, 1884), 346-59; BAUCH in Archiv fur hessische Geach, und Alterumsakunde, V (Darmstadt, 1907), 18-35; LOFFELER in H. Hamelmanns Geschichtliche Werke, vol. I, part iii (Munster, 1907), 13, 279-82.

KLEMENS LOFFLER

Adrien Greslon

French missionary; b. at Perigueux, in 1618; entered the Society of Jesus at Bordeaux, 5 November, 1635; d. in 1697. He taught literature and theology in various houses of his order until 1655, when he was sent as a missionary to China. He arrived there in 1657, and after mastering the Chinese and Manchu languages went to the Province of Kiang-si, which he describes as a veritable Garden of Eden. Here he remained, engaged in his missionary labours, until 1670, when he returned to France. Greslon wrote two books: "Les vies des saints patriarches de l'Ancien Testament", with reflections in Chinese; and "Histoire de la Chine sous la domination des Tartares. . .depuis l'année 1651. . .jusqu'en 1669" (Paris, 1671).

MORERI, Grand Dictionaire historique.

LEO A. KELLY

Jean Baptiste Gresset

Born 29 August, 1709; died 16 June, 1777, at Amiens. Having finished his studies at the college of the Jesuits of his native town, he joined their order, and after his novitiate, taught literature in the schools of the Society at Moulins, Tours, and Rouen. He was a teacher in the celebrated college Louis-le-Grand in Paris, when he published his comico-heroic poem "Vert-Vert" (1734), which created quite a sensation in literary circles. It is the story of a parrot, the delight of a convent, who on being sent to another convent, learns profane expressions on the way, and shocks the nuns by swearing and bad manners. He is sent back to his abode, repents, and being too well fed, soon dies. This insignificant subject is treated in a masterly manner, giving a life-like picture of innocent convent pastimes. The ten-syllable line is used with the greatest ability. Other poems in the same vein followed. "Le Carême Impromptu", "Le Lutrin Vivant" (1736), and then a few "Epîtres". The publication of "La Chartreuse", which was imbued with Epicurean ideas, caused his dismissal from the Society of Jesus. Thereupon he wrote "Les Adieux aux Jésuites", a splendid testimonial of respect and gratitude. On his return to a secular life Gresset was induced to write for the stage, and he successively composed "Edouard III", a tragedy (1740), "Sidney", a drama (1745), and finally "Le Méchant", a comedy (1747). The first and second failed, while the last obtained a great success. It is still regarded as the best comedy in verse that was produced in the eighteenth century. Besides its merits of structure and style, it proved to be a strong satire of the manners of that period. At a period when wickedness, as Duclos says, "was raised to the dignity of an art and even took the place of merit with those who had no other way of distinguishing themselves, and often gave them reputation", the picture of the scoundrel's character was considered as representative of the time. In fact, "Le Méchant" marks the transition between the "Petits-Maîtres" of Marivaux and Valmont of the "Liaisons Dangereuses". In 1748 he was elected to the French Academy. It was then that he was invited by Frederick II, King of Prussia, to go to Potsdam and join the crowd of French writers who paid their court to the "Solon of the North", but he declined the invitation, being afraid of the materialitic doctrines which were professed there. In 1759 he left Paris and retired to Amiens, where he led for eighteen years a very austere life, atoning for the frivolity of his youth. His austerity was regarded as excessive by Voltaire, who wrote the well-known epigram:

"Gresset se trompe, il n'est pas si coupable"

The poet was not dismayed by Voltaire's disapproval and continued to live in seclusion, and for the rest of his life left Amiens only on two occasions, to go to the French Academy and to make a speech at the reception of D'AIembert and Suard. Before his death he destroyed all his manuscripts. In 1750 he founded at Amiens an Academy of Sciences, Letters, and Arts, which still exists.

DAIRE, Vie de Gresset (Paris, 1779); ROBESPIERRE, Eloge de Gresset (Paris, 1785), CAMPENON, Essai sur la vie et les ouvrages de Gresset (Paris, 1823); WOGUE, Gresset (Paris. 1894).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Jacob Gretser

A celebrated Jesuit writer; b. at Markdorf in the Diocese of Constance in 1562; d. at Ingolstadt in 1625. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1578, and nine years later he defended publicly theses covering the whole field of theology. Ingolstadt was the principal scene of his work; here he taught philosophy for three years, dogmatic theology for fourteen and moral theology for seven years. He gave at least ten hours a day to his studies, which he protracted, at times, till late into the night, in order to devote part of the day to works of charity and zeal. He was recognized as one of the best controversialists of his time, and was highly esteemed by Pope Clement VIII, Emperor Ferdinand II, and Maximilian I of Bavaria. Some of the greatest lights of his age, such as Cardinal Bellarmine and Marcus Welser, corresponded with him and consulted him in their difficulties. He edited or expained many works of the patristic and medieval writers, and composed erudite treatises on most diverse subjects. Sommervogel enumerates two hundred and twenty-nine titles of printed works and thirty-nine manuscripts attributed to Father Gretser, but for our purpose it will be more convenient to follow the grouping of his writings as they are distributed in the seventeen folios of the complete edition which appeared in Ratisbon (1734-1741). Vols., I-III contain archaeological and theological disquisitions concerning the Cross of Christ; IV-V, a defence of several ecclesiastical feasts and rites; VI-VII, apologies for several Roman pontiffs, VIII-IX, a defence of Bellarmine's writings, to which vol. X adds a defence of some lives of the Saints; XI, a defence of the Society of Jesus, XII. polemics against the Lutherans and Waldenses; XIII, polemic miscellanies; XIV-XV, editions and translations of Greek ecclesiastical writers; XVI-XVII, philological works, philosophical and theological disquisitions, and other miscellaneous addenda. But these general headings hardly give an idea of the erudition displayed in Father Gretser's separate works. The first volume, for instance, contains five books treating successively of the Cross on which Jesus Christ died, of images of the cross, of apparitions of the Holy Cross, of the sign of the cross, and of the spiritual cross. The second volume given fifty-seven Graeco-Latin eulogies of the Holy Cross by Greek writers, the third treats of cross-bearing coins, of the Crusades, adding also a defence of both the Crusades and the veneration of the Cross.

SCHRODL, in Kirchenlex., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., s. v.

A.J. MAAS

Jean-Baptiste Greuze

French painter, b. at Tournus in Ardeche, 21 August, 1725; d. at Paris, 21 March, 1805. His father, a master-tiler, wished to make him an architect, but ended by leaving him free to follow his own vocation, and sent him to Lyons to study under Gromdon, father-in-law of the musician Grétry. As Gromdon was only a contractor and a picture-dealer and agent, it is hard to see what he could have taught his pupil. Greuze, however, had already attained some skill when he came to Paris in 1755, with his picture "Père de famille expliquant la Bible à ses enfants" (A father explaining the Bible to his children). His name was at once proposed to the Academy by Sylvestre, and he was received as an associate. The picture, which was purchased by the celebrated amateur La Live de Jully, was exhibited along with a second painting, "L'aveugle trompé" (The blind man cheated), that same Year. It was a triumph for Greuze. In one day he had become famous in Paris, though he was only thirty years of age.

Like all artists of his time, he thought it necessary to travel through Italy. He set out towards the end of 1755, with the Abbe Grognot, the celebrated savant and archaeologist. Rome and Florence, however, do not seem to have exerted any influence on his art. It is true, he brought back from Naples some scènes de moeurs for the exhibition of 1757, but they were Neapolitan only in costume and name. He soon returned to his true style, paintings of humble and bourgeois life, and from that moment there began for him a wonderful career of success and good fortune. A strange change was then taking place in the French mind -- a curious variation, so to say, of the moral temperature. Reason, the critical faculty, and the intellect had run riot, and now men felt the need of living the life of the heart. Society, satiated with frivolity and licentiousness, sought repose in a simple, honest life. This it was that made Rousseau's "Julie" and "Emile" so wonderfully popular; it was, in a word, the great moral and religious crisis of the century, it could not but exert an influence on art, and it fell to Greuze to express it in paintings. In this, it is true, he was preceded by an artist much greater than he J-B-Siméon Chardin whose paintings the "Ecureuse" (1738), the "Pourvoyeuse" the "Bénédicité" (1740) are still masterpieces of the homely family life. Chardin, too, was an excellent draughtsman, and Greuze was much his inferior in this respect, just as he falls far short of his precursor's tender kindliness and lovable, unpretentious poetry. For Chardin's charming simplicity Greuze substitutes a host of moral aims and edifying thoughts. The interest of pure sympathy which a painter ought to feel in the model's life was not enough for Greuze, he must mingle with it a strain of anecdote and a concealed lesson. His work is more or less a painted sermon; he is ever a preacher. In this respect he resembles Hogarth, whom he is undoubtedly imitated as Rousseau imitated Richardson. The success of Greuse was therefore one of the innumerable forms of the eighteenth-century anglomania.

All this conspired to make him, for some years, the most widely known and most celebrated painter in Europe. His art was hailed as the triumph of natural bourgeois virtue over the mythological and immoral painting of Boucher. His work was a pleasing return to reality and life as it is. The "Tricoteuse", "Devideuse", and "Jeune fille pleurant son oiseau mort", at the Exhtbition of 1759, carried away the public with a new feeling of life, an emotion that unexpectedly arose from the most commonplace scenes. The "Accordee de village", exhibited in 1761, raised popular enthusiasm to the highest pitch. The picture marked an epoch. It had the distinction hitherto unheard of for a picture, that the scene it presented furnished the subject of a play at the "Comédie Italienne" the climax of this play was the betrothal scene, which was reproduced by the actors exactly as it was painted by Greuze. This compliment, in the present writer's opinion, contains a most delicate piece of criticism. For the artist's main fault is that he betrays his effort to lecture the public. Nature never presents these ready-made scenes, where the lesson is plainly written; some artifice is requisite to draw it out. Greuze is no less conventional than Boucher, while he lacks his power of description and his brilliant imagination. Instead of the grand opera, which is saved by its lyricism we are disappointed at finding only the comic opera. The naturel of Greuze is that "Rose et Colas", the "Déserteur" or the "Devin de village". His paintings all resemble one of Sedaine's little dramas suddenly stopped in the midst of a performance.

In addition, his notion of morality is always uncertain or equivocal or, rather, he confuses morality and pleasure, which always ruins his best work. The idea, that virtue is pleasure, that the virtuous man is the one who really enjoys himself, that beneficence is to be measured by the intensity of the emotion it causes in him who practises it, all these conceptions of a well-defined epicurism and a philanthropy identified with egotism, are the most commonplace and silly moral platitudes, for which the age of "philosophy" is responsible. This coarse sensualism and affected sentimentalism, with which the literature of the day was replete, infected Greuze. Despite the innocent appearance of his art, it is quite as reprehensible as that of Boucher and his son-in-law Baudoin, whose charming elegance he does not possess. The eroticism of the eighteenth century had changed only on outward appearance. With all its bourgeois prudish airs, Greuze's painting is full of lascivious hints and equivocal suggestions. To be convinced of this, one has only to read Diderot's commentaries on the "Cruche cassée" or the "Jeune fine qui pleure son oiseau mort". But this did not impede the success of Greuze or diminish his renown. His paintings, engraved by Flipart, Massart, Gaillard, and Levasseur, continued to be most popular, and brought him a fortune. Meanwhile, although it was customary for artists admitted by the Academy as associates to present a picture to the Society within six months, ten years had passed, and Greuze had not fulfilled this obligation. Finally, in 1769, he offered his "Septime Sevère reprochant à Caracalla d'avoir voulou l'assassiner" (Septimus Severus reproaching Caracalla). This painting, which may be seen in the Louvre, met with a very cold reception. Greuze, who expected it would gain him membership in the Academy as an historical painter, was received only as a painter of genre. Proud, like all self-taught men, and spoiled, moreover, by his triumphal career, the artist could not pardon the Academy for this humiliation which he attributed to the envy of his fellow-painters, From that time he ceased to work for the exhibitions and contented himself with displaying his works in his studio, whither the public continued to go to see them, as they went to see Rousseau in his fifth-floor room in the rue Plâtrière. Among others, Mme Roland, then Mlle Phlipon, visited him twice in 1777.

As successful as ever, Greuze went on to produce some of his most renowned works, the "Bénédiction" and the "Malédiction paternelle", the "Mort du bon père de famille" and the "Mort de père dénaturé". He intended to paint a suite of twenty pictures, a moral romance, "Bazile et Thibaut" or "Deux éducations", showing the lives of good and bad. But this plan was not carried into execution. At length evil days were approaching for Greuze. His fame never recovered completely from the check it received at the Academy. Differences with his wife, which led to a painful separation, created for him a doubtful situation. The preacher of the joys of family life became, in the midst of his domestic troubles, all object of derision or of pity to the populace. Younger painters, like Fragonard, surpassed him in his own style; their sentiment and form were freer than his, and their excecution much superior. Lastly, for some years, public taste had been changing. The wind blew in another direction. The ideas of Winckelmann were becoming diffused. The enthusiasm for antiquity, stirred up by excavations at Herculaneum and Pompeii, disgusted the the public with the divinities of Boucher and the bourgeoisie of Greuze. Diderot, who had lauded the latter so highly, began to abandon him. "I no longer care for Greuze", he wrote in 1769. Everything foreshadowed the movement that was to culminate in the artistic Jacobinism of David. From the "Mort de Socrate" (1784) of this painter, which is the manifesto of the new school, Greuze was intellectually dead. The Revolution was the finishing blow to his renown. His last works show him trying to fall in with the new ideas; they are a curious compromise between his style and that of Prudhon and the Directory. One of his last paintings was the portrait of the First Consul Bonaparte, now preserved at Versailles. Ruined by the mismanagement of his affairs and the treachery of his wife, abandoned by his clientele, deserted by the public, the old man would have fallen into the most abject poverty but for the help he received from one of his daughters. He used to say to Fragonard: "I am seventy-five years old, I have been working for fifty, I earned three hundred thousand francs, and now I have nothing." He died at the age of eighty, in complete oblivion, having survived a world whose idol he was, and whose ideal he expressed most perfectly.

Overpraised in his lifetime, and always popular (on account of his theatrical display and is moralizing literary painting), this artist fully merited his reputation. Though his style was a false one, he was a brilliant master of it. He represents, perhaps, the bourgeois ideal of art and morality. Of the intellectual movement that produced the plays of Diderot, Sedaine, and Mercier, the comic opera of Grétry and Montigny, his work is all that survives to-day. And as a painter of expressive heads, especially of children and young girls, he has left a number of specimens that display the highest artistic gifts. His "Sophie Arnould" (London, Wallace Gallery) and his "Portrait d'inconnue" (Van Horne collection, Montreal, Canada) are among the most beautiful portraits of women produced by the French School.

DIDEROT, Salons, in the complete works, ed. ASSEZAT (Paris, 18--); DE VALORI, Notice en tete de I' Accordee de Village (Paris, 1901); GRETRY, Memoires, II (Paris, Year VII): MARIETTE, Abecedario, II (Paris. 1853): E. and J. DE GONCOURT, L'Art au XVIIIe siecle, I (2nd ed., Paris, 1873), DILKE, French Painters of the Eighteenth Century (London, 1899): GOSSE, French Painting from Watteau to Prudhon (London, 1903): MAUCLAIR. J-B. Greuze, Sa vie, son oeuvre, son epoque (Paris, 1906).

LOUIS GILLET

Grey Nuns

The Order of Sisters of Charity of the Hôpital Général of Montreal, commonly called Grey Nuns because of the colour of their attire, was founded in 1738 by the Venerable Marie-Marguerite Dufrost de Lajemmerais (Madame d'Youville) and the Rev. Louis M. Normand du Faradon, at that time superior of the seminary of St. Sulpice of Ville Marie (now Montreal). Madame d'Youville's first associates were Mlle. Louise-Thaumur Lassource, Mlle. Demers, and Mlle. Cusson. The four ladies rented a small house, and began by receiving four or five poor people, which number shortly rose to ten. This beginning was made 30 Oct. 1738. On 3 June, 1753, the little association of ladies received the royal sanction which transferred to them, under the title of "Soeurs de la Charité de l'Hôpital Général", the rights and privileges which had been granted by letters patent to the "Frères Hospitaliers" in 1694. The peculiar dress of the sisterhood was adopted by mutual consent and worn for the first time on 25 August, 1755. The rule which had been given Madame d'Youville and her companions by Father Normant in 1745 received episcopal sanction in 1754, when Mgr. de Pontbriant formed the little society into a religious community. This rule forms the basis of the present constitutions, which were approved by Leo XIII, 30 July, 1880. Besides the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the Sisters pledge themselves to devote their lives to the service of suffering humanity. The Grey Nunnery offers a refuge to old people of both sexes incurables, orphans, and abandoned children or foundlings. Hundreds of these waifs are received yearly into the institution.

Montreal alone possesses fifteen charitable institutions under the care of the Grey Nuns, viz., orphanges, infant schools, homes for the infirm and aged, and academy for the blind; hospitals, a night refuge and two servants' homes. Ten others are in parishes outside of the city and eleven in the United States, namely, in Boston, Salem, Lawrence, Worcester, and Cambridge (Massachusetts), Nashua (New Hampshire), Toledo (Ohio), Morristown (New Jersey), and Fort Totten (North Dakota). These cities possess homes for working girls, hospitals, and orphanges. In the latter upwards of twelve hundred poor children are cared for and instructed. Three large convents were also erected by the mother house with the rights of founding others in turn, viz., those of St. Hyacinth, Quebec, and ottawa, but they are distinct branches, independent of the "Hôpital Général" (or Grey Nunnery). Nicolet has branched from St. Hyacinth. In 1844 a colony of Grey Nuns left their convent in Canada to devote their lives to the relief of the Indian tribes and the ducation of youth in the far Northwest. Their principal establishment is at St. Boniface, and is now a vicarial house, with thirteen other missions in the archdiocese. these include hospitals, and parochials, boarding, and industrial schools. St. Boniface Hospital, conducted by the Grey Nuns, is the largest in Manitoba, affording ample accomodation for three hundred and dorty patients. In the province of Alberta, Diocese of St. Albert, the Sisters have hospitals at Edmonton and Calgary, and parochial, boarding, and industrial schools at St. Albert, Dunbow Saddle Lake. further north, in the Vicariates of Athabasea and Mackenzie, there are schools and orphanages at Fort Resolution (Great Slave Lake) and also at providence on the banks of the Mackenzie River. This last mission was founded in 1866. These houses have ach a local superior who is subject to the superiors vicar of St. Boniface or of St. Albert, who in trun owe allegiance to the superior general of the Grey Nunnery, Montreal. In the year 1906 the number of professed Grey Nuns was 1893; charitable and educational establishments committed to their care numbered 135. In the former 6960 poor inmates are provided for, and in the latter 25,964 children are instructed.

SISTER M.E. WARD

Grey Nuns of the Cross

A community founded in 1745 at Monteal by Madame d'Youville, known as the Grey Sisters, or Grey Nuns, from the colour of the costume. Just one century later, February, 1845, at the request of Bishop Phelan, Kingston, Mother General McMullin snet four sisters to ottawa, Ontario, then Bytown, in the Diocese of Kingston. Schools being the greatest need at Bytown, two classes were opened without delay, Sisters Elizabeth Bruyère and Helen Howard being the first teachers. Over one hundred and fifty ppupils attended. This was the beginning of the well-known Sacred heart or Rideau Street Boarding School. At the same time, a sister in charge of the sick poor organized the laity into helping centres. providentially a hospital was in working order when the ship-fever victims arrived from Ireland in the famine year of 1847. Teaching and the works of mercy are on a footing in this community. The Grey Nuns undertake any needed good work. Their novitiate receives choir nuns and lay sisters. The institute has so steadily increased that it has in Ottawa, in addition to Rideau Street convent, two high schools and sixteen parochial schools. The teachers hold summer schools, attend the normal summer school and qualify for the highest diplomas.

Attached to the hospital is the first training-school for nurses formed in Canada. There are also five homes for children and the aged poor, supported by voluntary offerings and a government allowance. In Hull, opposite Ottawa, are large parish schools, academic and elementary. A Catholic normal school will be opened in September, 1909. At Hudson Bay is an Indian school for the Crees; along the ottawa River from its upper waters are three boarding schools, ten parochial schools and five hospitals; at Lake St. peter, in Quebec province, are two boarding schools and an Indian school for the Abnaki. In 1857, a school was opened in Holy Angels parish, Buffalo, N.Y. it is situated on Porter and prospect Avenues and has had a very successful history.

In 1860 a boarding school and academy was founded at Plattsburg, N.Y. A parish school, governed by the public school principal and supported by the public school funds, existed until the "Garb-question" caused the sisters to withdraw. Plattsburg School Board sent protest in vain to Albany. There was but one anwer; the exciting garb must be discarded. But the school still exists, supported by Catholics. In 1863 a school was opened at Ogdensburg, N.Y., in the old Ford mansion, on a beautiful site, facing the St. Lawrence. It is now a home for the homeless. St. Mary's or the Cathedral school of Ogdensburg is second to none under the Regents. At the World's Fair it was accorded a medal in the exhibit of the University of New York. The sisters have also two hospitals at Odgensburg. Since 1881 Lowell and Haverhill, Mass., have had parochial schools. Leo XIII proclaimed Mother d'Youville venerable. Her canonization is being considered at Rome. As she, the first Grey Nun, chose the Cross as her emblem, and the object of her special devotion, Leo XIII named her faithful daughters "Grey Nuns of the Cross", a title limited to the Ottawa foundation only, the headquarters of the houses mentioned above.

SISTER VERONICA O'LEARY

Gerald Griffin

A novelist, dramatist, lyricist; b. 12 December, 1803, at Limerick, Ireland; d. at Cork, 12 June, 1840.

His parents came from good families in the south of Ireland. Thirteen children were born to them, nine boys (of whom Gerald was the youngest) and four girls. When Gerald was seven years old his parents moved to Fairy Lawn by the river Shannon about twenty-seven miles from Limerick. Gerald received a good education; he had many teachers, but he owed most to his mother, a woman of deep religious feeling and great talent. "She was", as Dr. Griffin Gerald's brother and biographer, remarks "of exceedingly fine tastes on most subjects, intimately acquainted with the best models of English classical literature, and always endeavoured to cultivate a taste for them in her children". Gerald's early life was happy and profitable. When free from his books he was wont to roam through the neighbouring countries, so rich in ruins, which told him of the past glories of his native land. At that time, too he got an insight into the customs of the people and became familiar with the popular legends and folk-tales which he later worked into his stories. In 1820 the family at Fairy Lawn was broken up. The parents with several of the children emigrated to America and settled in the State of Pennsylvania. Gerald, with one brother and two sisters, was left behind under the care of an elder brother, a practising physician in Adare, County Limerick. Gerald had thought of following the professlon of his brother, but love of literature had too strong a hold on him. His chief interest was in the drama. The modern stage he considered in a decadent condition. Boy though he was, he conceived the bold project "of revolutionizing the dramatic tastes of the time by writing for the stage". With this idea in view he wrote several plays, expecting to have them staged in London. When only nineteen years old he started on his quixotic journey--"a laughable delusion", he called it some years later, "a young gentleman totally unknown coming into town with a few pounds in one pocket and a brace of tragedies in the other". His life during the first two years was life in a city wilderness; it is sad reading. He could not get an opening for his dramas, he did not live to see his "Gisippus" acted at Drury Lane in 1842, when Macready presented it in his effort to restore the classical drama to the stage.

Disappointed in his dramatic aspirations he tried his hand at all sorts of literary drudgery; he translated works from the French and the Spanish; he wrote for some of the great magazines and weekly publications, most of which, he says, cheated him abominably. And yet he kept on writing, ever hopeful of success, though he was often in straitened circumstances, going for days without food. His resolve to rely on his own efforts for success, and his abhorrence of anything that savoured of patronage, kept him from making known his needs. To disappointment was added ill-health, an affection of the lungs and palpitation of the heart. At the end of two years he obtained steady employment in the publishing house as reader and reviser of manuscripts, and in a short time became frequent contributor to some of the leading periodicals and magazines. He wrote on a great variety of topics and displayed such talent that his services were well rewarded. What spare time he had he devoted to the writing of novels wishing by this means to make known the people and places with which he was most familiar--those of the south of Ireland. And so he started a series of short stories, "Anecdotes of Munster", which he later called "Holland-Tide". This series established his reputation and enabled him to give up his literary drudgery. No longer haunted by the failure he returned to Ireland. Though broke down by poor health, he kept on working and produced his "Tales of the Munster Festivals". His next work "The Collegians", published in his twenty-fifth year, assured him of fame and fortune. It is perhaps the best of his novels. It gives a comprehensive picture of every phase and gradation of Irish life. The story is well worked out, giving the strongest proof of the dramatic talent of the author. It was dramatized in the popular play, "The Colleen Bawn", but, unfortunately not by Griffin. He took up the study of law at the London University, but in a short time removed to Dublin for the study of ancient Irish history, preparatory to his work "The Invasion", which was published in 1832. This work had a good sale and was highly praised by scholars, but never became popular. For several years more he kept at his literary work.

It became evident, however, that a great change had come over him in his views of fame and fortune. In a letter to his father in 1833 he told of the desire he had "for a long time entertained of taking orders in the Church", and adds, "I do not know any station in life in which a man can do so much good, both to others and to himself, as in that of a Catholic priest." This idea of doing good had been the motive power at work with him; but soon the conviction had forced itself upon him that he had overrated the value of fiction, and he was afraid that "he was wasting his time". The rest of his life may be briefly told. With the exception of a tour through Scotland and a short trip on the Continent, he lived with his brother, keeping up to some extent his literary labours, but devoting more and more time to prayer and to teaching the poor children of the neighbourhood. This last occupation was so congenial that he resolved to enter the Institute of the Christian Brothers, a society which has as its special aim the education of children of the poor. It was apparently a sense of the deep responsibility of the duties attached to the priesthood that caused him to turn to the humbler position of Christian Brother. But before entering upon his religious life he gathered together and burned almost all his unpublished manuscripts. On 8 Sept. 1838, he entered the Institute and there as Brother Joseph spent the rest of his life content and happy. Writing to an old friend he said "he felt a great deal happier in the practice of this daily routine than he ever did while roving about the great city, absorbed in the modest project of rivalling Shakespeare and throwing Scott in the shade". In June, 1839, he was transferred from Dublin to the south monastery of Cork, where he died of typhus fever at the early age of thirty-six.

Notwithstanding the severe trials he was put to during his residence in London he remained singularly pure-minded, and the purity of his mind is refected in all he wrote. Though he thought he had failed, he really succeeded in his aim of furnishing healthy food to the imagination. He knew the Irish character, and portrayed faithfully its many peculiarities. The same may be said, but perhaps in a lesser degree, of the Banim brothers, but not of the other novelists of this period. Lover, Lever, and Carleton do not give the true sketches of Irish life, for they were out of sympathy with it. An edition of the novels of Griffin in ten volumes was published in New York in 1896.

DANIEL GRIFFIN, The life of Gerald Griffin (London, 1843); READ, Cabinet of Irish Literature (London, 1891); Dublin Review, vols. XV, XVI.

M.J. FLAHERTY

Thomas Griffiths

Born in London, 2 June, 1791; died 19 August, 1847; the first and only Vicar Apostolic of the London District educated wholly in England. At the age of thirteen he was sent to St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, where he went through the whole course, and was ordained priest in 1814. Four years later he was chosen as president, at the early age of twenty-seven. He ruled the college with remarkable success for fifteen years, at the end of which time he was appointed coadjutor to Bishop Bramston, Vicar Apostolic of the London District. He was consecrated as Bishop of Olena at St. Edmund's College, 28 October, 1833. Within three years Bishop Bramston died, and Bishop Griffiths succeeded him.

It was a time when great activities, which reached their full development later under Cardinal Wiseman, were already beginning to show themselves. The agitation for a regular hierarchy became more and more pronounced and as a preliminary measure, in 1840, the four ecclesiastical "districts" into which England had been divided since the reign of James II were subdivided to form eight, Dr. Griffiths retaining the new London District. Soon after this, the Oxford conversions began: before Dr. Griffiths died, Newman had been a Catholic nearly two years, and many others had followed him into the Church. There was also a revival of Christian art, due to the enthusiasm of Pugin, while the immigration of the Irish, in consequence of the potato famine, necessitated the opening of many new missions. At the same time the growth of the British colonies, many of which had been tin lately ruled as part of the London District, brought him into contact with the government. In all these different spheres Dr. Griffiths discharged his duties with great practical ability; but it was thought that he would not have the breadth of view or experience necessary for initiating the new hierarchy, and according to bishop Ullathorne, this was the reason why its establishment was postponed. He bears witness, however, to the esteem in which Dr. Griffiths was held, and when the latter died, somewhat unexpectedly, in 1847 Ullathorne himself preached the funeral sermon. The body of the deceased prelate was laid temporarily in the vaults of Moorfields Church; but two years later it was removed to St. Edmund's College, where a new chapel by Pugin was in course of erection, and a special chantry was built to receive the body of Dr. Griffiths, to whose initiative the chapel was due. An oil painting of Dr. Griffiths is at Archbishop's House, Westminster; another, more modern, at St. Edmund's College.

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v; GILLOW, Bib. Dict., Eng. Cath. s. v., WARD, History of St. Edmund's College (London, 1893); BRADY, Annals of the Cath. Hierarchy; E. Price in Dolman's Magazine, VI, Cox in Cath. Directory for 1848.

BERNARD WARD

Franz Grillparzer

An Austrian poet, b. at Vienna, 15 January, 1791, d. 21 January, 1872. After desultory schooling at home and at the gymnasium he entered the university to study law and philosophy. His tastes, however, were more for literature and music, and at the age of sixteen, under Schiller's influence, he tried his hand at dramatic composition. In 1813, he entered the civil service in the customs department, but his official life was anything but happy. Throughout his career, he had to submit to the ill-will and distrust of his superiors, and the interference of a rigid censorship. His rise was very slow; repeatedly preferment was denied him and he never got beyond the position of director of the Hofkammerarchiv, to which he was promoted in 1832. His application in 1834 for the directorship of the university library was rejected; he was thus compelled to retain his uncongenial position until 1856, when he retired with a pension and the title Hofrat. Repeatedly he sought distraction in travel. In 1819, prostrated by the shock caused by his mother's suicide, he obtained a furlough and visited Italy, travelling unofficially in the retinue of the Empress. While in Rome he wrote the well-known poem on the ruins of the Campo Vacino, which gave offence to the Catholic party and drew upon the poet the censure of the emperor. This unfortunate affair was largely responsible for the setbacks which Grillparzer subsequently experienced in his official career. In 1826 he visited Germany, and ten years later Paris and London. Another journey was made to Greece and the Orient in 1843, followed by a second visit to Germany in 1847. Subsequently he could not be induced again to leave Vienna.

If the poet's public career was full of disappointment, his private life was equally unhappy. He had several love affairs, but the attachment of his life was to the handsome and accomplished Katharina Frohlich, to whom he was betrothed in 1821. Each of the lovers possessed unyielding personality, and though the engagement was not formally broken, they were never married. In 1849, Grillparzer took up his abode with the Frohlich sisters, and in their house he spent his remaining years. When his comedy, "Weh dem, der lugt" had been rudely hissed by the Viennese public, the poet in despair and anger withdrew from the stage and henceforth in strictest seclusion. The recognition and honours that finally came to him left him unmoved. In 1871, the enthusiasm with which his eightieth birthday was celebrated throughout Germany and Austria proved that at last his greatness was recognized. When he died the next year, he was accorded a public funeral.

Grillparzer's earliest drama, "Blanka von Kastilien" (1807), was written while he was still a student. The play that first made him famous was "Die Ahnfrau" (The Ancestress), performed in 1817. It is one of the so-called fate-tragedies, in such vogue at the time, and, though crude and full of horrors, it shows unmistakable signs of dramatic power. In his next drama, "Sappho" (1818), the poet turned to ancient Greece for inspiration and took for his theme the legendary love of the famous Greek poetess for Phaon. This tragedy was received with enthusiasm, and translated into several foreign languages. To this day it has remained Grlllparzer's most popular play. It was followed in 1821 by the trilogy "Das goldene Vliess" a dramatization of the story of Jason and Medea. It has three parts: "Der Gastfreund" (the Guestfriend), a kind of prologue, "Die Argonauten", and "Medea". By many critics this trilogy is regarded as the poet's greatest work; on the stage, however, it was not as successful as his former plays. After this he turned to history for his subjects. "Konig Ottokars Cluck und Ende" (King Ottokars Fortune and End) presents in dramatic form the downfall of the Bohemian kingdom and the rise of the House of Hapsburg. An episode from Hungarian history is treated in "Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn" (a faithful Servant of his Lord) (1828) -- a drama which glorifies the spirit of self-sacrificing loyalty. For his next effort the poet again turned to Greece and produced one of his most finished dramas in "Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen" (1831) (The Waves of the Sea and of Love), its theme is the story of the love of Hero and Leander. With the exquisite dream-play "Der Traum ein Leben" (1831) (Dream is Life) Grillparzer again won a popular success. Its title suggests the influence of Calderon's "La Vida es Sueno", but the plot was suggested by Voltaire's story "Le Blanc et le Noir". In 1838 appeared the poet's only attempt at comedy, "Weh dean, der lugt" (Woe to him who Lies). Its failure caused his retirement from the stage, and with the exception of the beautiful fragments, "Esther", which appeared in 1863, the poet's later dramas were not published until after his death. They are: "Ein Bruderzwist im Hause Habsburg", treating a theme from Austrian history, "Die Judin von Toledo", based on a pity of Lope de Vega, and "Libussa", the subject of which is the legendary story of the foundation of Prague.

Grillparzer also wrote critical essays and studies especially on the Spanish theatre, of which he was a great admirer. He is also the author of two prose-stories, "Das Kloster bei Sendomir" and "Der arme Spielmann". His Iyric poems are as a rule too intellectual, they lack the emotional quality which a true lyric should possess. He excels in epigram. His autobiography which he brought down to the year 1886, is invaluable for a study of his life. But his title to fame rests on his dramas. As a dramatic poet he stands in the front rank of German writers, by the side of Schiller and Kleist. His complete works have been edited by August Sauer (Stuttgart, 1892-93, 5th ed., 20 vols.), M. Necker (Leipzig, 1903, 16 vols.), Alfred Klaar (Berlin, 1903, 16 vols.), Albert Zipper (Leipzig, 1903, 6 vols.), Minor (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1903), W. Eichner (Berlin, 1904, 20 vols.). A critical selection was edited by Rudolf Franz (Leipzig and Vienna 1903-05, 5 vols.). His letters and diaries were edited by Carl Glossy and A. Sauer (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1903, 2 vols).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Francesco Maria Grimaldi

Italian physicist, b. at Bologna, 2 April, 1618; d. in the same city, 28 Dec., 1663. He entered the Society of Jesus, 18 March, 1632; and, after the usual course of studies, spent twenty-five years as professor of belles-lettres in the colleges of the order. His tastes were, however, scientific, and he found time for study and research in physics and astronomy, to which he devoted himself almost entirely in his later years. He assisted P. Riccioli in his experiments (1640-1650) on falling bodies, and in his surveys, in 1645, to determine the length of an arc of the meridian. He was also a close observer of the moon's surface and constructed a map which was incorporated in Riccioli's "Almagestum Novum". He gave the names of illustrious philosophers and astronomers to the elevations and depressions on the moon to which Hevelius, before him, had applied the names borne by terrestrial seas and mountains.

Grimaldi's most important scientific work was done in optics, in which field he became a worthy predecessor of Newton and Huyghens. He made several discoveries of fundamental importance, but they were much in advance of the theory of the time, and their significance was not recognized until over a century later. The first of these is the phenomenon of diffraction. He allowed a beam of sunlight to pass through a small aperture in a screen, and noticed that it was diffused in the form of a cone. The shadow of a body placed in the path of the beam was larger than that required by the rectilinear propagation of light. Careful observation also showed that the shadow was surrounded by coloured fringes, similar ones being seen within the edges, especially in the case of narrow objects. He showed that the effect could not be due to reflection or refraction, and concluded that the light was bent out of its course in passing the edges of bodies. This phenomenon, to which he gave the name of diffraction, was also studied by Hooke and Newton; but the true explanation was only given by Fresnel on the basis of the wave theory. Grimaldi also discovered that when sunlight, entering a room through two small apertures, was allowed to fall on a screen, the region illuminated by the two beams was darker than when illuminated by either of them separately. He was thus led to enunciate the principle that an illuminated body may become darker by adding light to that which it already receives. This is, in reality, the well-known principle of interference afterwards so brilliantly employed by Young and Fresnel. It has been questioned whether the phenomenon observed by Grimaldi was really due to interference. He himself regarded it simply as a conclusive proof of the immaterial nature of light which he was then investigating. He was likewise the first to observe the dispersion of the sun's rays in passing through a prism. Grimaldi was conspicuous for his amiability, gentleness, and modesty. He was the author of "Physicomathesis de lumine, coloribus, et iride, aliisque annexis" (Bologna, 1665), published after his death.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la Comp. de Jésus (Paris, 1892), III, 1834; HELLER, Geschichte der Physik (Stuttgart, 1884), II, 26; ROSENBERGER, Geschichte der Physik (Brunswick, 1887-90), II, 131.

H. M. BROCK

Giovanni Francesco Grimaldi

An eclectic painter of the Bolognese school; b. at Bologna, 1606; d. at Rome, 1680. He was a pupil of the Carracci, but he made his mark when he left Bolonga for Rome, and was employed by Innocent X to execute some fresco decoration in the Vatican. His work was so much admired that Prince Pamfili, the pope's nephew, employed him to decorate the rooms of his villa with landscapes, and then wrote to Louis XIV, describing the work. His appreciation of it was so high that he induced Cardinal Mazarin to invite Grimaldi to Paris, where he decorated two of the rooms in the Louvre and painted some landscapes, and he is said to have received the honour of knighthood from the French king. Returning to Rome, he again entered the papal service, and worked for Alexander VII and Clement IX, was appointed president of the Academy of St. Luke, and became all exceedingly popular person in the Holy City. He was a skilful etcher, especially in landscape-work, and his chief pictures are in the Colonna palace at Rome, in the Quirinal, and in the gallaries of Vienna and Paris.

MALVASIA, Felsina Pittrice (Bologna, 1678); ORLANDI, Abbecedario Pittorico (BOLOGNA, 1719).

GEORGE CHARLES WlLLIAMSON

Johann Jacob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen

The greatest German novelist of the seventeenth century. What we know of his life is largely gathered from his own writing. He was born near Glenhausen in Jesse about the year 1625, when the Thirty Years War was at its height. While still a boy he was carried off by marauding troopers, and until the close of the war in 1648 he led a soldier's life. In 1667 he was in the service of the Bishop of Strasburg as Schultheiss (bailiff) in the town of Renehen in Baden. In this position he remained up to the time of his death, 17 August, 1676. Nothing definite is known of his life during the period from 1648 to 1667; but it seems that he travelled extensively, for his writings show acquaintance with many lands and peoples. In the earlier part of his life Grimmelshausen was a Protestant but later on he became a Catholic as is attested by a notice of his death in the parish-record of Renehen.

He is the author of many romances but the most is famous is "Der abenteurliche Simplicissimus", which appeared at Mompelgard 1669. It is modelled on the picaresque novels of Spain and relates in the form of an autobiography, for which, no doubt, the author's own life furnished many traits, the fortunes of the hero during the troublous times of the great war. Many of the episodes narrated are coarse and repulsive, but are related with never-failing humour, and the whole work is pervaded by a deeply religious spirit. A number of writings in similar vein followed, such as "Trutzsimplex" (1670?), "Der selzame Springinsfeld" (1670), "Das wunderbarliche Vogel-Nest" (in 2 parts, 1672), and other minor works. Grimmelshausen also wrote a number of romances in the heroic-gallant manner in vogue in his day; such are "Der keusche Joseph", his earliest work (probably 1667), "Dietwald und Amelinde" (1670), and "Proximus und Lympida" (1672). The last two works mentioned were published with the author's real name on the title-page, for most of his other works he used pseudonyms, that were anagrams of his name, so that for a long time it remained unknown.

The "Simplicissimus", together with other writings of Grimmelshausen, was edited by Keller (Stuttgart, 1854-62, "Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins zu Stuttgart", xxxiii, xxxiv); by Kurz (Leipzig, 1863, 4 vols., "Deutsche Bibliothek", III-VI); by Tittman (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877, in "Deutsche Dichter des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts", ed. Goedeke and Tittmann), and by Bobertag (in "Kürschners Deutsche National Litteratur", xxxiii-xxxv). A reprint of the oldest original edition of the "Simplicissimus" was published by Kogel (Halle, 1880, "Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts", xix-xxv).

Consult introductions to above-mentioned editions; also KELLER in Allgemeine deutsche Biorgraphie (Leipzig, 1875-1900), s. v.; ANTOINE, Etude sur le Simplicissimus de Grimmelshausan (Paris, 1882); BOBERTAG, Geschichte des Romans in Deutschland (Breslau and Berlin, 1876-84), II, pt. II, 1-110.

ANTHER F.J. REMY

Valentin Gröne

A Catholic theologian, b. at Paderborn, 7 December, 1817; d. at Irmgarteichen, in the district Siegen, Westphalia, 18 March, 1882. On the completion of his studies he was ordained priest at Paderborn (4 July, 1844), after which he took an advanced course in Church history at the University of Munich, where he obtained the degree of Doctor in Theology (1848). He was then sent as chaplain to Bielefeld, Warstein (10 Nov., 1848), Brilon, Scherfede (10 Dec., 1853), and on 14 Oct., 1857, was appointed rector of the city high-school at Fredeburg, going later (17 Dec., 1860) to Schmallenherg in a similar capacity. On 24 Sept., 1868, he was made pastor at Irmgarteichen, and later dean.

Gröne's best-known works are "Tetzel und Luther oder Lebensgeschichte und Rechtfertigung des Ablasspredigers und Inquisitors Dr. Johann Tetzel aus dem Predigerorden (Soest and Olpe, 1853, 2nd ed. 1860, abridged popular ed., "Tetzel und Luthur", Soest. 1862); "Die Papst-Geschichte" (2 vols., Ratisbon, 1864- 66, 2nd ed., 1875). Other important works are: "Sacramentum oder Begriff und Bedeutung von Sacrament in der alten Kirche bis zur Scholastik" [Brilon (Soest), 1853]; "Glaube und Wissenschaft" (Schaffhausen, 1860); "Der Ablass, seine Geschichte und Bedeutung in der Heilsokonomie" (Ratisbon, 1863); "Compendium der Kirchengeschichte" (Ratisbon, 1870). Among his minor writings are: "Zustand der Kirche Deutschlands vor del Reformation" in the "Theologische Quartalschrift" (Tubingen, 1862), 84-138; "Papst und Kirchenstaat" (Arnsberg, 1862). His translations for the Kempten "Bibliothek der Kirchenvater" are entitled "Tatians, des Kirchenschriftstellers, Rede an die Griechen" (1872); "Melitos des Bischofs von Sardes, Rede an den Kaiser Antonius" (1873), "Hippolytus, des Presbyters and Martyrers, Buch uber Christus und den Antichrist" (1873); "Hippolytus Canones" (1874), "Ausgewahlte Schriften des hl. Basilius des Grossen, Bischofs von Caesarea und Kirchenlehrers" (3 vols., 1875-81).

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT

Gerard Groote

(Or Geert De Groote; Gerhardus Magnus.)

Founder of the "Brethren of the Common Life", b. 1340 at Deventer, Gelderland; d. 20 Aug., 1384. From the chapter school in his native town Geert went for higher studies first to Aachen, then to Paris, where at the Sorbonne he studied medicine, theology, and canon law. He returned home, barely eighteen years old. In 1362 he was appointed teacher at the Deventer chapter school. A few years later his admiring countrymen sent him to Avignon on a secret mission to Pope Urban V. Soon after we find him in Cologne teaching philosophy and theology, enjoying two prebends and ample means. Warnings of the vanity and danger of this life he heeded not until he met his fellow-student of the Sorbonne, Henry Æger of Calcar, prior of the Chartreuse of Munnikhuizen near Arnheim. Geert stripped himself at once of honours, prebends, and possessions and entered seriously upon the practice of devout life. At this time he also frequently visited the famous ascetic Ruysbroek, and no doubt by the advice of this man of God he withdrew into the monastery of Munnikhuizen, where he spent three years in recollection and prayer. From his retreat he issued burning with apostolic zeal. He had received the diaconate and licence to preach in the Diocese of Utrecht wherever he wished. Young men especially flocked to him in great numbers. Some of these he sent to his schools, others he occupied at transcribing good books, to all he taught thorough Christian piety. Florence Radewyns, his favourite disciple, asked him one day: "Master, why not put our efforts and earnings together, why not work and pray together under the guidance of our Common Father?" In perfect accord both set to work and founded at Zwolle the "Brethren of the Common Life".

His fearless attacks on vice, which spared neither priest nor monk, developed considerable opposition, which culminated in the withdrawal of his licence to preach. He submitted to episcopal authority, but applied to the Soveregin Pontiff for redress. Henceforth his communities, which were spreading rapidly through the Netherlands, Lower Germany, and Westphalia, claimed and received all his attention. He contemplated organizing his clerics into a community of canons regular, but it was left to Radewyns, his successor, to realize this plan at Windesheim two years later. Before the answer to his petition to the pope arrived, Geert De Groote died from pestilence, contracted in ministering to the sick. Groote was the first successful practical mystic, who worked and prayed, and taught others to do the same. He did much for literature in general, for the spread of knowledge, and for the development of the vernacular in the Netherlands and Germany. Of his biographies the "Vita Gerardi" of Thomas à Kempis still remains the best.

Kerkgesch, van Nederl.; DELPART, Broederschap van Geert Groot (Arnheim, 1856); ACQUOY, Het Kloester te Windesheim; WEISS, Weltgeschichte, vol. VI (Graz and Leipzig, 1894).

CHARLES B. SCHRANTZ

John Gropper

An eminent jurist and theologian, b. 24 Feb., 1503, at Soest, Westphalia; d. at Rome, 13 March, 1559. On the completion of his classical studies in his native place, he entered at the age of fourteen the University of Cologne to take up the study of jurisprudence, and there on 7 Nov., 1525, received the degree of Doctor of Civil Law. The following year he received the office of official sealer in the electoral municipality of Cologne. The religious questions of the day, consequent upon the doctrines of the reformers, now led him to apply himself to the study of theology, and in a short time he had acquired, "privately and without a master", such an extensive knowledge of that science that he became known as the "os cleri Coloniensis". In 1522, he was made canon at Kanten, and then successively dean, canon, and finally pastor and dean of Soest. His learning, eloquence, and charity towards the poor elicited admiration from friends and enemies. He supported Archbishop Hermann V of Wied in the reorganization and and adjustment of the ecclesiastical and civil law in the electoral province, and was the first to determine the jurisdiction of the archiepiscopate (Jurisdictionis ecclesiasticae archiepiscopalis Curiae Coloniensis reformatio, Cologne, 1529). In 1530 he accompanied the archbishop as assistant counsellor to the Diet of Augsbug, where, with Arnold of Wesel and Bernard of Hagen, he came into closer relationship with Melanchthon. To combat more effectually the errors of the Reformers, the archbishop decided upon a Provincial synod to be held in Cologne in 1536, and, to insure the best possible results, entrusted the preparation of the decrees to Gropper. The latter performed the task with great credit to himself, and formulated the old canonical regulations regarding the duties of the secular and regular clergy with such clearness and precision that the synod approved his proposals with but slight changes and requested him to compose an enchiridion which would contain at once the canons ard a commentary on them (Institutio compendiaria doctrinae christianae, Cologne, 1538). Other editions appeared simply under the title "Enchiridion" (Paris, 1541, 1550). In it the author gives an exposition of the Apostles' Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Decalogue. Notwithstanding the fact however that the work was placed on the index of prohibited books by Clement VIII, because of the author's adoption of a twofold formal cause of justification, namely the "justitia inhaerens" and the "justitia imputata", it was nevertheless received by many with enthusiastic approbation. It was sanctioned by the theologians of Cologne, and Cardinals Contarini, Pole, and Morone looked upon it as particularly adapted to bring about a reconciliation of the sects with Rome. At the Congress of Hagenau, in 1540, Gropper, at the instance of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, entered into conciliatory negotiations with Bucer, which were continued at Worms and at the religious discussions in Ratisbon; but, while an apparent union was effected on the questions of grace and justification, in regard to the authority of the Church and the doctrine of the Eucharist no reconciliation was attempted. While Gropper no doubt accomplished much good by his opposition to the innovations of the reformers, it is but too evident that his zeal for union sometimes led him to sacrifice Catholic principles.

When, however, the Council of Trent defined the Catholic doctrine of justification, he at once submitted to its decision. In the meantime the archbishop himself gradually abandoned the Catholic faith and allowed the new doctrines to be preached in his diocese. He engaged Bucer and, later, Melanchthon to draw up plans for a complete reformation of the diocese on Protestant principles. In this critical moment Gropper published his "Antididagma seu christianae et catholicae religionis propuguatio" (Cologne, 1544), in which he vigorously defends the Catholic Faith and refutes the errors of the reformers, at the same time requesting the deposition of the archbishop from his see. With this Paul III complied on 16 April, 1546, and his successor in the electrorate of Cologne appointed the cadjurator archbishop Adolph III of Schauenburg, who, with the assistance of Gropper, succeeded in expelling from the diocese the Protestant preachers and restoring the Catholic religion. In recompense for his services to the Church, the pope appointed Gropper Provost of Bonn. In 1561 he accompanied his archbishop to the Council of Brent, where he assisted at numerous sessions and delivered the discourse, "De appellationum abusu" (Cologne, 1552). On 20 Jan., 1556, Paul IV created him Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Lucia in Silice. This honour he accepted with great reluctance; neither did he proceed to Rome till the Protestant-minded John Gebhard of Mansfeld was appointed archbishop in 1558. His death occurred at Rome, and the pope himself preached the funeral oration. Among Gropper's other publications may be mentioned: "Formula examinandi designatos seu praesentatos ad ecclesias parochiales" (Cologne, 1552); "Manuale pro administratione sacramentorum" etc. (Cologne, 1550); "Vonn Warer, Wesenlicher vnd Pleibender Gegenwertigkeit des Leybs vnd Bluts Christi nach beschener Consecration" (Cologne, 1548).

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Robert Grosseteste

Bishop of Lincoln and one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages; b. about 1175; d. 9 October, 1253. He came from Stradbroke in the county of Suffolk. Little is known of his family, but it was certainly a poor one. His name is probably a family name. The first definite date which we can connect with his life, is that of a letter written in 1199 by Giraldus Cambrensis to recommend him to the Bishop of Hereford. Giraldus spoke of his knowledge of the liberal arts and of literature, and of his excellent character and industry. We may also gather from this letter, that he was acquainted with law and medicine. If he was in 1199 a "master" of such distinction he must have gone to the young, but already very flourishing, University of Oxford not later than 1192 or 1193. That he afterwards studied and taught theology in Paris is intrinsically probable, and is indirectly confirmed by a local tradition, by his intimacy with a number of French ecclesiastics and with the details of the Paris curriculum, and perhaps, for a man of his origin, by his knowledge of French. One of the most popular of the many writings attributed to him was a French religious romance, the "Chasteau d'Amour". He was back, however, at Oxford fairly early in the thirteenth century, and, with the possible exception of a second visit to Paris, he seems to have remained there till his election as bishop in 1235. Dignities and preferments soon began to flow in upon the most distinguished of the Oxford masters. He was for a time (the exact dates are uncertain) head of the university, either as chancellor or with the more modest title of "master of the schools". His practical abilities led to his being appointed successively to no less than four archdeaconries. He held several livings and a prebend at Lincoln. Pluralism of this kind was not uncommon in the thirteenth century, but an illness which came upon him in 1232 led to his resigning all his preferments except the Lincoln prebend. He was moved to this act mainly by a deepened religious fervour which had aroused his scruples and by a real love of poverty. In 1235 he was freely elected to the Bishopric of Lincoln, the most populous diocese in England, and he was consecrated in the abbey church of Reading., in June of the following year, by St. Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Grosseteste was a man of such varied interests and his career was so many-sided that it will be better to touch separately on his numerous activities than to attempt a chronological account of his life. His work as a teacher, a philosopher, and a man of learning, is naturally more especially connected with his Oxford career, but his episcopal duties, so zealously performed, did not diminish his scholarly interests, while the fact that Oxford was in his diocese, and in a sense under his government, kept him in the closest touch with the university. He repeatedly intervened in university affairs, settled questions of discipline and administration, and contributed to those early regulations and statutes which determined the constitution and character of Oxford. It is not easy to define exactly Grosseteste's position in the history of thirteenth century thought. Though he was from many points of view a schoolman, his interests lay rather in moral questions than in logical or metaphysical. In his lectures he laid more stress on the study of Scripture than on intellectual speculation. His real originality lay in his effort to get at the original authorities, and in his insistence on experiment in science. It was this which drew from Roger Bacon the many expressions of enthusiastic admiration which are to be found in his works. In the "Opus Tertium" he says: "No one really knew the sciences, except the Lord Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, by reason of his length of life and experience, as well as of his studiousness and zeal. He knew mathematics and perspective, and there was nothing which he was unable to know, and at the same time he was sufficiently acquainted with languages to be able to understand the saints and the philosophers and the wise men of antiquity." In theology proper we have the titles of between two and three hundred sermons and discourses of Grosseteste and of more than sixty treatises. There are commentaries on the Gospels, and on some of the books of the Old Testament, as well as an interesting collection of "Dicta", or notes for lectures and sermons. His Aristotelean studies were considerable. His commentaries on the logical works were repeatedly printed in the sixteenth century. His most valuable contributions, however, to the knowledge of Aristotle and to medieval philosophy were the translations which he procured from the original Greek. The "Eudemian Ethics" he commented on while at Oxford, and in the lasts years of his life he was occupied with a translation of the "Nicomachean".

More original still were his studies in Christian antiquities. He had translations made of the "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" and of some of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, though no doubt he thought that in both cases the attributions were genuine. His translation of the Epistles of St. Ignatius is a work of permanent value, so important indeed as to lead a recent writer, James (Cambridge Modern History, I, 587), to date from Grosseteste's studies the first beginnings of the "Christian Renaissance". In addition to this knowledge of Greek, he was also partly acquainted with Hebrew, a rare accomplishment in the thirteenth century. Besides being learned in the liberal arts, Grosseteste had an unusual interest in mathematical and scientific questions. He wrote a commentary on the "Physics" of Aristotle; and his own scientific works included studies in meteorology, light, colour, and optics. Amongst his mathematical works was a criticism of the Julian calendar, in which he pointed out the necessity for the changes introduced in the Gregorian. He attempted a classification of the various forms of knowledge; and few indeed, among his contemporaries, can have had a more encyclopedic range. Nor did he neglect the practical side of life. He had Walter of Henley's "Treatise on Husbandry" translated from the Latin, and drew up himself some rules on estate management, known as "Les Reules Seynt Robert", which throw much light on the agricultural conditions of the time. Finally, lest we should think that the claims of art had been neglected, his contemporaries celebrate his love of music. It is not surprising that Grosseteste's reputation as a philosopher and a universal genius long survived him. Few thirteenth-century writers are as frequently quoted as "Robertus Lincolniensis", and even after the invention of printing many of his writings were issued and re-issued, especially by the presses of Italy. His scientific interests naturally won for him in a later age the compliment of being popularly spoken of as a magician.

It was while at Oxford that Grosseteste formed an intimate and lifelong friendship with the newly arrived Franciscans. It is quite possible that he was chancellor when the friars first came to Oxford, the Dominicans in 1221 and the Franciscans three years later; he at any rate befriended the latter in a very practical manner by being the first lecturer in the school which was one of the earliest of their very simple buildings. Short of becoming a friar himself, as indeed he at one time thought of doing, he could not have identified himself more closely with the sons of St. Francis, and his influence with them was proportionately great. He must have helped to give the English Franciscans that devotion to learning which was one of their most distinguishing characteristics, and which affected the whole history of the order. Though it was contrary to their founder's own ideal of "poverty", the friars without it would have lost a most powerful means of influencing a century in which intellectual interests played so large a part. Grosseteste and the Friars Minor were inseparable for the rest of his life. The most intimate of his friends was Adam Marsh, the first Franciscan to lecture at Oxford, a man of great learning and an ardent reformer. Adam's letters to his friends give us much valuable information about Grosseteste, but unfortunately the answers have not been preserved. The Bishop of Lincoln could do even more for the friars than the Chancellor of Oxford. He extended the sphere of their evangelizing work, and facilitated the relations, at times a difficult enough task to perform, between the secular and monastic clergy and the Franciscans. In a letter to Gregory IX he spoke enthusiastically of the inestimable benefits which the friars had conferred on England, and of the devotion and humility with which the people flocked to hear the word of life from them. The diocese which for eighteen years Grosseteste administered was the largest in England; it extended from the Humber to the Thames, and included no less than nine counties; and the work of government and reform was rendered particularly difficult by the litigious character of the age. In every direction the bishop would find powerful corporations exceedingly tenacious in their rights. From the very first he revived the practice of visitations, and made them exceedingly searching. His circular letters to his archdeacons, and his constitutions enlighten us on the many reforms which he considered necessary both for the clergy and their flocks.

These visitations, however, brought the bishop into conflict with the dean and chapter, who claimed exemption for themselves and their churches. The dispute broke out in 1239 and lasted six years. Grosseteste discussed the whole question of episcopal authority in a long letter (Letter cxxvii, "Rob. Grosseteste Epistolæ", Rolls Series, 1861) to the dean and chapter, and was forced to suspend and ultimately to deprive the dean, while the canons refused to attend in the chapter house. There were appeals to the pope and counter appeals and several attempts at arbitration. Eventually, Innocent IV settled the question, in the bishop's favour, at Lyons in 1245. The visitations affected the majority of the numerous religious houses in the diocese as well as the secular clergy, and in his very first tour Grosseteste deposed seven abbots and five priors. Only in one of these cases was there any moral turpitude involved, and indeed he seldom complains of the moral conduct of the monks; his chief grievance against them was connected with their control over the parishes. Even in the twelfth century more than two-thirds of the parish churches are said to have been under the control of the monasteries, and in many cases the latter made merely temporary and uncertain arrangements for the care of souls. Grosseteste made it his object to insist on a worthy and resident parish clergy by compelling the monasteries to appoint and pay permanent vicars. Throughout his whole episcopacy this question occupied much of his energy. His greatest difficulty was with the Cistercian houses, which were exempt from his rights of visitation, and a desire to remedy this state of affairs was one of the reasons which induced him to visit the pope at Lyons in 1250.

His efforts were partially successful, but the rigour with which he visited the monasteries and nunneries under his rule led the St. Alban's chronicler, Matthew Paris, to call him a "persecutor of monks"; and it is probable that at times he was unnecessarily severe. In 1243, during a vacancy of the archiepiscopal see, the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, actually excommunicated him. Though he treated the sentence with contempt, he had again to get the pope's assistance to bring the dispute to an end.

The reputation which Grosseteste has acquired since the Reformation has been due in large part to his relations with the papacy. That he opposed to the utmost of his power the abuses of the papal administration is certain, but a study of his letters and writings should long ago have destroyed the myth that he disputed the plena potestas of the popes. This error, which has been common among non-Catholic writers from Wyclif till recent years, can partly, however, be explained by the exaggerations and inventions of Matthew Paris, and by a confusion of two men having the same name. The letter in which Grosseteste expressed most strongly his resistance to what he considered the unrighteous demands of the pope was addressed to "Master Innocent". It was assumed even by Dr. Luard, the editor of Grosseteste's letters, in the Rolls Series, that this correspondent was Innocent IV, whereas as a matter of fact he was one of the pope's secretaries then resident in England. It is, however, admitted by all recent historians that Grosseteste never denied the pope's authority as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church. What he did maintain was that the power of the Holy See was "for edification and not for destruction", that the commands of the pope could never transgress the limits laid down by the law of God, and that it was his duty, as bishop, to resist an order that was "for manifest destruction". In such a case "out of filial reverence and obedience I disobey, resist, and rebel". It is impossible to discuss here, or even to enumerate, the abuses which drew so strong an expression of his position from a man who had constantly shown his devotion to the papacy. The English people at large complained chiefly of the enormous revenue which the pope and the Italians drew from the country; Grosseteste, however, fully realized how necessary it was to support the papacy against the Emperor Frederick II, and his objection was chiefly to the manner in which much of this revenue was raised, the appointment of papal partisans in Italy to English benefices and preferments. Such a practice necessarily involved much spiritual damage, and was consistently resisted by the bishop. He felt, also, very deeply the abuses of the Curia, and the ease with which exemptions and privileges which counteracted his own reforms could be obtained from Rome by means of pecuniary supply. On the other hand, he himself constantly appealed to Rome, and frequently received papal support.

He visited the court of Innocent IV on two occasions: in 1245, when he attended the General Council at Lyons, and for the second time in 1250, when he came to beg the pope's help in his many difficulties. This time the aged bishop (he must have been about seventy-five), more zealous than ever for ecclesiastical reform, but troubled to the depths of his soul by the royal misgovernment, the resistance of the regulars to his measures, the difficulty of reforming the seculars, the financial demands of the Curia, which had not diminished with the defeat of Frederick, and finally by a quarrel in which he had been involved with his own archbishop, read out in the presence of the pope and cardinals an impressive recital of the evils of the time and a protest against the abuses of the Curia, "the cause and origin of all this". Innocent listened without interruption, and probably had some previous knowledge of the attack which the bishop intended to make upon his court. The last case in which Grosseteste refused to obey a papal order called forth the letter to "Master Innocent" which has been already mentioned. In the last year of his life Grosseteste received a letter which notified him that the Holy See had conferred a vacant canonry at Lincoln on the pope's nephew, Frederick di Lavagna, and had furthermore threatened excommunication against anyone who should oppose his installation. The bishop's refusal to acknowledge the papal choice, and the terms in which it was expressed, led to the report, quite unfounded, that he had actually been excommunicated before his death; and to much fanciful history on the part of Matthew Paris. As a matter of fact the protest was partly successful; in November, 1253, Innocent IV issued a Bull, restoring to the English ecclesiastical authorities their full rights of election and presentation.

The Bishop of Lincoln held a high position in the State, but his relations with the civil authorities were unusually difficult, as he had to carry out the duties of his office during such a period of misgovernment as the reign of Henry III. Personally, he was usually on friendly terms with the king and his family; but he was often in opposition to the royal policy, both in ecclesiastical and civil matters, and threatened on one occasion to lay the king's chapel under an interdict. Grosseteste's attitude on the question of ecclesiastical privilege was much the same as that adopted by St. Thomas. He took a prominent and sometimes a leading part in the constitutional opposition to Henry, and in 1244 was one of the committee of twelve nominated by Parliament to draw up a list of reforms. When, in 1252, the charters were solemnly confirmed, and a sentence of excommunication pronounced against anyone who should violate them, Grosseteste had the sentence read out to the people in every parish of his diocese. His friendship with Simon de Montfort was one of intimacy and long standing, and was celebrated in contemporary popular songs. It was of moment in confirming Simon in that devotion to national interests which distinguished him later from the other leaders of the baronial opposition. Grosseteste before his death was full of anxiety for the state of the country and dread for the civil war which was so soon to break out. He was buried in his cathedral. Very soon he was regarded almost universally in England as a saint. The chroniclers tell of miracles at his tomb, and pilgrims visited it. Early in the following century a Bishop of Lincoln granted them an indulgence. Efforts were made by different prelates, by Edward I, and by the University of Oxford to procure his canonization by the pope, but they were all unsuccessful.

Besides MATTHEW PARISH, whose monastic and anti-papal bias must never be forgotten, and the other chroniclers, the chief materials for Grosseteste's life are to be found in his Letters (Roberti Grosseteste Epistolæ, Rolls Series, ed. LUARD, 1861), in Monumenta Fraciscana, I (Rolls Series, ed. BREWER, in 1858), which contain Adam Marsh's letters, and in the Calendar of Papal Registers, ed. BLISS. The most important modern authorities are LUARD's Preface to the Letters; FELTEN, Robert Grosseteste, Bischof von Lincoln (Freiburg, 1887); STEVENSON, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (London, 1899), a most impartial work, which supersedes PERRY's rather biased Life and Times of Robert Grosseteste (1871). See also POHLE in Kirchenlex., s. v. Information of Grosseteste's Oxford career can be obtained from RASHDALL, Universities of Europe during the Middle Ages; LITTLE, Grey Friars at Oxford; and FELDER, Geschichte d. wissenschaftl. Studien im Franziskaner-Orden (Freiburg, 1904), 260 sqq. For a list of the printed editions of his works see LUARD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.

F.F. URQUHART

Grosseto

(Grossetana)

Grosseto, suffragan diocese of Siena, has for its episcopal city the capital of the provence of Grosseto in Tuscany. Grosseto is situated at the mouth of the Ombrone, in the unhealthy Maremma country. It is first mentioned in 803 as a fief of the Counts Aldobrandeschi. It grew in importance with years, owing to the decay of Rusellæ and Vetulonia. The ruins of the former are still to be seen, about five miles from Grosseto — cyclopean walls four miles in circumference, and sulphur baths, which in the last century were restored for medicinal uses. There was formerly an amphitheatre. Grosseto was one of the principal Etruscan cities. In 1137 it was besieged by Henry of Bavaria, envoy to Lothair III. In 1224 the Sienese captured it and were legally invested with it by the imperial vicar; thus Grosseto shared the fortuned of Siena. It became an important stronghold, and the fortress (rocca), the walls, and bastions are still to be seen. In 1266, and again in 1355, it sought freedom from the overlordship of Siena, but in vain. The Romanesque cathedral was completed in 1295 and restored in 1846. It was the work of Sozo Rustichini of Siena. The façade consists of alternate layers of white and black marble. The campanile dates from 1402, and the wondrously carved baptismal font from 1470.

Rusellæ was an episcopal city from the fifth century. St. Gregory the Great commended to the spiritual care of Balbinus, Bishop of Rusellæ, the inhabitants of Vetulonia. In 1138 Innocent II transferred the see to Grosseto, and Rolando, Bishop of Rusellæ, became the Bishop of Grosseto. Among his successors were: Fra Bartolommeo da Amelia (1278), employed by the popes on many legations; Angelo Pattaroli (1330), a saintly Dominican; Cardinal Raffaele Petrucci (1497), a native of Siena and lord of that city, hated alike for his cupidity and his worldly mode of life; Ferdinand Cardinal Ponzetti (1522), a learned man but fond of wealth; Marcantonio Campeggio (1528), who was distinguished at the Council of Trent. From 1858 to 1867, for political and economical reasons, the see remained vacant. The diocese contains 26 parishes and numbers 30,250 faithful. It has two religious houses and one convent for girls.

Cappelletti, Le chiese d'Italia, XVII (1862), 633 — 77; Cognacci, Scritti, Scrittori, e uomini celebri della provencia di Grosseto (Grosseto, 1874).

U. BENIGNI

Grosswardein

(Hung, Nagy-Várad; Magno-Varadinensis)

A diocese of the Latin Rite in Hungary, suffragan of Kalocsa-Bács. It includes the whole of the Counties of Bihar and Szilágy, parts of Békés and Szatmár, and the city of Debreczin. The see is divided into four archidiaconates, that of the cathedral and those of Békés, Kraszna, and Mittle-Szolnok, and twelve vice-archidiaconates. The diocese includes 1 abbey, 16 titular abbeys, 3 provostships, and 15 titular provostships, 66 parishes, and 193 clergy. Patronage, in the hands of 26 patrons, is exercised over 65 benefices. The training of the clergy takes place in the seminary at Grosswardein and in the central ecclesiastical seminary at Budapest. In 1908 the total number of seminarians was 26 theologians, there being three clerics attending the gymnasium. The total population of the diocese is (1908) 1,157,160, of whom 161,293 are Roman Catholics, 165168 Greek Catholics, 215,710 Orthodox Greeks, 105,439 disciples of Augustine of Bohemia, 453,853 of the Helvetic Confession, 1261 Unitarians, 52,688 Jews, and 1748 professing other creeds. There are 269 Greek Catholic churches and twenty-four convents of men and women, having in all 307 members.

The foundation of the see is ascribed by the historian Georg Pray to St. Stephen; the seat of the diocese, however, was then Byhor (Bihar), whence it was transferred by the saintly King Ladislaus to Grosswardein. However that may be, the statutes of the chapter of 1370 explicitly attribute the founding of the see to St. Ladislaus. The year 1083 is the accepted date of the foundation. The patron of the diocese is the sainted King Ladislaus. Sixtus (1103-1113) is said to have been the first bishop. In 1241, the bishopric and the city were devastated by the Tartars. However, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the diocese developed very considerably, and as early as the fourteenth century embraced six archidiaconates, with over 300 parishes. Bishop Andreas Báthori (1329-1345) rebuilt the cathedral in Gothic style. Jotram (1383-1395) erected the famous equestrian statue of King Ladislaus. >From that epoch dates also the Hermes, now preserved at Györ, which contains the skull of King Ladislaus, and which is a masterpiece of the Hungarian goldsmith's art. Bishop Johann Vitíz von Zredna (1445-1465) was one of the most distinguished and active promoters of Humanism in Hungary. The political dissolution following the battle of Mohács in 1526 and the aggressiveness of Protestantism caused the rapid decline of the diocese. After the death of Georg Utiessenovicz-Martinuzzi (1535-1551), the greatest of the bishops of Grosswardein and the partisan of Queen Isabella and King John, the see still deteriorated.

Protestantism continually gained in extent, and even the establishment of the Jesuits at Grosswardein in 1579 could not save the Catholic religion in the diocese from ruin. In 1606 the last Catholic priest left the city of Grosswardein. The old cathedral fell into disrepair, and in 1618 the walls which still stood were torn down by Gabriel Bethlen. In 1660 Grosswardein was conquered by the Turks and ruled by them until 1692. Upon their departure, the reorganization of the diocese was begun under Bishop Gosf Emerich Csáky (1702-1732). The foundation stone of the present cathedral was laid in 1752 by Bishop Gosf Paul Forgách (1747-1757). From that time onwards the condition of the Catholic religion improved.

The Greek Catholic diocese of Grosswardein was founded in 1777, the faithful of that Rite having been up to that time under the jurisdiction of the Latin bishop. Originally the see was a suffragan of Gran; when, however, in 1853 the Greek Catholic Diocese of Fogaras became the Archdiocese of Fogaras and Alba Julia, the Diocese of Grosswardein was transferred to its jurisdiction. The see is divided into six archidiaconates and nineteen vice-archidiaconates. There are (1906) one hundred and seventy parishes. The right of patronage is exercised in ninety-four parishes by twelve patrons.

Schematismus venerabilis cleri di c. Magno-Varadinensis latinorum pro 1908; Bunziky, Geschichte des Bistums von Várad, I-III (Grosswardein, 1883-84); Das katholische Ungarn (Budapest, 1902); the two last works are in Hungarian.

A. ALDÁSY

Abbey of Grottaferrata

(Lat. Crypta ferrata.)

A Basilian monastery near Rome, sometimes said to occupy the site of Cicero's Tusculanum and situated on the lower slopes of the Alban hills, in the Diocese of Frascati, two and a half miles from the town itself. The monastery was founded in 1004 by St. Nilus, sometimes called "the Younger" or "of Rossano". This abbot, a Calabrian Greek, and hence a subject of the Byzantine Empire, had left Rossano in 980 to avoid the inroads of the Saracens and with his community had spent the intervening years in various monasteries without finding a permanent home. The legend narrates that, at the spot where the abbey now stands, Our Lady appeared and bade him found a church in her honour. From Gregory, the powerful Count of Tusculum, father of Popes Benedict VIII and John XIX, Nilus obtained the site, but died soon afterwards (26 Dec., 1005). The building was carried out by his successors, especially the fourth abbot, St. Bartholomew, who, is usually accounted the second founder. The abbey has had a troubled history. The high repute of the monks attracted many gifts; its possessions were numerous and widespread, and in 1131 King Roger of Sicily made the abbot Baron of Rossano with an extensive fief. Between the twelfth century and the fifteenth the monastery suffered much from the continual strife of warring factions: Romans and Tusculans, Guelphs and Ghibellines, pope and antipope, Colonna and Orsini. From 1163 till the destruction of Tusculum, in 1191, the greater part of the community sought refuge in a dependency of the Benedictine protocaenobium of Subiaco. In the middle of the thirteeth century the Emperor Frederick II made the abbey his headquarters during the siege of Rome, in 1378 Breton and Gascon mercenaries held it for the antipope Clement VII; and the fifteenth century saw the bloody feuds of the Colonnas and the Orsini raging round tile walls. Hence in 1432 the humanist Ambrogio Traversari tells us that it bore the appearance of a barrack rather than of a monastery. In 1462 began a line of commendatory abbots, fifteen in number, of whom all but one were cardinals.

The most distinguished were the Greek Bessarion, Giulio della Rovere (afterwards Julius II, and the last of the line, Cardinal Consalvi, secretary of state to Pius VII. Bessarion, himself a Basilian monk, increased the scanty and impoverished community and restored the church; Cardinal Giulio della Rovere, from more selfish motives, erected the Castello and surrounded the whole monastery with the imposing fortifications that still exist. Till 1608 the community was ruled by priors dependent on the commendatories, but in that year Grottaferrata became a member of the Basilian congregation founded by Gregory XIII, the revenues of the community were separated from those of the commendatories, and the first of a series of triennial regular abbots was appointed. The triennial system survived the suppression of the Commendam and lasted till the end of last century, with one break from 1834 to 1870, when priors were appointed by the Holy See. In 1901 new constitutions came into force and Arsenio Pellegrini was installed as the first perpetual regular abbot since 1462.

The Greek Rite which was brought to Grottaferrata by St. Nilus had lost its native character by the end of the twelfth century, and gradually became more and more latinized, but was restored by order of Leo XIII in 1881 (see Rocchi, "Badia", cap. iv). The Basilian abbey has always been a home of Greek learning, and Greek hymnography flourished there long after the art had died out within the Byzantine Empire. Monastic studies were revived under Cardinal Bessarion and again in 1608. The best known of modern Basilian writers is the late Abbot Cozza Luzi (d. 1905), the continuator of Cardinal Mai's "Nova Bibliotheca Patrum". Of the church consecrated by John XIX, in 1024, little can be seen except the mosaics in the narthex and over the triumphal arch, the medieval structures having been covered or destroyed during the "restorations" of various commendatory abbots. Domenichino's famous frescoes, due to Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, are still to be seen in the chapel of St. Nilus. In 1904 the ninth centenary of the foundation of the abbey was marked by a judicious but partial restoration, the discovery of some fragmentary thirteenth century frescoes and an exhibition of Byzantine art. The monastery has been exempt from episcopal jurisdiction since the days of Calixtus II, but its claims to the dignity of an abbey nullius were disallowed by Benedict. In 1874 the building was declared a national monument and in 1903 the church received the rank of a Roman basilica.

RAYMUND WEBSTER

Johann Grueber

A German Jesuit missionary in China and noted explorer of the seventeenth century; b. at Linz, 28 October, 1623; d. in 1665. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1641, and went to China in 1656, where he was active at the court of Peking as professor of mathematics and assistant to Father Adam Schall von Bell. In 1661 his superiors sent him, together with the Belgian Father Albert de Dorville (D'Orville), to Rome on business concerning the order. As it was impossible to journey by sea on account of the blockade of Macao by the Dutch, they conceived the daring idea of going overland to India by way of China and Thibet. This led to Grueber's memorable journey (Dorville died on the way), which won him fame as one of the most successful explorers of the seventeenth century (Tonnier). They first travelled to Sinning-fu, on the borders of Kan-su; thence, through the Kukunor territory and Kalmuck Tartary (Desertum Kalnac), to the "Holy City" of Lhasa in Thibet; crossed, amid countless difficulties and hardships, the mountain passes of the Himalayas; arrived at Nepal, and thence passed over the Ganges plateau to Patna and Agra. This journey lasted two hundred and fourteen days. Dorville died at Agra, a victim of the hardships he had undergone. Grueber, accompained by a Sanskrit Scholar, Father Henry Roth, followed the overland route through Asia and succeeded in reaching Europe. His journey produced a sensation similar to that aroused its our times by the explorations of Sven Hedin. It showed the possibility of a direct overland connection between China and India, and the value and significance of the Himalayan passes. Tonnier says: "It is due to Grueber's energy that Europe received the first correct information concerning Thibet and its inhabitants". Although Oderico of Pordenone had traversed Thibet, in 1327, and visited Lhasa, he had not written any account of this journey. Antonio de Andrada and Manuel Marquez had pushed their explorations as far as Tsparang on the northern Setledj. In 1664 Grueber set out to return to China, attempted to push his way through Russia, was obliged to return, and then undertook the land route to Asia. He was taken sick in Constantinople and died in Florence, or, according to others, in Patak, Hungary.

An account of this first journey through Thibet in modern times was published by Father Athanasius Kircher to whom Grueber had left his journals and charts, which he had supplemented by numerous verbal and written additions ("China illustrata", Amsterdam, 1667, 64-67). In the French edition of "China" (Amsterdam, 1670) is also incorporated a letter of Grueber written to the Duke of Tuscany. For letters of Grueber see "Neue Welt-Bott" (Augsburg and Gratz, 1726), no. 34; Thévenot (whose acquaintance Grueber had made in Constantinople), "Divers voyages curieux" (Paris, 1666, 1672, 1692), II; extracts in Ritter, "Asien" (Berlin, 1833), II, 173; III, 453; IV, 88, 183; Anzi, "II genio vagante" (Parma, 1692), III, 331-399.

CARLIERI, Notizie varie dell' Imperio della China (Florence, 1697); ASHLEY, Collection of voyages (London, 1745-47), IV, 651sq; MARKHAM, Narrative of the Mission of Boyle and Manning, (London, 1876), 295 sq.; VON RICHTHOFEN, China (Berlin, 1877), 761, etc., with routes and plate, the best monograph; TONNIER, die Durchquerung Tibets seitens der Jesuiten Joh. Grueber und Albert de Dorville im Jahre 1661 in Zeitschr, d. Ges.fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, 1904, pp. 328-361 (route shown on plate 8).

A. HUONDER

Anastasius Grün

A pseudonym for Anton Alexander (Maria), Count von Auersperg, an Austrian poet; b. at Laibach in 1806. d. at Graz in 1876. He received his earliest training at the Theresian academy, at Vienna, and later studied philosophy and jurisprudence at Vienna and Graz. From 1831 on he was occupied with the care of his paternal estates at Thurn. Repeatedly he undertook journeys through Italy, France, and England, until he married a Countess in 1839. Henceforth he divided his time between his estates and Vienna. In the meantime his poems had made him famous as a charnpion of liberalism, and he had entered the political field. In 1848 he was elected a member of the National Assembly at Frankfort. Disappointed in his expectations, he withdrew and retired to private life, from whence he did not emerge until 1830, when Austria had become a constitutional State. He was appointed a life member of the Austrian Reichsrat serving at the same time first as a member of the Carniolan and then of the Styrian diet.

His first collection of lyric poems, "Blatter der Liebe", appeared in 1830. This was followed by a romantic cycle, "Der letzte Ritter" (Stuttgart, 1830), in praise of Emperor Maximilian I. But fame came to from through his political poems, the first collection of which appeared anonymously in 1831 under the title of "Spaziergange eines Wiener Poeten". It was a severe arraignment of the oppressive conditions prevailing under the regime of Metternich, and created a sensation among all classes. The next collection, "Schutt" ("Ruins"--1835), was also political in tendency. Neither this nor the preceding collection has won enduring fame. This Grün owes rather to some of his lyrics like "Das Blatt im Buche" and "Der letzte Dichter", which appeared in "Gedichte" (Leipzig, 1837). His two humorous poems, "Nibelungen im Frack" (1843) and "Der Pfaff vom Kahlenberg" (1850) were never really popular. Other works of Grün are the "Volkslieder aus Krain" (Leipzig, 1850), a collection of Slovenic folk-songs, and "Robin Hood" (Stuttgart, 1864), a free rendering of old English ballads. His complete works were edited by L. A. Frankl (Berlin, 1877, 5 vols.), new edition by Anton Schlossar (Leipzig).

VON RADICS, A. Grün und seine Heimath (Stuttgart, 1876); IDEM, A. Grün, Verschollenes und Vergilbtes aus dessen Leben und Wirken (Leipzig, 1878); SCHATZMAYER, Anton Graf von Auereperg, sein Leben und Dichten (2nd ed, Frankfort, 1872); SCHONBACH, Anastasius Grün in Gesammete Aufsatze zur neueren Litteratur in Deutechland, Oesterreich, Amerika (Graz, 1900), pp. 174-185.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Guadalajara

(Guadalaxara)

Archdiocese in Mexico, separated from the Diocese of Michoacan by Paul III, 31 July, 1548. The residence of the bishop was first fixed at Compostela, in the Province of Tepic, but in 1560 was transferred by Pius IV to Guadalajara. Since its foundation the see has had a cathedral chapter, of twenty-seven members between 1830 and 1850, but at present (1908) they number only seventeen. The present cathedral was begun in 1571, completed and dedicated in 1618, and consecrated in 1716. It contains a celebrated painting by Murillo.

Among its notable bishops was the Dominican missionary, Felipe Galindo y Chávez, who was consecrated in 1695, and died in 1702. He founded in 1699 the diocesan seminary and gave it its constitution and a library. The same prelate exerted his influence towards securing the foundation of a university, entrusted the missions of Lower California to the Jesuits, and made two visitations of the diocese as far as the neighbourhood of Coahuila. Nicolás Carlos Gómez de Cervantes, a canon of Mexico, consecrated Bishop of Guatamala in 1723, was transferred to Guadalajara in 1725 and died in 1734. He made a visitation of the whole diocese, strengthened the Jesuits in the California missions, founded in Texas the parish of San Antonio de Bexar, and assisted in building convents for the Dominican and Augustinian nuns. The Franciscan Francisco de S. Buenaventura Martinez de Texada Diez de Velasco was the first Auxiliary Bishop of Cuba and built the parish church of St. Augustine, Florida; later he became Bishop of Yucatan (1745), and was transferred to Guadalajara in 1752. He twice visited the whole of his diocese, made generous donations of church ornaments and sacred vessels to indigent parishes, and aided in the erection of many churches. He died in 1760. The Dominican Antonio Alcalde, born in 1701, a lector in arts, master of students, lector in theology for twenty-six years, and prior of several convents of his order, became Bishop of Yucatan in 1763, and was transferred to Guadalajara in 1771. There he founded the university and a hospital (S. Miguel de Belén) for five hundred sick poor; he also improved the standard of teaching in the seminary and in the college of S. Juan Bautista, founded and endowed the girls college called El Beaterio, and placed it under the care of religious women. It was this bishop who built the sanctuary of Guadalupe, and left funds to defray there the expenses of worship. Another very large bequest left by him was for the building of the cathedral parish church. He introduced various industries to improve the condition of the poor, and during the great famine (1786) supported a multitude of destitute persons. After spending $1,097,000 on good works in his diocese, he died, 7 August, 1793, a poor man — "the father of the poor and benefactor of learning".

Juan Cruz Ruiz de Cabañas, rector of the seminary of Burgos (Spain), became Bishop of Nicaragua in 1794, and of Guadalajara in 1796. He gave new constitutions to the seminary and founded there new classes, also the clerical college and the hospice for the poor, established moral conferences for the clergy, fostered agriculture and the fine arts, and was instrumental in popularizing the practice of vaccination. It was he who crowned Iturbide emperor in 1824.

Pedro Espinosa, born in 1793, was rector of the seminary and of the university, and a dignitary of the cathedral, became Bishop of Guadalajara in 1854, and archbishop in 1863. He was persecuted on account of his vigorous defence of the rights of the Church, being banished for that reason by the Liberal Government. He placed the charitable institutions under the care of the Sisters of Charity. Pedro Loza, Bishop of Sonora in 1852, became Archbishop of Guadalajara in 1868, assisted at the Council of the Vatican, and died in 1898. He was the initiator of the system of free parochial primary schools; he improved the seminary to a remarkable degree, gave it its present building, ordained 536 priests, and built the churches of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores and San José.

The population of the diocese is about 1,200,000; it contains 83 parishes, 5 of which are in the episcopal city. The once numerous convents of Franciscans, Dominicans, Mercedarians, Augustinians, Carmelites, and Oratorians were suppressed by the Liberals; the Government, assuming the rights of ownership of the conventional buildings, converted most of them into barracks and afterwards alienated the remainder. Some of the Franciscans, Augustinian, and Mercedarian religious remained as chaplains of the churches that had been their own. In the ancient convent building of the Friars Minor at Zapopan there is a college for young men under the direction of Franciscans. The Jesuits, expelled by Charles III of Spain (1767), did not return until 1906, when they founded a college in the city of Guadalajara. The Religious of the Sacred Heart have for some years carried on a girls'school. The seminary, having, in consequence of Liberal legislation, lost its own building, acquired the old convent of Santa Monica, which Archbishop Loza began to rebuild in 1891. Besides many other illustrious ecclesiastics, no fewer than thirty-one bishops have been trained in this establishment, which has now (1908) 1000 students. In the cities of Zapotlan and San Juan de los Lagos there are auxiliary seminaries. Free primary instruction is established in all the parishes of the archdiocese. At Guadalajara there is a female normal school under ecclesiastical supervision, also several hospitals and orphan asylums supported by charity. The hospital and endowments of S. Miguel de Belén and the hospice for the poor, foundations of former bishops, were siezed by the Liberals.

Vera, Catecismo Geográfico-Histórico-Estadistisco de la Iglesia Mexicana (Amecameca, 1881); Lorenzana, Concilios Provinciales Primero y Secundo celebrados en la Ciudad de Mexico (Mexico, 1769); Santoscoy, Memoria presentada en el Concurso Literario y Artistico, con que se celebró el primer Centenario de la muerte del Ilmo. Sr. D. Fray Antonio Alcalde(Guadalajara, 1893); Idem, Catálogo biográfico de los Prelados que han regido la Iglesia de Guadalajara, de los han sido sus hijos ó sus domiciliados, y de las Diócesis que ha producido (Guadalajara), Verdia, Vida del Ilmo. Sr. Alcalde (Guadalajara, 1892); Traslación de los restos del Ilmo. Sr. Espinosa, y oraciones fúnebres (Guadalajara, 1876); Santoscoy, Exequias y Biografia del Ilmo. Sr. Arzbpo. D. Pedro Loza (Guadalajara, 1898); Padilla, Historia de Provincia de la Nueva Galicia(Mexico, 1870); Tello, Cronica Miscelanea de la Santa Provincia de Xalisco (Guadalajara, 1891); Smith, Guadalajara: The Pearl of the West in The Messenger (New York, 1900), 499-505.

DANIEL R. LOWEREE

Shrine of Guadalupe

Guadalupe is strictly the name of a picture, but was extended to the church containing the picture and to the town that grew up around. The word is Spanish Arabic, but in Mexico it may represent certain Aztec sounds.

The place, styled Guadalupe Hidalgo since 1822 -- as in our 1848 treaty -- is three miles northeast of Mexico City. Pilgrimages have been made to this shrine almost uninterruptedly since 1531-32. In the latter year there was a shrine at the foot of Tepeyac Hill which served for ninety years, and still, in part, forms the parochial sacristy. In 1622 a rich shrine was erected; a newer one, much richer, in 1709. Other structures of the eighteenth century connected with it are a parish church, a convent and church for Capuchin nuns, a well chapel, and a hill chapel. About 1750 the shrine got the title of collegiate, a canonry and choir service being established. It was aggregated to St. John Lateran in 1754; and finally, in 1904 it was created a basilica. The presiding ecclesiastic is called abbot. The greatest recent change in the shrine itself has been its complete interior renovation in gorgeous Byzantine, presenting a striking illustration of Guadalupan history.

The picture really constitutes Guadalupe. It makes the shrine: it occasions the devotion. It is taken as representing the Immaculate Conception, being the lone figure of the woman with the sun, moon, and star accompaniments of the great apocalyptic sign, and in addition a supporting angel under the crescent. Its tradition is, as the new Breviary lessons declare, "long-standing and constant". Oral and written, Indian and Spanish, the account is unwavering. To a neophyte, fifty five years old, named Juan Diego, who was hurrying down Tepeyac hill to hear Mass in Mexico City, on Saturday, 9 December, 1531, the Blessed Virgin appeared and sent him to Bishop Zumárraga to have a temple built where she stood. She was at the same place that evening and Sunday evening to get the bishop's answer. He had not immediately believed the messenger; having cross-questioned him and had him watched, he finally bade him ask a sign of the lady who said she was the mother of the true God. The neophyte agreed so readily to ask any sign desired, that the bishop was impressed and left the sign to the apparition. Juan was occupied all Monday with Bernardino, an uncle, who seemed dying of fever. Indian specifics failed; so at daybreak on Tuesday, 12 December, the grieved nephew was running to the St. James's convent for a priest. To avoid the apparition and untimely message to the bishop, he slipped round where the well chapel now stands. But the Blessed Virgin crossed down to meet him and said: "What road is this thou takest son?" A tender dialogue ensued. Reassuring Juan about his uncle whom at that instant she cured, appearing to him also and calling herself Holy Mary of Guadalupe she bade him go again to the bishop. Without hesitating he joyously asked the sign. She told him to go up to the rocks and gather roses. He knew it was neither the time nor the place for roses, but he went and found them. Gathering many into the lap of his tilma a long cloak or wrapper used by Mexican Indians he came back. The Holy Mother, rearranging the roses, bade him keep them untouched and unseen till he reached the bishop. Having got to the presence of Zumárraga, Juan offered the sign. As he unfolded his cloak the roses fell out, and he was startled to see the bishop and his attendants kneeling before him: the life size figure of the Virgin Mother, just as he had described her, was glowing on the poor tilma. A great mural decoration in the renovated basilica commemorates the scene. The picture was venerated, guarded in the bishop's chapel, and soon after carried processionally to the preliminary shrine.

The coarsely woven stuff which bears the picture is as thin and open as poor sacking. It is made of vegetable fibre, probably maguey. It consists of two strips, about seventy inches long by eighteen wide, held together by weak stitching. The seam is visible up the middle of the figure, turning aside from the face. Painters have not understood the laying on of the colours. They have deposed that the "canvas" was not only unfit but unprepared; and they have marvelled at apparent oil, water, distemper, etc. colouring in the same figure. They are left in equal admiration by the flower-like tints and the abundant gold. They and other artists find the proportions perfect for a maiden of fifteen. The figure and the attitude are of one advancing. There is flight and rest in the eager supporting angel. The chief colours are deep gold in the rays and stars, blue green in the mantle, and rose in the flowered tunic. Sworn evidence was given at various commissions of inquiry corroborating the traditional account of the miraculous origin and influence of the picture. Some wills connected with Juan Diego and his contemporaries were accepted as documentary evidence. Vouchers were given for the existence of Bishop Zumárraga's letter to his Franciscan brethren in Spain concerning the apparitions. His successor, Montufar, instituted a canonical inquiry, in 1556, on a sermon in which the pastors and people were abused for crowing to the new shrine. In 1568 the renowned historian Bernal Díaz, a companion of Cortez, refers incidentally to Guadalupe and its daily miracles. The lay viceroy, Enríquez, while not opposing the devotion, wrote in 1575 to Philip II asking him to prevent the third archbishop from erecting a parish and monastery at the shrine; inaugural pilgrimages were usually made to it by viceroys and other chief magistrates. Processes, national and ecclesiastical, were laboriously formulated and attested for presentation at Rome, in 1663, 1666, 1723, 1750.

The clergy, secular and regular, has been remarkably faithful to the devotion towards Our Lady of Guadalupe, the bishops especially fostering it, even to the extent of making a protestation of faith in the miracle a matter of occasional obligation. The present pontiff [1910] is the nineteenth pope to favour the shrine and its tradition. Benedict XIV and Leo XIII were its two strongest supporters. The former pope decreed that Our Lady of Guadalupe should be the national patron, and made 12 December a holiday of obligation with an octave, and ordered a special Mass and Office; the latter approved a complete historical second Nocturne, ordered the picture to be crowned in his name, and composed a poetical inscription for it. Pius X has recently permitted Mexican priests to say the Mass of Holy Mary of Guadalupe on the twelfth day of every month and granted indulgences which may be gained in any part of the world for prayer before a copy of the picture. A miraculous Roman copy for which Pius IX ordered a chapel is annually celebrated among the "Prodigia" of 9 July.

G. LEE

Guadeloupe

(Or Basse Terre; Guadalupensis; Imæ Telluris)

Diocese in the West Indies, comprises the islands of Guadeloupe, Les Saintes, Marie-Galante, La Désirade, and the French portions of St. Martin and St Bartholomew. When, on 4 November, 1493, Christopher Columbus discovered the island of Karukera, he called it Guadalupe, in honor of the miraculous Madonna of Guadalupe in Spain. Guadeloupe has been French since 1653, with the exception of some brief periods of English occupation. It was formerly administered by a prefect Apostolic. In 1837 Jean-Marie de Lamennais, by agreement with the French Government, sent to Guadeloupe, as instructors, several brothers of the Institute Ploërmel. On the publication of the royal ordinance of 5 January, 1840, recalling to the priests of the colonies their obligation to instruct the young slaves, and to the masters their duty of allowing the latter to be instructed, Lamennais realized that the clergy of Guadeloupe must be reorganized. He addressed a note to the Government, in which he asked for the creation of three dioceses, at Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Guiana. Montalembert, in a speech delivered before the Chamber of Peers (7 April, 1845), demanded the appointment, if not of titular bishops, at least of vicars Apostolic, in the colonies. In 1848 Father Libermann, superior-general of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, drew M. de Falloux's attention to the question, and, by an agreement between France and the Holy See, the Bull of 27 September, 1850, created for Guadeloupe the Bishopric of Basse-Terre as suffragan of the Archdiocese of Bordeaux. The clergy of Guadeloupe are educated in the seminary of the Holy Ghost, at Paris. Its first bishop (1851-53) was the celebrated preacher Lacarrière, of whom Chateaubriand said, " If I were a priest, I should wish to preach like him." In 1905 (the last year of the concordatory regime) the diocese numbered 182,112 inhabitants, 2 archidiaconates, 3 archipresbyterates, 19 deaneries, 37 parishes, 54 priests (besides the bishop and vicars-general). At that time the regulars were represented by the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, the Brothers of Ploërmel, the Sisters Hospitallers of St. Paul of Chartres, and the Teaching Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny.

Lacombe, Lettre pastorale du Préfet Apostolique au clergé de la Guadeloupe sur l'instruction religieuse dans les colonies (Basse-Terre, 1839); Laveille, Jean-Marie de Lamennais, II (Paris, 1903), 265-66; 639-41; L'épiscopat français depuis le Concordat (Paris, 1907), 271-78.

GEORGES GOYAU

Guaicuri Indians

(Pronounced Waikuri.)

A group of small tribes, speaking dialectic forms of a common language, probably of distinct stock, formerly occupying part of Lower California. They ranged from about 24° to 26° N. lat., having for neighbours, on the south the Pericue, of very similar characteristics, and on the north the somewhat superior Cochimi. They may have numbered originally some 7000 souls. According to our best authority, the Jesuit Baegert, who laboured among the Guaicuri for seventeen years until the expulsion of the order in 1767, they lived in the open air without shelter of any kind by day or night, excepting a mere brushwood windbreak in the coldest winter weather. The men were absolutely naked, while the women wore only an apron of skin or strings woven from vegetable fibre. They sometimes used sandals—mere strips of skin—to protect the soles of their feet from rocks and thorns. They wore their hair loose, and the men cut and stretched their ears with pieces of bone until they hung down nearly to the shoulder. They painted their bodies with mineral colours. Their implements and furniture consisted of a long bow and arrows, a flint knife, a sharpened stick for digging roots, a turtle shell for basket and cradle, a bladder for water, and a bag for provisions.

The preparation of these simple things constituted their only arts and the time left from hunting food was given up to lounging, sleeping, or an occasional intertribal orgy of brutish licentiousness. Their food comprised practically everything of animal or vegetable nature to be found in their country, no matter how disgusting in habit or condition. Owing to the desert character of their country they lived in a condition of chronic starvation throughout most of the year. Constantly on the move in search of food, they lay down in the open air wherever night found them, and rarely twice consecutively in the same spot. They had practically no form of government, and marriage could hardly be said to exist in view of the universal licentiousness, jealousy apparently being unknown. The rest of their moral make-up was of a parity. Honour, shame, and gratitude were unknown virtues, and after years of effort, the missionary was obliged to confess "that they was but very little result because their was no foundation to build upon. They had no religious ceremonies or emblems, and their mathematical ability did not permit them to count beyond six, so that", as Baegert quaintly puts it, "none of them can say how many fingers he has." To save the souls and ameliorate the temporal conditions of such naked, houseless, and utterly degraded savages, some of the most devoted and scholarly men of the Jesuit Order gave the best years of their lives.

Through the efforts of that celebrated Jesuit, Father Kino, priest of the Sonora mission, who had already begun the religious instruction of the Pericui and a study of their language in 1683-5, attention was directed to the peninsula, and the work was entrusted to Father Juan María Salvatierra, S. J., who landed on the east coast near the Island of Carmen, on 15 October, 1697, with six companions, a few cattle, sheep, and pigs, and founded the mission of Our Lady of Loretto, destined to become the center of the peninsula missions. The particular tribe in the vicinity was the Laimón, the Pericui range beginning a few miles to the south. The natives appeared friendly, and after a short time the boat returned to the mainland, leaving the missionary alone to act as "priest, officer, sentry, and even cook". Other missionaries followed and the work grew, largely assisted by the benefactors of the Pious Fund, until, at the close of the Jesuit period, there existed along the peninsula a chain of fourteen missions. Most of the earlier missions were within the territory of the Guaicuri, including San Luis Gonzaga, where Baegert was stationed, or the Pericuri, the northern Cochimi being visited later. After Salvatierra, who died in 1717, the most prominent name associated with these missions is probably that of Father Ugarte, who first explored the Gulf of California in a ship of his own building. The mission day began with Mass and a short recitation of a catechism in the Indiana language, followed by breakfast, after which the workers scattered to their daily tasks. The sunset bell summoned them to church for the litany. Regular cooked meals of meat and grain, besides fruit from the mission orchards and vineyards were furnished three times daily to the sick, the old, and the workers, the others, who roved at will, being expected to look out for themselves.

In spite of the fickle character of the natives, the missionaries encountered very little active opposition excepting from the Pericui, but their efforts for good were largely frustrated by the vicious example of the pearl fishers and other adventurers, who, following the opening up of the country, introduced dissipation and disease until the blood of the whole Indian population was hopelessly poisoned. On the departure of the Jesuits in 1768, the missions were turned over to the Franciscans, but subject to so many restrictions that, in 1773, they transferred them to the Dominicans. Nine other missions, all among the more northern tribes, were founded by the latter order up until 1797, making a total of twenty-three then in existence on the peninsula. The missions, however, soon declined, chiefly owing to the rapid extinction of the Indians themselves. Serious scandals also crept in. Governmental interference was succeeded by governmental hostility and spoilation under the revolutionary regime, culminating in 1833, in the act of secularization by which the ruin of the missions was completed. The few surviving Indians scattered to the mountains or starved about their former homes. Those within the mission area, estimated originally at 25,000 numbered less than 3800 in 1840. In 1908 these had dwindled to a handful of supposed Guaicuri about San Xavier and a few individuals of the Cochimi about Santa Gertrudis and San Borja, orderly in conduct and devoutly Catholic.

Baegert, Nachrichten von der Amerikanischen Halbinsel Californiens (Mannheim, 1773); edited in extracts by Rau as Account of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the California Peninsula in Smithsonian Reports for 1863 and 1864 (Washington, 1864 and 1865); Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States: I: Wild Tribes (San Francisco, 1882); Idem, History of the North American States and Texas (San Francisco, 1886); Browne, Settlement and Exploration of Lower California (San Francisco, 1859); Clavigero, Storia della California (Venice, 1789); Gleeson, History of the Catholic Church in California (San Francisco, 1872); Duflot de Mofran, Exploration du Territoíre de l'Orégon, 1840-2 (Paris, 1844); North, The Mother of California (San Francisco and New York, 1908); Venegan, Noticia de la California (Madrid, 1757).

JAMES MOONEY

Guaraní Indians

(Pronounced Waraní.)

One of the most important tribal groups of South America, having the former home territory chiefly between the Uruguay and lower Paraguay Rivers, in what is now Paraguay and the Provinces of Corrientes and Entre Rios of Argentina. The name by which they are commonly known is of disputed origin and meaning. They called themselves simply Abá, that is, men. They belong to the great Tupí-Guaraní stock, which extends almost continuously from the Paraná to the Amazon, including most of eastern Brazil, with outlying branches as far west as the slopes of the Andes. Upon the Tupí-Guaraní dialect is based the lingoa geral or Indian trade language of the Amazon region.

The Guaraní are best known for their connection to the early Jesuit missions of Paraguay, the most notable mission foundation ever established in America, and for their later heroic resistance -- as the State of Paraguay, against the combined powers of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay -- until practically all their able-bodied men had been exterminated. In physique they are short and stoutly built, averaging but little over five feet, and are rather light in colour. In their primitive condition they were sedentary and agricultural, subsisting largely upon manioc, the root from which tapioca is prepared, together with corn, game, and wild honey, and occupying palisaded villages of communal houses, large enough to accommodate from ten to fifteen families each. They were expert and artistic potters and woodcarvers. Their arms were the bow and the blow-gun. According to the Jesuit missionary Dobrizhoffer, besides being cannibals, as were many other South American tribes, they, in ancient times, even ate their own dead, but later disposed of them in large jars placed inverted upon the ground. The men wear only the G-string, with labrets on the lower lip, and feather crowns. The women wore woven garments covering the whole body. Polygamy was allowed but was not common. Their religion was the animistic Pantheism usual among northern Indians. There was no central government, the numerous village communities being united only by the bond of common interest and language, with a tendency to form tribal groups according to dialect. At a minimum estimate they numbered when first known at least 400,000 souls.

The first entry into the Rio de la Plata, the estuary of the Paraná or Paraguay, was made by the Spanish navigator, Juan de Solis, in 1511. Sebastian Cabot followed in 1526, and in 1537 Gonzalo de Mendoza ascended the Paraguay to about the present Brazilian frontier, and returning founded Asuncion, destined to be the capital of Paraguay, and made first acquaintance with the Guaraní. Under the very first governor was initiated the policy of intermarriage with Indian women, from which the present mixed Paraguayan race derives its origin, and also of the enslavement of the native tribes who found no protector until the arrival of the Jesuits, the first two of whom, Father Barcena and Angulo, coming overland from Bolivia reached the Guaraní territory of Guayrá, in what is now the Province of Paraná, Southern Brazil, in 1585. Others soon followed, a Jesuit college was established at Asuncion, a provincial named for Paraguay and Chile, and in 1608, in consequence of their strong protests against the enslavement of the Indians, King Philip III of Spain issued royal authority to the Jesuits for the conversion and colonization of the Indians of Guayrá It should be noted that in the early period the name Paraguay was loosely used to designate all the basin of the river, including besides the present Paraguay, parts of Uruguay, Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil.

As usual in the Spanish colonies the first exploring expeditions were accompanied by Franciscan friars. At an early period in the history of Asuncion Father Luis de Bolanos translated the catechism into the language of the Guaraní in order to preach to those of that tribe in the neighbourhood of the settlement. In 1588-9 the celebrated St. Francis Solanus crossed the Chaco wilderness from Peru, preaching to the wild tribes, and stopped for some time as Asuncion, but without giving attention to the Guaraní. His recall left the field clear to the Jesuits, who assumed the double duty of civilizing and Christianizing the Indians and defending them against the merciless cruelties and butcheries of the slave dealers and the employers, including practically the whole white population, lay, clerical, and official. "The larger portion of the population regarded it as a right, a privilege in virtue of conquest, that they should enslave the Indians" (Page, 470). The Jesuit provincial, Torres, however, on his arrival in 1607, "immediately placed himself at the head of those who had opposed the cruelties at all times exercised over the natives" (Ibid).

The great centre and depot of the Indian slave trade was the town of São Paulo, below Rio de Janiero in the south of Brazil. Originally, a rendezvous of the Portuguese, Dutch, and Spanish pirates, it had become a refuge for the desperate criminals of all nations, who, finding a lack of wives of their own class and colour, had intermixed with Indian and negro women, producing a mongrel and bloodthirsty breed, without law, religion, mercy, or good faith. "Slave dealers of profession, they speedily overrode the influence and power of the Church, and drove out its ministers. Their town became the great slave market whence issued thousands and thousands of Indians to be bartered away on the public squares of the Atlantic cities. Here they assembled day after day as party after party returned from its inhuman expedition, the crowds of trembling, bleeding wretches who had been hunted and captured in some distant wilds . . . . These well-trained, well-armed, roaming, pillaging Paulistas, or Mamelucas as they were popularly called, became the dread and scourge of this beautiful land" (Page, 476). To oppose these armed and organized robbers, the naked tribes had only their bows, the Spanish government strictly prohibiting fire-arms, even to the civilized Indians. It is estimated that in the space of 130 years 2,000,000 Indians were slain or carried into captivity by these Brazilian slave-hunters. With the royal authority as guarantee of protection the first of the Guatrá missions, Loreto, was established on the Paranapané by Fathers Cataldino and Marcerata (or Maceta?) in 1610. The Guaraní flocked to them in such numbers, and listened so gladly and so obediently to these the first white men who have ever come to them as friends and helpers, that twelve missions rose in rapid succession, containing in all some 40,000 Indians. Stimulated by this success, Father Gonzalez with two companions in 1627 journeyed to the Uruguay and established two or three small missions, with good promise for the future, until the wild tribes murdered the priests, massacred the neophytes, and burned the missions.

But while the Guaraní missions grew and multiplied the slave raiders were on the watch and saw in them "merely an opportunity of capturing more Indians than usual at a haul" and as "nest of hawks, looked at their neophytes as pigeons, ready fattening for their use" (Graham). In 1629 the storm broke. An army of Paulistas with horses, guns, and bloodhounds together with a horde of wild Indians shooting poisoned arrows suddenly emerged from the forest, surrounded the mission of San Antonio, set fire to the church and other buildings, butchered the neophytes who resisted, and all who were to young or too old to travel, and carried the rest into slavery. San Miguel and Jesu Maria quickly met the same fate. In Concepción Father Salazar defended his flock through a regular siege even when reduced to eating snakes and rats, until reinforcements, gathered by father Cataldino, though armed only with bows, drove off the enemy. No other mission was so fortunate. Within the space of two years all but two of the flourishing establishments were destroyed, the houses plundered, the churches pillaged of their rich belongings upon which almost the whole surplus of the mission revenues had been lavished, the altars polluted with blood in sacrilegious frenzy and 60,000 Christian and civilized converts carried off for sale in the slave markets of São Paulo and Rio Janiero. To insure the larger result, the time chosen for attack was usually on Sunday, when the whole mission population was gathered at the Church for Mass. As a rule the priests were spared -- probably from fear of government reprisals -- although several lost their lives while ministering to the wounded or pleading with the murderers. Father Maceta and Mansilla even followed one captive train on foot through the swamps and forests, confessing the dying who fell by the road and carrying the chains of the weakest, despite threats and pricks of lances, to plead with the Paulista chiefs in their very city, and then to Baja, five hundred miles beyond, to ask the mediation of the governor-general himself, but all in vain, and they returned as they had come.

It was now evident that the Guayrá missions were doomed. The few thousand Indians left of nearly 100,000 just before the Paulista invasion had scattered to the forests, and could hardly be made to believe that the missionaries were not in league with the enemy. Father Antonio Ruiz de Montoya was able to buy 10,000 cattle, and thus transform his Indians from farmers to stock raisers. Soon again the work was on a prosperous basis, and under Fathers Rançoncier and Romero the Uruguay missions were re-established, only to be again destroyed (1632) by the old enemy, the Mamelucos, who had discovered a new line of attack from the south. This time the neophytes made some successful resistance, but in 1638 all of the twelve missions beyond the Uruguay were abandoned and their people consolidated with the community of the Missions Territory. In the last raid Father Afaro was killed, which at last brought about tardy interference by the governor.

In the same year Father Montoya, after having successfully opposed both governor and Bishop of Asunción in attempts upon the liberties of the Indians and the mission administration, sailed for Europe, accompanied by Father Diaz Taño, and succeeded in getting from Urban VIII a letter forbidding the enslavement of the mission Indians under the severest church penalties, and from King Philip IV, the long-desired and long-refused permission for the Indians to be furnished with fire-arms for their own defense, and to be trained to their use by veteran soldiers who had become members of the Jesuit order. When the next Paulista army, 800 strong, entered the mission territory in 1641, a body of Christian Guaraní armed with guns and led by their own chief met them on the Acaray river and in two pitched battles inflicted such severe defeat as put an end to the invasions for ten years. Differences with the Franciscans and with the Bishop of Paraguay on the old questions of jurisdiction and privilege, gave only a temporary check to the missions, now numbering twenty-nine, but in 1651 the was between Spain and Portugal, the latter represented in America by Brazil, gave encouragement to another Paulista attempt on a scale intended to wipe out every mission at one blow and hold the territory for Portugal. And now the Spanish authorities roused themselves and sent promise of help against the invading army, advancing in four divisions, but before any of the government troops could reach the frontier the fathers themselves, arming their neophytes, led them against the enemy, whom they repulsed at every point, and then turning, scattered a horde of savages who had gathered in the rear in the hope of plunder. In 1732, the year of their greatest prosperity, the Guaraní missions were guarded by a well-drilled and well-equipped army of 7000 Indians. On more than one occasion this mission army, accompanied by their priests, defended the Spanish colony.

The missions, of which the ruins of several still remain, were laid out upon a uniform plan. The buildings were grouped about a great central square, the church and store-houses at one end, and the dwellings of the Indians, in long barracks, forming the other three sides. Each family had its own separate apartments, but one veranda and one roof served for perhaps a hundred families. The churches were of stone or fine wood, with lofty towers, elaborate sculptures, richly adorned altars, and the statuary imported from Italy and Spain. The priests' quarters, the commissary, the stables, the amoury, the workshop, and the hospital also usually of stone, formed an inner square adjoining the church. The plaza itself was a level grass plot kept cropped by sheep. The Indian houses were sometimes of stone, but more often of adobe or cane, with home-made furniture or religious pictures, often made by the Indian themselves. The smaller missions had two priests, the larger more, the population varying from 2000 to 7000 in the different missions. Everything moved with military precision, lightened by pleasing ceremonial and sweet music, for both of which the Guaraní had an intense passion. The rising sun was greeted by a chorus of children's hymns, followed by the Mass and breakfast, after which the workers went to their tasks. "The Jesuits marshalled their neophytes to the sound of music, and in procession to the fields, with a saint borne high aloft, the community each day at sunrise took its way. Along the way at stated intervals were shrines of saints, and before each of them they prayed, and between each shrine sang hymns. As the procession advanced it became gradually smaller as groups of Indians dropped off to work the various fields and finally the priest and acolyte with the musicians returned alone" (Graham, 178-9). At midday each group assembled for the Angelus, after which came dinner and a siesta; work was then resumed until evening, when the labourers returned singing to their homes. After supper came the rosary and sleep. On rainy days they worked indoors. Frequent festivals with sham battles, fireworks, concerts, and dances, prevented monotony.

Besides the common farm each man had his own garden. In addition to agriculture, stock raising, and the cultivation of the maté or native tea, which they made famous, "the Jesuits had introduced amongst the Indians most of the arts and trades of Europe. Official inventory after the order of expulsion, shows that thousands of yards of cotton were sometimes woven in one mission in a single month." In addition to weaving, they had tanneries, carpenter shops, tailors, hat makers, coopers, cordage makers, boat builders, joiners, and almost every industry useful and necessary to life. They also made arms. powder, and musical instruments, and had silversmiths, musicians, painters, turners, and printers to work their printing presses; for many books were printed at the missions, and they produced manuscripts as finely executed as those made by the monks in European monasteries (Graham). The produce of their labour, including that from the increase of the herds, was sold at Buenos Aires and other markets, under supervision of the fathers, who portioned the proceeds between the common fund and the workers and helpless dependents, for their was no provision for able-bodied idleness. Finally "much attention was paid to the schools; early training was very properly regarded as the key to all future success" (Page, 503). Much of the instruction was in Guaraní, which was still the prevailing language of the country, but Spanish was also taught in every school. In this way as the Protestant Graham notes (183), "without employing force of any kind, which in their case would have been quite impossible, lost as they were amongst the crowd of Indians", the Jesuits transformed hordes of cannibal savages into communities of peaceful, industrious, highly-skilled Christian workmen among whom idleness, crime, and poverty were alike unknown.

In 1732, the Guaraní missions numbered thirty, with 141,252 Christian Indians. Two years later a visitation of smallpox, that great destroyer of the Indian race, swept off 30,000 souls. In 1765 a second visitation carried off more than 12,000 more, and then spread westward through all the wide tribes of the Chaco. In 1750 a boundary treaty between Spain and Portugal transferred to the latter the territory of the seven missions on the Uruguay, and this was followed soon after by an official order for the removal of the Indians. The Indians of the seven towns, who knew the Portuguese only as slave-hunters and persecutors, refused to leave their homes, rose in revolt under their own chiefs and defied the united armies of both governments. After a guerrilla warfare of seven years, resulting in the slaughter of thousands of Indians and the almost complete ruin of the seven missions, the Jesuits secured a royal decree annulling the boundary decision and restoring the disputed mission territory to Spanish jurisdiction. In 1747 two missions, and in 1760 a third were established in the sub-tribe of the Itatines, or Tobatines, in Central Paraguay, far north of the older mission group. In one of these, San Joaquin (1747), the celebrated Dobrizhoffer ministered for eight years. These were the last of the Guaraní foundations.

The story of the royal edict of 1767 for the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spanish dominions is too much a matter of world history to be recounted here. Fearing the event, the viceroy Bucareli intrusted the execution of the mandate in 1768, to two officers with a force of some 500 troops, but although the mission army then counted 14,000 drilled warriors of proved courage, the fathers, as loyal subjects, submitted without resistance, and with streaming tears turned their backs on the work which they had built up by a century and a half of devoted sacrifice, With only their robes and their breviaries, they went down to the ship that was waiting to carry them forever out of the country. The Paraguay missions so called, of which, however, only eight were in Paraguay proper, were then thirty-three in number, with seventy-eight Jesuits, some 144,000 Christian Indians, and a million cattle. The rest of the story is briefly told. The missions were turned over to priests of other orders, chiefly Franciscans, but under a code of regulations drawn up by the viceroy and modelled largely upon the very Jesuit system which he had condemned. Under divided authority, uncertain government support, and without the love or confidence of the Indians, the new teachers soon lost courage and the missions rapidly declined, the Indians going back by thousands to their original forests or becoming vagabond outcasts in the towns. By the official census of 1801, less than 45,000 Indians remained, cattle, sheep, and horses had disappeared, the fields and orchards were overgrown and cut down and the splendid churches were in ruins. The long period of revolutionary struggle that followed completed the destruction. In 1814 the mission Indians numbered but 8000 and in 1848 the few who remained were declared citizens. The race however persists. Nearly all the forest tribes on the borders of Paraguay are of Guaraní stock; many of them are descendants of mission exiles, while in Paraguay the old blood so predominates in the population that Guaraní is still largely the language of the population.

The Guaraní language has been much cultivated, its literature covering a wide range of subjects. Many works written by the fathers, and wholly or partly in the native language, were issued from the mission press in Loreto. Among the most important treatises upon the language are the "Tesoro de la Lengua Guaraní (Madrid, 1639), by Father Montoya, the heroic leader of the exodus, published in Paris and Leipzig in 1876; and the "Catecismo de la Lengua Guaraní" of Father Diego Díaz de la Guerra (Madrid, 1630).

Charlevoix, Histoire du Paraguay (Paris, 1756; tr. London, 1769); Dobrizhoffer, Historia de Abiponibus equestri bellicosaque Paraguié natione (Vienna, 1784); Germ. tr. (Vienna, 1784); tr., An Account of the Abipones, an equestrian people of Paraguay (London, 1822); Nunes, Ensayo de la Historia civil de Paraguay (Buenos Aires, 1816); Cunninghame Graham, A Vanished Arcadia (London, 1901); Guerrara, Historia del Paraguay in Colección de Angelis (Buenos Aires, 1836); Lozano, Descripcion corographica, etc. (Cordoba, 1733); Muratori, Cristianesimo Felice nelle Missione . . . nel Paraguai (Venice, 1743); Page, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay (New York, 1859); Reclus, The Earth and Its Inhabitants; South America, II; Amazonia and La Plata (New York, 1895).

JAMES MOONEY

Law of Guarantees

(LA LEGGE DELLE GUARENTIGIE)

A name given to the law passed by the senate and chamber of the Italian parliament, 13 May, 1871, concerning the prerogatives of the Holy See, and the relations between State and Church in the Kingdom of Italy. The principal stipulations of the law may be summed up as follows:

1. the pope's person to be sacred and inviolable;
2. insult or injury to the pope to be treated on a par with insult or injury to the king's person; discussion of religious matters to be absolutely free;
3. royal honours to be paid to the pope; that he have the right to the customary guards;
4. the pope to be given an annual endowment of 3,225,000 lire ($622,425 or £127,933) to cover all the needs of the Holy See (college of cardinals, Roman congregations, embassies, etc.) and the maintenance of church buildings;
5. the Vatican and Lateran palaces, as well as the Villa of Castel Gandolfo, to remain the property of the pope; these articles assure the pope and all engaged in the spiritual government of the Church, as well as the college of cardinals assembled in conclave, complete liberty of communication with the Catholic world, exempt them from all interference with their letters, papers, etc.;
6. the clergy to have freedom of assembly;
7. the government to renounce the "Apostolic Legation" in Sicily, and the right of nomination to major benefices, with reservation, however, of the royal patronage; the bishops are not obliged to take the oath (of allegiance) on appointment;
8. the Exequatur to be maintained only for the major benefices (except in Rome, and in the suburbicarian sees) and for acts affecting the disposition of ecclesiastical property;
9. in spiritual matters no appeal to be allowed against ecclesiastical authority; the civil courts, however, to be competent to pass judgment on the juridical effects of ecclesiastical sentences. Provision to be made, by a future law, for the reorganization, conservation, and administration of all the church property in the kingdom.

The Italian government, which had declared that it entered Rome to safeguard the person of the Holy Father (Visconti-Venosta, circular of 7 September, 1870; the autograph letter of Victor Emanuel to Pius IX, dated 29 Aug., received 10 Sept.; again the king's answer to the Roman deputation which brought him the result of the plebiscite), and which, in the very act of invading pontifical territory, had assured the people that the independence of the Holy See would remain inviolate (General Cadorna's proclamation at Terni, 11 Sept.), felt obliged to secure in a legal and solemn way the executions of its aforesaid intention. It owed no less to its own Catholic subjects, and to Catholics the world over. Two ways were open to it for keeping its promise. It might call an international congress of all nations having a very large Catholic population, or it might pass a domestic Italian law. In the aforesaid circular of the minister Visconti-Venosta, addressed to all the powers, the former way was hinted at. But the unconcern of Catholic governments over the events that ended in the occupation of Rome put an end to all thought of consulting them; and so a domestic law was passed. Before its adoption, however, Pius IX, by a letter of his cardinal vicar, dated 2 March, 1871, protested against the law "in which", he said, "it was no easy task to decide whether absurdity, cunning, or contempt played the largest part".

The pope refused to recognize in the Italian government any right to grant him prerogatives, or to make laws for him. Indeed, each of the "concessions carried with it a special servitude, while later events proved that they were not intended to be seriously observed. In the Encyclical of 15 May following, the pope declared that no guarantees could secure him the liberty and independence necessary in the exercise of his power and authority. He renewed this protest at the consistory of 27 October. And it stands to reason that a law voted by two houses of Parliament could with equal ease be abrogated by them at will. Indeed, it has ever been part of the programme of the "Left" party in the Italian Parliament to suppress the Law of Guarantees. Pius IX, moreover, was unwilling to accept formally the arrangements made concerning the relations of Church and State, especially the Exequatur and the administration of ecclesiastical property. Moreover, if, as he hoped, the occupation of Rome was to be only temporary, the acceptance of this law seemed useless. Doubtless, too, such acceptance on his part would have been interpreted as at least a tacit recognition of accomplished facts, as a renunciation of the temporal power, and the property which had been taken from the Holy See (e. g. the Quirinal Palace). The abandonment of the "Apostolic Legation" in Sicily, for eight centuries an apple of discord between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Sicily (Sentis, "La Monarchia Sicula", Freiburg im Br., 1864), and the endowment granted the pope, were truly but slight compensation for all that had been taken from him. Consequently neither Pius IX nor his two successors have ever touched the aforesaid annual endowment, preferring to depend on the offerings of the faithful throughout the Catholic world. It may be added that the endowment was not sufficient to meet the needs of the Church, nor with their multiplication could it be increased.

A few years ago the question arose as to whether this untouched endowment would be confiscated by the Italian treasury at the end of every five years, as is usual with other public debts of the Kingdom of Italy. The "Civiltà Cattolica" maintained that it could not be confiscated, but the Italian courts long ago decided differently, when they rejected the claims of the heirs of Pius IX on the ground that as he had not accepted the endowment he had never come into possession of it. What need then of confiscating it? Pius IX expressly rejected this income, 13 November, 1872.

There is occasional controversy between writers on international law and on Italian ecclesiastical legislation over various matters connected with this law: whether in the eyes of the Italian government the pope is a sovereign, whether he enjoys the privilege of extraterritoriality (not expressly recognized to him, though granted to foreign embassies to the Holy See), etc. As far as the Holy See is concerned these controversies have no meaning; it has never ceased to maintain its sovereign rights.

GIOBBIO, Lezioni di diplomazia ecclesiastica (Rome, 1899), I, passim; CASTELLARI, La Santa Sede (Milan, 1903), I, 108 sqq.; II, 488-608; GEFFCKEN, Die völkerrechtliche Stellung des Papsttums (Rome, 1887), 172; Gazetta Ufficiale, series II, no. 214; Acta Pii IX (Rome, s. d.), pt. I, vol. V, 286 sqq., 306 sqq., 352 sqq.; Acta Sanctœ Sedis (Rome, 1870-1871), VI.

U. BENIGNI.

Diocese of Guarda

(EGITANIENSIS.)

Province of Beira, Portugal. Near the episcopal city are the ruins of Idanha, the ancient Civitas Aegiditanorum, whose ecclesiastical rank it inherited in 1199, under Sancho I, since when the see is known officially as Egiditana or Egitaniensis. Many Roman ruins in the vicinity attest the existence of a city called Igaedi in the Roman period. This see, probably founded by Theudomir, King of the Suevi, is first mentioned in 572, date of the Second Council of Braga, at which Adoricus, the contemporary occupant, assisted. His successors were Commundus, Licerius, Montensis, Armenius, and Sclua, suffragans of Braga. After 666 the see was suffragan to Mérida, and continued so until 715, when Aegidi was destroyed by the Moors. On the re-establishment of the see at Guarda a controversy arose between the Archbishops of Braga and of Compostela (the latter being administrator of Mérida); the decision of Innocent III (1198-1216) was in favour of Compostela. In 1490 Guarda passed to the jurisdiction of Lisbon, and in 1549 surrendered part of its territory to form the Diocese of Portalegre. Among its noteworthy bishops were Sclua, who assisted at the Council of Mérida in 666; Vasco Martins de Alvelha, who, at the Council of Salamanca (1310) urged the absolution of the Templars of Castile, and the celebration "with solemnity" (solemniter) of the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the eighth day of December every year; Pedro Vaz Gaviao, who successfully completed the sumptuous cathedral of Guarda (Santa Maria); Nunho de Noronha (1596-1608), who founded the seminary; and several princes or infantes of the reigning house of Portugal.

FLOREZ, Espana Sagrada (Madrid, 1786), XIV, 142-58; GAMS, Series episcoporum (1873), 100-02, and Supplem. (1879), 31; HUBNER, Inscriptiones Hispaniae latinae (Berlin, 1871), nn. 435-60, 5130; FITA, Actas ineditas de siete concilios espanoles (Madrid, 1881), 72-74; EUBEL, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi (Munich, 1901), I, 244; II, 165.

F. FITA

Francesco Guardi

Venetian painter; born at Venice, 1712; died in the same city, 1793. He was a pupil of Canaletto, and in style a close follower of his master. Of his life practically nothing is known, save that he is believed to have always lived in Venice, and to have painted scenes confined to that city and its neighbourhood. He painted with extraordinary facility, three or four days being enough for producing an entire work, with the result that, although his pictures are rich and forcible in colouring, and accurate in general effect, they are far behind those of Canaletto in the accuracy of their details, and are less solid and firm, and less well grounded, than the paintings of his master. They are noted, however, for their spirited touch and sparkling colour. Examples are to be found in almost every European gallery, notably in Paris, Berlin, Modena, Brussels, Venice, and Verona, and his smaller works are in great demand in the houses of the wealthier collectors of choice pictures. A sketchbook by Guardi was sold in London two or three years ago for a very high price, and it contained, amongst other drawings, the original sketches for the views of Venice in the Bridgewater House collection. The artist is said to have been responsible for nearly a thousand pictures. Berenson speaks of him as "anticipating both the Romantic and the Impressionist painters of our own country", and again refers to his "eye for the picturesque, and his remarkable instantaneous effects".

ZANETTI, Della Pittura Veneziana (Venice, 1771); BERENSON, The Venetian Painters of the Renaissance (London, 1894).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Guardian Angel

(See also FEAST OF THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.)

That every individual soul has a guardian angel has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith; but it is the "mind of the Church", as St. Jerome expressed it: "how great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from his birth an angel commissioned to guard it." (Comm. in Matt., xviii, lib. II).

This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

In the Bible this doctrine is clearly discernible and its development is well marked. In Genesis 28-29, angels not only act as the executors of God's wrath against the cities of the plain, but they deliver Lot from danger; in Exodus 12-13, an angel is the appointed leader of the host of Israel, and in 32:34, God says to Moses: "my angel shall go before thee." At a much later period we have the story of Tobias, which might serve for a commentary on the words of Psalm 90:11: "For he hath given his angels charge over thee; to keep thee in all thy ways." (Cf. Psalm 33:8 and 34:5.) Lastly, in Daniel 10 angels are entrusted with the care of particular districts; one is called "prince of the kingdom of the Persians", and Michael is termed "one of the chief princes"; cf. Deuteronomy 32:8 (Septuagint); and Ecclesiasticus 17:17 (Septuagint).

This sums up the Old Testament doctrine on the point; it is clear that the Old Testament conceived of God's angels as His ministers who carried out his behests, and who were at times given special commissions, regarding men and mundane affairs. There is no special teaching; the doctrine is rather taken for granted than expressly laid down; cf. II Machabees 3:25; 10:29; 11:6; 15:23.

But in the New Testament the doctrine is stated with greater precision. Angels are everywhere the intermediaries between God and man; and Christ set a seal upon the Old Testament teaching: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10). A twofold aspect of the doctrine is here put before us: even little children have guardian angels, and these same angels lose not the vision of God by the fact that they have a mission to fulfil on earth.

Without dwelling on the various passages in the New Testament where the doctrine of guardian angels is suggested, it may suffice to mention the angel who succoured Christ in the garden, and the angel who delivered St. Peter from prison. Hebrews 1:14 puts the doctrine in its clearest light: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" This is the function of the guardian angels; they are to lead us, if we wish it, to the Kingdom of Heaven.

St. Thomas teaches us (Summa Theologica I:113:4) that only the lowest orders of angels are sent to men, and consequently that they alone are our guardians, though Scotus and Durandus would rather say that any of the members of the angelic host may be sent to execute the Divine commands. Not only the baptized, but every soul that cometh into the world receives a guardian spirit; St. Basil, however (Homily on Psalm 43), and possibly St. Chrysostom (Homily 3 on Colossians) would hold that only Christians were so privileged. Our guardian angels can act upon our senses (I:111:4) and upon our imaginations (I:111:3) -- not, however, upon our wills, except "per modum suadentis", viz. by working on our intellect, and thus upon our will, through the senses and the imagination. (I:106:2; and I:111:2). Finally, they are not separated from us after death, but remain with us in heaven, not, however, to help us attain salvation, but "ad aliquam illustrationem" (I:108:7, ad 3am).

HUGH POPE

Feast of Guardian Angels

This feast, like many others, was local before it was placed in the Roman calendar. It was not one of the feasts retained in the Pian breviary, published in 1568; but among the earliest petitions from particular churches to be allowed, as a supplement to this breviary, the canonical celebration of local feasts, was a request from Cordova in 1579 for permission to have a feast in honour of the guardian angels. (Bäumer, "Histoire du Breviaire", II, 233.) Bäumer, who makes this statement on the authority of original documents published by Dr. Schmid (in the "Tübinger Quartalschrift", 1884), adds on the same authority that "Toledo sent to Rome a rich proprium and received the desired authorization for all the Offices contained in it, Valencia also obtained the approbation in February, 1582, for special Offices of the Blood of Christ and the Guardian Angels."

So far the feast of Guardian Angels remained local. Paul V placed it (27 September, 1608) among the feasts of the general calendar as a double "ad libitum" (Bäumer, op. cit., II, 277). Nilles gives us more details about this step. "Paul V", he writes, "gave an impetus to the veneration of Guardian Angels (long known in the East and West) by the authorization of a feast and proper office in their honour. At the request of Ferdinand of Austria, afterwards emperor, he made them obligatory in all regions subject to the Imperial power; to all other places he conceded them ad libitum, to be celebrated on the first available day after the Feast of the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel. It is believed that the new feast was intended to be a kind of supplement to the Feast of St. Michael, since the Church honoured on that day (29 September) the memory of all the angels as well as the memory of St. Michael (Nilles, "Kalendarium", II, 502). Among the numerous changes made in the calendar by Clement X was the elevation of the Feast of Guardian Angels to the rank of an obligatory double for the whole Church to be kept on 2 October, this being the first unoccupied day after the feast of St. Michael (Nilles, op. cit., II, 503). Finally Leo XIII (5 April, 1883) favoured this feast to the extent of raising it to the rank of a double major.

Such in brief is the history of a feast which, though of comparatively recent introduction, gives the sanction of the Church's authority to an ancient and cherished belief. The multiplicity of feasts is in fact quite a modern development, and that the guardian angels were not honoured with a special feast in the early Church is no evidence that they were not prayed to and reverenced. There is positive testimony to the contrary (see Bareille in Dict. de Theol. Cath., s.v. Ange, col. 1220). It is to be noted that the Feast of the Dedication of St. Michael is amongst the oldest feasts in the Calendar. There are five proper collects and prefaces assigned to this feast in the Leonine Sacramentary (seventh century) under the title "Natalis Basilicae Angeli in Salaria" and a glance at them will show that this feast included a commemoration of the angels in general, and also recognition of their protective office and intercessory power. In one collect God is asked to sustain those who are labouring in this world by the protecting power of his heavenly ministers (supernorum . . . . praesidiis . . . . ministrorum). In one of the prefaces, God is praised and thanked for the favour of angelic patronage (patrociniis . . . . angelorum). In the collect of the third Mass the intercessory power of saints and angels is alike appealed to (quae [oblatio] angelis tuis sanctisque precantibus et indulgentiam nobis referat et remedia procuret aeterna" (Sacramentarium Leonianum, ed. Feltoe, 107-8). These extracts make it plain that the substantial idea which underlies the modern feast of Guardian Angels was officially expressed in the early liturgies. In the "Horologium magnum" of the Greeks there is a proper Office of Guardian Angels (Roman edition, 329-334) entitled "A supplicatory canon to man's Guardian Angel composed by John the Monk" (Nilles, II, 503), which contains a clear expression of belief in the doctrine that a guardian angel is assigned to each individual. This angel is thus addressed "Since thou the power (ischyn) receivest my soul to guard, cease never to cover it with thy wings" (Nilles, II, 506).

For 2 October there is a proper Office in the Roman Breviary and a proper Mass in the Roman Missal, which contains all the choice extracts from Sacred Scripture bearing on the three-fold office of the angels, to praise God, to act as His messengers, and to watch over mortal men. "Let us praise the Lord whom the Angels praise, whom the Cherubim and Seraphim proclaim Holy, Holy, Holy" (second antiphon of Lauds). "Behold I will send my angel, who shall go before thee, and keep thee in thy journey, and bring thee into the place that I have prepared. Take notice of him, and hear his voice" (Exodus 23; capitulum ad Laudes). The Gospel of the Mass includes that pointed text from St. Matthew 28:10: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." Although 2 October has been fixed for this feast in the Roman calendar, it is kept, by papal privilege, in Germany and many other places on the first Sunday (computed ecclesiastically) of September, and is celebrated with special solemnity and generally with an octave (Nilles, II, 503). (See ANGEL; INTERCESSION.)

NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale utriusque Ecclesiae Orientalis et Occidentalis (Innsbruck, 1896); BAUMER, Geschichte des Breviers, Fr. tr. BIRON (Paris, 1905); Sacramentarium Leonianum, ed. FELTOE (Cambridge, 1896); Roman Missal and Breviary.

T.P. GILMARTIN

Guardianship, in Civil Jurisprudence

Guardianship is "the condition or fact of being a guardian; the office or position of guardian" (Murray, New English Dictionary, s. v.); "a person intrusted by law with the interests of another whose youth, inexperience, mental weakness or feebleness of will, disqualifies him from acting for himself in the ordinary affairs of life, and who is hence known as the ward" (Schouler, "Law of the Domestic Relations", Boston, 1905, 277). Etymologically, the words guardian and ward are of like derivation. Warden is an older term for guardian. The verb, to ward, is derived from the Old French, warder, garder, guarder, and one of the definitions of the noun, ward, is "guardianship, control or care of a minor" (The Century Dictionary, s. v.). This "control or care" conferred by law is a substitute for, or "an artificial extension of the parental power" (Taylor, "The Science of Jurisprudence", New York, 1908, 558).

The Roman law terms such "control or care" of a minor under the age of fourteen years, tutela, "an authority and power over a free person given and permitted by the civil law in order to protect one whose tender years prevent him defending himself" ("The Institutes of Justinian" tr. Sanders, L. I, t. xiii, 1, Chicago, 1876), the civil law thus providing what the Institutes pronounce agreeable to natural law, naturali juri conveniens, ibid., L. I, t. xx, 6. Tutors were so termed "as being protectors", tuitores (ibid., L. I, t. xiii, 2), protectors of a person in the exercise of his rights. A tutor did not confer rights on his ward; the tutor's authority supplied the ward's deficiency for exercise of rights which he already had. "When one person increased (augebat) what another had, so as to fill up a deficiency, this was called auctoritas" (ibid., Introduction, §43, note, and see p. 76, t. xiv, p. 120, p. 134). Only one who was free could have that right, a deficiency in which, according to this explanation of its meaning, authority could supply. A slave could not be regarded as deficient for exercising rights, because a slave (who in law was not even regarded as a person) having no capacity to acquire the rights themselves, there could arise no question of his capacity to exercise them. Thus, a free person only could have occasion for a tutor, or could be a ward (pupillus, pupilla). On the other hand, no person not vested with the rights of citizenship was qualified to become a tutor. Being deemed a public office, tutela was compulsory upon those who were qualified and who could present no legal excuse (ibid., L. I, t. xxv).

The tutela of a male ended with his fourteenth year, of a female with her twelfth. But a minor was not deemed perfectœ œtatis (of full age) and fit to protect his or her own interests, while under the age of twenty-five years, and so, on the discharge of the tutor, there was appointed a curator (ibid., L. I, tt. xix, xxii, xxiii). Tutela might be testamentaria, legitima, or dativa.

Tutela testamentaria arose from appointment in the last will of the parent (Instit., L. I, t. xiii, 3). Tutela legitima occurred in the instance of minors to whom by will no tutor had been appointed. For them the law prescribed the tutela of certain relations who were hence called tutores legitimi (ibid., t. xv.). "If any one had no tutor at all" one was assigned by certain magistrates and termed tutor dativus (ibid., t. xx).

The English common law recognized the father and, on his death, the mother as guardian by nature or "for nurture" of a child's person. But during feudal times the tenure by which land was held determined the right to the guardianship of its owner while under age. A male orphan under twenty-one years of age inheriting land held by tenure of knight-service was, with his land, committed to the guardianship of the lord of the fee, "to instruct him", explains Sir John Fortescue (De Laudibus legum Angliæ, 2nd ed., 1741, xliv), "in deeds of arms which in virtue of his tenure he's obliged to perform for the lord of the fee." Of a female orphan the lord's guardianship continued until she reached the age of sixteen years, or until her marriage, if fourteen years of age, when her husband was entitled to perform the service. Fortescue wrote in the reign of King Henry VI (1422-61); this wardship, intended for instruction "in deeds of arms", was by Queen Elizabeth "used to secure the education of all Catholic minors in the Protestant faith" (Green, "History of the English People", New York, 1903, III, 1324), not being abolished until 1660. A minor might, however, inherit land held by what was known as socage tenure, which according to Sir William Blackstone "seems to denote a tenure by any certain and determinate service" (Commentaries, Bk. II, vi, 79). Guardianship of such an heir, both as to his person and his land, was intrusted, if the inheritance had come from his father's side, to a relation on the mother's side, and if the inheritance had come from the mother's side, to some relation on the father's side. This practice Fortescue extols for a reason which has been very appropriately deemed to imply "melancholy consciousness of the corruption of public morals" (Kent, "Commentaries", II, 223). For Fortescue observes (loc. cit.) that "to commit the care of a minor to him who is the next heir-at-law is the same as delivering up a lamb to the care of a wolf".

Each of the guardianships so far mentioned resembled the tutela legitima of the Roman law. A father's right to appoint a testamentary guardian for his son, which in Rome seems to have been more ancient than the law of the Twelve Tables (Pandectæ Justinianeæ, ed. Pothier, L. XXVI, t. ii, note), was conferred by an English statute of the year 1660, a statute which, by a prohibition now no longer in force, forbade the appointment of Roman Catholics. In England the lord chancellor presiding in the Court of Chancery, was "paramount guardian to all the infants in the nation" (Reeve, "The Law of Husband and Wife", etc., 4th ed., Albany, New York, 1888, 392). The sovereign as parens patriœ was deemed to be protector of the interests of alI of his subjects who were minors, and the exercise of this universal guardianship devolved upon the Court of Chancery by what was assumed to be delegation of the royal authority. In such exercise of authority, the court followed "in many respects", remarks Mr. Justice Story, "the very dictates of the Roman Code" (Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, 13th ed., Boston, 1886, II, 682).

Throughout the United States the law of the various states which regulates guardianship and the conduct of guardians is, in many particulars, local and statutory. For guardianship is "a local and temporary status" (Taylor, op. cit., 559). But in all the states (except in Louisiana) the law is based to a great extent on the law as administered by the English Court of Chancery. The same general remarks apply to British possessions other than those acquired from France, Holland, and Spain. Founded upon the civil law, the statutory law of Louisiana bears a resemblance to the modern law of France, as well as to that of the Canadian Province of Quebec. The Anglo-Indian Code provides for guardianship by will, and this guardianship as well as the sovereign's supervisory powers are recognized by the existing native Hindu law. In Australia, by the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" of 1900, power has been conferred upon the Parliament of the commonwealth to make laws with respect to "guardianship of infants" in relation to "divorce and matrimonial causes" ("Constitution", I, P. V, 51, XXII; "The General Public Acts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", London, 1900, c. xii).

As in England the Lord Chancellor is "paramount guardian", so, within those jurisdictions where, as just mentioned, the law administered in the Court of the Chancellor is the basis of the law of guardianship, any Court possessing Chancery powers, which no local statute may have limited, "possesses", to quote from a New York case, "a controlling and superintending power over all guardians" (People v. Wilcox, Barbour's N. Y. Supreme Court Reports, XXII, 189). Parental power must yield to that of this "paramount guardian". "A man", remarks a very learned chancellor, "has a right to the custody of the person of his wife; in general, also to that of his child" (Vesey, Reports, X, 62). But this right "in general", being dependent upon observance of a father's duties, any father will forfeit whenever shown to be "an improper person to have the sole control and education of his children" (Wellesley vs. Wellesley, Bligh's New Reports, II, 137, 144). The father may control his child's religious education, and, in respect to it, the expressed desires of a deceased father have been declared to be generally controlling. For it is said Religio sequitur patrem [English Law Reports, Chancery Division, I (1902), 689]. "As regards religious education", it is further said, "the wishes of the father must be regarded by the court, and must be enforced, unless there is some strong reason for disregarding them" [In re McGrath, English Law Reports, Chancery Division, I (1893), 148. See also Irish Reports, Equity, V, 118]. The court has held that a promise before marriage, such as the Church when permitting a mixed marriage requires concerning the religious education of children of the marriage, is not legally binding on the husband (In re Clarke, English Law Reports, Chancery Division, XXI, 817). The amount to be expended out of their property on maintenance and education of minor wards was according to Roman law to be determined by the prætor when not fixed by a will (Instit., tr. Sanders, 152). Allowances for these purposes became an important branch of the supervisory guardianship of chancery, and in various states of the United States other courts have been by statute vested with a like power.

Chancery guardianship included supervision of the marriage of its wards. The English common law concerning a wife's property rendered this supervision especially salutary to female wards. For by the common law the property of a wife vested by her marriage in her husband. But Chancery did not permit its guardianship of property to be thus terminated. The chancellor would only sanction the proposed marriage of a female ward on her property being secured by such a settlement as met his approval. An unsanctioned marriage rendered the husband guilty of contempt of court, and liable to imprisonment until he agreed to a proper settlement on his wife. For, "though by the ecclesiastical law a woman is of age to marry, yet by the temporal law she cannot dispose of her fortune" (Fonblanque, "A Treatise on Equity", Philadelphia, 1820, II, 227, note b). Modern statutes have in many jurisdictions rendered this curious branch of Chancery guardianship less necessary than it was in former times.

Contrary to the Roman law and to the modern law of France and other civil law countries, guardianship is not by English law a public office, and therefore no person is compelled by that law to assume its duties. Guardianship does not cease, as did tutela, when the ward reaches fourteen years of age. Guardianship in socage (which without the old rules as to its devolution is yet recognized in a New York statute), is said to cease when the ward reaches that age "so far as to entitle the infant to enter and take the land to himself". But yet if no other guardian be appointed, the guardianship will continue (Byrne vs. Van Hoesen, Johnson's New York Supreme Court Reports, V, 66). And twenty-one years being the equivalent of the perfecta œtas of the Roman law, guardianship continues generally until the minor reaches that age. But by the law of some states females become of full age when eighteen years old, or on marrying, and according to a New York statute guardianship of a female ceases on her marriage as to her person, continuing, however, as to her property. In some states the father has been deprived of his paramount right to appoint a guardian. Various statutes authorize the appointment of guardians, called usually "committees", for persons of unsound mind. And (as in the Roman law) guardianship of spendthrifts — persons "who", to quote a Scotch legal expression, "are in danger of suffering by their profusion or facility of temper" (Bell, Principles of the Law of Scotland, 10th ed., Edinburgh, 1899, 806) — has, also, been provided by the statutes of several states.

The guardian is called by Blackstone "a temporary parent", "the power and reciprocal duty of a guardian and ward" being declared by this authority to be "the same pro tempore as that of a father and child" (Commentaries, Book I, xvii). But although guardianship of a minor has been said to be "an artificial extension of the parental power" (Taylor, op. cit.), the power and duties in the artificial are similar to, but are not identical with, those in the natural relation. The duties of a guardian are, indeed, "those of protection, education and maintenance" (Schouler, op. cit., 315), with right generally to the custody of the ward's person (ibid., 311). But while a parent is under the duty of supporting his child from his own means, and may claim the labour and services of the child in return, a guardian, as such, cannot sustain this claim, and he is required to support his ward so far only as the latter's property supplemented by the liberality of other persons will allow (ibid., 305, and note 2).

"The guardian's trust" is "one of obligation and duty" (Kent, "Commentaries", II, 229). Of the property intrusted to his care, he is to take possession, suffering "no waste or destruction of the ward's land" and investing legally any funds belonging to him. And whenever the guardianship may be terminated, whether by the ward attaining full age, or, at an earlier period, by marriage of the ward, by death of either ward or guardian, or by the latter's removal or resignation, a final accounting of the guardianship is to be made "for the personal estate and the issues and profits of the real estate" (Kent., loc. cit.). To a minor who is a party defendant to a suit in court there is assigned a protector known as a guardian ad litem.

EVERSLEY, The Law of the Domestic Relations (3rd ad., London, 1906), 618, 621, 624, 634, 635; STEPHEN, New Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1903), Bk. II, 308, 309, 340, 353; BURGE, Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws (London, 1838), III, 931, 933, 937, 943, 944, 978 (also see edition of 1907, I, 8); WOERNER, A Treatise on the American Law of Guardianship (Boston, 1897), 7, 15, 16, 40, 58, 180, 214, 327; MACKELDEY, Compendium of Modem Civil Law, tr. KAUFMANN (New York, 1845), 129; Laws of the State of New York, 1896 (Albany, 1896), I, 223-225 (see also Code of Civil Procedure, §2821); MERRICK, The Revised Civil Code of the State of Louisiana (New Orleans, 1900), Art. 246-388; BEAUCHAMP, The Civil Code of the Province of Quebec (Montreal, 1904), §§249, 290; La Grande Encyclopédie, s. v. Tutelle; STOKES, The Anglo-Indian Codes (Oxford, 1887), 229, 356; GRADY, A Manual of Hindu Law (London, 1871), 60, 61; WESSELS, History of the Roman-Dutch Law (Grahamstown, 1908), 422.

CHARLES W. SLOANE.

Battista Guarini

An Italian poet, b. at Ferrara, 1538, d. at Venice, 7 Oct., 1612. His father, Francesco Guarini, was a great-grandson of the famous humanist, Guarino da Verona, who had founded the fortunes of the family at Ferrara in the fifteenth century. Battista's early life, divided between Padua and his native city, was mainly academic, until, in 1567, he entered the court of Alfonso II, the last Duke of Ferrara. He was employed as a diplomatist, notably in the unsuccessful negotiations (1574 and 1575) for obtaining for Alfonso the crown of Poland. Excepting for occasional intervals, during which he was employed by the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua, he spent most of his time in the service of the Duke of Ferrara, until the death of Alfonso (1597) and the devolution of the duchy to the Holy See. Later, Guarini frequented the courts of the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Urbino. His last years were mostly passed at Rome and Venice, where he was surrounded by admirers and enjoyed great fame as a poet. Guarini's domestic life was stormy and unhappy. His daughter, Anna Guarini was murdered by her husband, Ercole Trotti, with the assistance of one of the poet's own sons. His own conduct towards the latter was the reverse of exemplary, and his whole career was embittered by his quarrels and perpetual lawsuits with them and others.

Guarini's literary reputation is almost entirely based upon his "Pastor Fido" (The Faithful Shepherd), a Iyrical pastoral drama written to rival the "Aminta" of his friend and contemporary, Tasso. This "pastoral tragi-comedy" is a masterpiece of the kind that Flectcher's "Faithful Shepherdess" has made familiar to English readers, and marks the culmination of the pastoral poetry of the Italian Renaissance. In an age of conflict and intrigue, men turned with pleasure to these artificial pictures of the loves of shepherds and nymphs, and found a refuge from reality in the sentimental world of an imaginary Arcadia. Written with considerable dramatic power, its main charms lies in the lyrical portions. It was published at the end of 1589, dedicated to Carlo Emanuele I of Savoy, and was frequently represented with success on the stage. Guarini also wrote a collection of Iyrical poems, "Rime"; a comedy, "Idropica"; "Il Secretario", a dialogue; and a political treatises, "Il Trattato della Politica Liberta", in support of the Medicean rule in Florence. His letters were printed in his lifetime. During Tasso's confinement, Guardini saw an edition of his rival's "Rime" through the press, per sola pietà, as he puts it.

EDMUND G. GARDNER

Guarino da Verona

A humanist, b. 1370, at Verona, Italy; d. 1460, at Ferrara. He studied Latin in the school of Giovanni da Ravenna, and afterwards went to Constantinople, where he studied Greek under Manuel Chrysoloras, in whose household he spent five years. In 1408 he returned with more than fifty Greek manuscripts to Venice, where he was received with great enthusiasm. The rest of his life was spent in teaching and lecturing with extraordinary success in Florence, Venice, Verona, Ferrara, and other Italian cities. His method of instruction was so celebrated that students flocked from all parts of Italy, and even from England, to his lecture-room. Many of them, notably Vittorino da Feltre, afterwards became well-known scholars. In 1429 he was engaged by Niccolo d'Este, Marquess of Ferrara, as tutor to his eldest son Lionello. After devoting several years to Lionello's education, he was appointed professor of rhetoric in the University of Ferrara (1436), a post which he held for many years. The last thirty years of his life were spent in teaching at Ferrara, where he acted as interpreter between the representatives of the Greek and Latin Churches at the council of 1438. A master of Greek and Latin, Guarino was endowed with a wonderful memory and an indefatigable industry. Moreover, he led an exemplary life and deserves to be remembered with respect as a humanist whose moral character was equal to his learning. Unlike some other humanists, he showed no antagonism to the authority of the Church. His works included grammatical treatises, translations from the Greek, and commentaries on the works of various classical authors. In addition to an elementary Latin grammar, he brought out a widely popular Latin version of the catechism of Greek grammar by Chrysoloras. His translations included the whole of Strabo and some fifteen of Plutarch's "Lives", besides some of the works of Lucian and Isocrates. He commented on Persius, Juvenal, Martial and some others. He was an industrious discover and collector of Latin manuscripts, among them being manuscripts of the younger Pliny, Cicero, and Celsus. At Venice he discovered a manuscript of Pliny's "Epistles" containing about 124 letters, and several copies of this were made before it was lost. He left behind him many speeches and some 600 letters.

SANDYS, History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, 1908), II, 49-51; SYMONDS, Renaissance in Italy (London, 1882), II: The Revival of Learning, 298-.301: ROSMINI, Vita di Guarino (3 vols., Brescia, 1805-6); SABBADINI, La Scuola e gli Studi di Guarino (1896).

EDMUND BURKE

Diocese of Guastalla

(GUASTELLENSIS).

In the province of Reggio Emilia (Central Italy) on the left bank of the Po at its junction with the Crostolo. Until the tenth century it was an obscure hamlet, near the direction of the Marchesi di Canossa. In 998 Gregory V consecrated there the church of St. Peter (la Pieve). In 1106 Paschal II held at the same place a council of investitures. During the struggle between the popes and the Hohenstaufen the town fell under the control of Reggio; in the fourteenth century it belonged to Cremona, and later to Milan. In 1406 Filippo Maria Visconti made it a county (contea) and gave it to Guido Torelli of Mantua. Ferrante I, Gonzaga, ruled there in 1538; in 1621 it became a duchy and remained in the hands of the Gonzaga family until 1746. Later it was joined (1748) to the Duchy of Parma given to Philip Bourbon. It formed part of the Cisalpine Republic in 1798, and in 1805 was given as a principality to Pauline Borghese. In 1815 the Treaty of Venice assigned it as a duchy to Marie Louise, wife of Napoleon I, and after her death, in 1847, it went to the Duke of Lucca, who in 1848 made it over to Modena. In 1860 it was joined to the Kingdom of Italy. Ecclesiastically it formed a Part of the Archdiocese of Reggio until 1471, when it became an archipresbyterate nullius. Sixtus V (1583) gave it abbatial rank; it was only in 1828 that Leo XII, at the wish of Marie Louise, made it a bishoprics with Modena an metropolitan. Its first bishop was John Neuschel, a Hungarian abbot, and chaplain to the duchess. Among his successors of note was Monsignor Pietro Rota (1855-71), afterwards translated to Mantua. The diocese has 26 parishes, 65,000 souls; 11 convents, and 2 girls' boarding schools; it has a weekly and a monthly Catholic paper, and is the headquarters of a flourishing Catholic "Unione Agricola".

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d' Italia (1858), XIV, 425-40; AFFO, Storia della citta e ducato di Guastalla (4 vols., Guasllalla, 1773).

U. BENIGNI

Guastallines

Luigia Torelli, Countess of Guastalla (b. about 1500; d. 29 Oct., 1559 or 1569), widowed for the second time when she was twenty-five, resolved to devote her life to the service of God. The Principality of Guastalla, which she had inherited from her father, was laid claim to by another branch of the family, and the affair carried before Pope Clement VIII and Emperor Charles V, whereupon she settled the matter by disposing of her estates to Fernando Gonzaga, thereby also increasing her resources for the religious foundations she had in mind. In 1536 she entered the Angelicals (q.v.), a congregation which she had founded and richly endowed, taking the name in religion of Paola Maria; and later she established or assisted in the establishment of several other religious houses in various parts of Italy. With other Angelicals she accompanied the Barnabites on their missions, working among women, and converting numbers from lives of sin. When Paul III imposed the cloister on the Angelicals, whom their foundress had destined for works of active charity, particularly the care of the sick and orphans, she instituted another community, also at Milan, for whom she built a house between the Roman and the Tosa gate, known as the college of Guastalla. Like the Angelicals, they were under the direction of the Barnabites. The members, known as Daughters of Mary, dedicated themselves to the care of orphans of noble family, eighteen being provided for in the endowment. The orphans, appointed by prominent Milanese, who eventually became administrators of the institute, may remain for twelve years, after which they are free either to return to the world, or remain as religious, receiving in the former event a dowry of 2000 lire ($400). After the death of the foundress, Pope Urban VIII, at the instance of St. Charles Borromeo, enclosed the community. The sisters live as religious, attend choir, have their meals in common, observe definite hours for prayer, silence, and work, but take no solemn vows. Their garb is black, fashioned according to a more secular style than was that of the Angelicals and their veil is folded in a peculiar coronet form; each also wears a gold ring engraved with a hand holding a cross. Their charges dress in blue and are also popularly known as Guastallines.

HELYOT, Dict. des ordres rel., I (Paris, 1847), 219; HEIMBUCHER, Orden and Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908); ROSSIGNOLI, Vita e virtu della contessa di Guastalla (Milan, 1686); WEITZ, Abbildungen sammt. geistl. Orden (Prague, 1821).

F.M. RUDGE

Santiago de Guatemala

(Sancti Jacobi majoris de Guatemala)

Archdiocese conterminous with the Republic of Guatemala, in Central America. It is bounded on the north by the State of Yucatan in Mexico, the British colony of Belize, and the Gulf of Honduras; on the east by the Republics of Honduras and Salvador; on the south by the Pacific Ocean; on the west by the States of Chiapas and Tabasco in Mexico. Its area is 28,950 square miles. Santiago de Guatemala was made a diocese by Paul III 18 December, 1534, its first bishop being Don Francisco Marroquin, who came from Spain with the adelantado or governor, Don Pedro de Alvarado. The episcopal line of succession is as follows: (2) Bernardino de Villalpando, (3) Gómez Fernández de Córdova, (4) Juan Ramírez de Arellano, (5) Juan Cabezas Altamirano, (6) Juan Zapata y Sandoval, (7) Agustín de Ugartey Saravia, (8) Bartolomé González Soltero, (9) Payo Enríquez de Rivera, (10) Juan de Santo Matía Sáenz Mañozca y Murillo, (11) Juan de Ortega y Montañez, (12) Andrés de las Navas y Quevedo, (13) Mauro de Larreátegui y Colón, (14) Juan Bautista Alvarez de Toledo, (15) Nicolás Carlos Gómez de Cervantes, (16) Juan Gómez de Parada. On 16 December, 1743, the Diocese of Guatemala was raised to metropolitan rank by Benedict XIV, the Dioceses of Nicaragua and Comayagua (Honduras) being assigned to it as suffragans. The Diocese of San Salvador, erected by Gregory XVI, 28 September, 1842, and that of San José de Costa Rica, erected in 1850, were also added to these suffragans, so that the metropolitan church of Santiago de Guatemala has four suffragan dioceses, which are, in the order of their erection: Nicaragua, Honduras, San Salvador, and Costa Rica. With the archdiocese, they constitute the ecclesiastical Province of Central America. The series of archbishops since the erection of the archdiocese, in 1743, is (1) Pedro Pardo de Figueroa, (2) Francisco José de Figueredo y Victoria, (3) Pedro Cortez y Larraz, (4) Cayetano Francos y Monroy, (5) Juan Félix de Villegas, (6) Luis Peñalver y Cárdenas, (7) Rafael de la Vara de la Madrid, (8) Ramón Casaus y Torres, (9) Francisco de Paula García Pelaez, (10) Bernardo Piñol y Aycinena, (11) Ricardo Casanova y Estrada. Church and State being now separated, there is no official relation between the two. By the twenty-fourth article of the Constitution of the Republic, the free exercise of all forms of religion, with no pre-eminence for any one form, is guaranteed, but only within their respective places of worship.

Formerly, there existed in this archdiocese communities of Friars Preachers (Dominicans), Minor Observantines of St. Francis, Recollect and Capuchin Missionaries, Jesuits, the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, and the Priests of the Mission of St. Vincent de Paul. There were also religious communities of the following female orders: Poor Clares, Capuchins, Conceptionists, Catarinas, Belemites, Rosas, and Dominicans, besides the Religious of the Institute of St. Vincent de Paul engaged in the service of hospitals and the teaching of poor children; these Sisters are employed in the hospitals of the city of Guatemala, of Quezaltenango, and of Antigua Guatemala. There is but one ecclesiastical college, the Colegio de Infantes, for the choir- and altar-boys of the cathedral of Santa Iglesia. It has fifteen professors and tow inspectors, and numbers (1908) 47 intern and 102 extern pupils. The Sisters of Charity conduct in the Casa Central of the city of Guatemala a teaching establishment which, during the year 1908, had 98 girls as interns and gave instruction to 750 girls and 160 boys as externs; in the same year the orphan asylum at the capital, conducted by religious of the same institute, sheltered 190 male and 112 female orphans of more advanced age, besides 35 infants of both sexes. In the Asilo Santa María these Sisters had under their care 90 girl interns. There is also in the city of Guatemala the Colegio San Agustín, an establishment for the education of older boys, conducted by a secular priest, with 329 pupils; in the city are nine girls' schools in which religious instruction and training are given. By the eighteenth article of the Fundamental Law, the teaching in the national institutes, colleges, and schools is entirely secular and gratuitous. The 101 parishes of the archdiocese are grouped, for purposes of ecclesiastical administration, into sixteen vicariates forain. The capital contains four parishes, each served by a parish priest (cura) and an assistant (vicario); there are also 19 churches in the city under a presbíterio rector. The cathedral clergy consists of the archbishop, the chapter (six dignitaries: dean, archdean, cantor, schoolmaster, treasurer, and magistral), a priest sacristan in chief, a priest master of ceremonies, six choir chaplains, and a sub-cantor. The administrative organization of the diocese consists of the archbishop, vicar-general, and private and administrative secretary; in addition to these the treasurer-general and two ecclesiastical registrars are members of the ecclesiastical curia. In 1908 the archdiocese had 120 secular and 12 regular priests. According to the census of 1902, the denominational statistics of the republic were: Catholics 1,422,933; Protestants, 2254; professing other religions, 1146; of no religion, 5113. By the decree of 15 November, 1879, the cemeteries were absolutely secularized, and their construction, administration, and inspection subjected exclusively to municipal authority. There is an archdiocesan seminary for the formation of the clergy, governed by a rector, a vice-rector, a chaplain, several prefects and professors; in 1908 it had 16 students.

JOSÉ MA RAMÍREZ COLOM

Guayaquil

Archdiocese of Guayaquil (Guayaquilensis).

Guayaquil, the capital of the Ecuadorian province of Guayas, is situated on the right shore of the Lower Guayas, the estuary of which expands into the Gulf of Guayaquil, and affords the best harbour on the Western South American coast. Next to the capital city of Quito, it is the most important community in Ecuador.

The city was founded by Benalcazar in 1535; it numbered 51,000 inhabitants in 1851, and must today [1910] have an increased population of about 70,000 or 75,000. The fear of earthquake has caused it to be constructed almost entirely of wood, including even its double-belfried cathedral. As a consequence it has been destroyed several times by fire (the latest recurrences of this were in 1896 and 1902).

Steamers from three European and from one New York line visit this port. In 1907 there entered 209 vessels of 416,139 tons (205,412 tons British), while there cleared 208 vessels of 415,179 tons (204,452 tons British) (Statesman's Yearbook, 1909, 737).

Guayaquil has a State national college (a branch institution of the University of Quito). a diocesan seminary for priests, a Dominican convent to which is attached a large church, a Franciscan monastery (founded in 1864 by Fathers exiled from Colombia), which holds at present eight Fathers, an institute maintained by the Salesian Fathers of Don Bosco and known as "The Philanthropic House", with about fifty boarding pupils and over 600 scholars, etc.

The Bishopric of Guayaquil was established on 16 February, 1837, by the separation of this portion from the Diocese of Cuenca. It was first a suffragan of Lima, until 13 January, 1849, when it became a suffragan of Quito. The diocese comprises the province of Guayas (districts of Guayaquil, Yaguachi, Daule, and Santa Elena) and Los Rios (districts of Babahoyo, Baba, Vinces, Pueblo, Viejo) and covers altogether 11,500 square miles; it numbers 130,900 souls, 40 parishes, 52 churches and chapels, 60 secular priests, and 20 members of the regular clergy, 1 seminary for the priesthood and 4 colleges for boys besides 60 schools.

Its first bishop was F.X. de Garaycoa (1838-51), who subsequently went to Quito as archbishop. The diocese then remained vacant through a period of ten years, at the end of which, in 1861, it was given another bishop, in the person of Tomás Aguirre (d. 1868). The latter was succeeded in 1869 by José María Lizarzabaru, S.J. (D. 1877), who took part in the Vatican Council and was followed, after another interregnum of seven years, by Roberto María del Pozo y Martín, S.J. (b. 28 August, 1836, at Ibarra, and made bishop, 13 November, 1884).

Wolf, Geografía y Geología del Ecuador (Leipzig, 1892), 557 seq.; González Suárez, Historia eclesística del Ecuador (Quito, 1881); Idem, Historia general del Ecuador (Quito, 1890-1903); Kolberg, Nach Ecuador (4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1897), 176 sq.; Boletin eclesiástico (Quito); Guayaquil artístico (Guayaquil); Pedagogia y Letras (Guayaquil).

GREGOR REINHOLD

Gubbio

Diocese of Eugubinensis, in the province of Perugia in Umbria (Central Italy).

The city is situated on the slopes of Monte Ingino, watered by the rushing Camignano, and overlooks a fertile valley. In the neighbourhood are several ferruginous mineral springs. On pre-Roman coins this very ancient place is called Ikvvini or Ikvvins. The Gubbio Tables (Tabulæ Eugubinæ) are famous. They are bronze slabs with seven inscriptions, two of which are in Latin, and five in the ancient Umbrian tongue. They were found in 1444 among the ruins of the temple of Jupiter Appeninus near Scheggia; in 1456 were acquired by the city of Gubbio, and inset in the walls of the Palazzo del Podestà. This find gave the first impetus to the study of the ancient Italian dialects. For the inscriptions see Fabretti, "Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum antiquioris aevi" (Turin, 1857). The Romans called Gubbio "Iguvium", but as early as the fifth century B.C. the form "Eugubium" is met with. From the aforesaid tables we learn that at that time the inhabitants of Eugubium were on bad terms with the neighbouring Tadinum. During the civil war (49 B.C.) Curio, one of Caesar's generals, conquered Gubbio. In the eighth century it became part of the Patrimony of St. Peter together with the duchy of Spoleto. From the twelfth to the fifteenth century it had a population of about 50,000, was organized as a municipality with a podesta and two consuls, and had within its jurisdiction Pergola, Costacciaro, Terra San Abbondio, Cantiano, and other Umbrian villages. It was often at war with Perugia, and its victory in 1151 over Perugia and ten other towns is famous. St. Ubaldo, bishop of the city, directed the campaign. Gubbio favoured the Ghibelline party; however, in 1260 the Guelphs surprised the town, and drove out the Ghibellines, who returned again in 1300 under the leadership of Uguccione della Faggiuola, and Federigo di Montefeltro, whereupon Boniface VIII sent thither his nephew Napoleone Orsini who drove them out once more. Its distance from Rome favoured the growth of the Signoria, or hereditary lordship. The first lord of Gubbio was Bosone Raffaeli (1316-1318) who entertained Dante; later the Gabrielli family were the Signori, or lords. Giovanni Gabrielli was expelled by Cardinal Albornoz (1354) and the town handed over to a pontifical vicar. In 1381, however, the bishop, Gabriele Gabrielli, succeeded in being appointed pontifical vicar. At his death, his brother Francesco wished to seize the reins of power, but the town rebelled. Francesco called to his aid Florence and the Malatesta, whereupon the city surrendered to the Duke of Urbino (1384), Antonio di Montefeltro, and remained subject to the duchy as long as it existed, save for a few short intervals (Caesar Borgia, 1500; Lorenzo de' Medici, 1516). During all this time, however, Gubbio retained its constitution, and the right to coin its own money. Among the famous citizens are: Bosone Raffaeli, poet and commentator on Dante; the poet Armannino; Caterina Gabrielli Contarini, a fifteenth-century poetess; the historians Guarniero Berni and Griffolino; the lawyers Giacomo Benedetto and Antonio Concioli; the physician Accoramboni; the botanist Quadramio; the archaeologist Ranghiasci; the painter Oderigi (whom Dante calls "l'onor d'Agobbio") with his disciples Guido Palmerucci, Angioletto d'Agobbio, Martino and Ottaviano Nelli; Federigo Brunori and the miniaturist Angelica Allegrini; also Mastro Giorgio (Giorgio Andreoli) who in the fifteenth century raised to high perfection the art of working in majolica.

Besides the ruins of the temple of Jupiter Appenninus, there has been found at Gubbio an ancient semicircular theatre. In the churches and in the municipal gallery are frescoes and carvings by many eminent masters, natives of the city and elsewhere. The cathedral has some artistically embroidered cinquecento copes. The Palazzo dei Consoli joined to that of the Podestà (1332-1346) is a splendid specimen of Angiolo da Orvieto's work; in the chapel are frescoes by Palmerucci. The ducal palace built by Federigo II, di Montefeltro (1474-1482) is a worthy monument to that accomplished prince's exquisite artistic sense.

The earliest known Bishop of Gubbio is Decentius, to whom Innocent I addressed (416) the well-known reply concerning liturgy and church discipline. St. Gregory the Great (590-604) entrusted to Bishop Gaudiosus of Gubbio the spiritual care of Tadinum, about a mile from the modern Gualdo, which had been long without a bishop of its own. Arsenius of Gubbio (855) together with Nicholas of Anagni opposed the election Benedict III. Other bishops of Gubbio were St. Rodolfo, honoured for his sanctity by St. Peter Damian; St. Giovanni II of Lodi (1105), a monk of Fonte Avellana; St. Ubaldo (1160), in whose honour a church was built in 1197, which afterwards belonged to the Franciscans; Teobaldo, a monk of Fonte Avellana, against whom Emperor Frederick Barbarossa set up as anti- bishop one Bonatto; St Villano (1206); Fra Benvenuto (1278), papal legate to restore peace between Alfonso of Castile and Philip III of France. Cardinals Bembo and Marcello Cervino, afterwards Pope Marcellus II, were also bishops of Gubbio, likewise Alessandro Sperelli (1644), author of many learned works, who restored the cathedral. Gubbio was originally directly subject to the Holy See, but in 1563 became a suffragan of Urbino; as a result of the resistance begun by Bishop Mariano Savelli it was not until the eighteenth century that Urbino could exercise metropolitan jurisdiction. The see has 65 parishes, 40,200 souls, 7 monasteries for men, 12 convents for women, 3 boarding-schools for boys, and 4 for girls.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (1846), V, 355-458; SARTI, De Episcopis Eugubinis (Pesaro, 1755); LUCARELLI, Memorie e guida storica di Gubbio (Citta di Castello, 1886); COLASANTI, Gubbio in Italia Artistica (Bergamo, 1906), XIII.

U. BENIGNI

Moritz Gudenus

A German convert to the Catholic faith from the Protestant ministry; b. 11 April, 1596, at Cassel; d. February, 1680, at Treffurt near Erfurt. He was a descendant of a Calvinist family which had removed from Utrecht to Hesse. After attending school at Cassel he continued his studies at the University of Marburg, in which city he subsequently acted as deacon of the reformed church. He had held this position for less than two years, when a change of civil rulers resulted in the official substitution of Lutheranism for Calvinism at Marburg. Gudenus lost his office because of his refusal to adopt the Augsburg Confession. He returned to Cassel, was appointed assistant at Abterode, and in 1625 became pastor there. The reading of Bellarmine's works revealed to him the Catholic doctrine in its true light, and after careful study he and his family were received into the Church in 1630. The conversion was made at the cost of considerable personal sacrifices. After a time of need and trials Gudenus was named high bailiff at Treffurt, a position which he held until his death. His funeral panegyric was delivered by Herwig Boning, representative of the Archbishop of Mainz in the district of Eichsfeld and parish priest of Duderstadt. Boning included the panegyric in his edition of the works of Gudenus, which comprised a treatise on the Eucharist and two letters on the history of his conversion, one addressed to the Jesuits of Heiligenstadt, the other to his brother-in-law, Dr. Paul Stein: "Mensa Neophyti septem panibus instructa a cl. viro Dno. Mauritio Gudeno, electorali Moguntino praefecto in Trefurt p.m. sive ejusdem de sua ad fidem romano-catholicam conversione et divina erga se providentia narratio" (Duderstadt, 1686). Gudenus was survived by five sons, some of whom achieved distinction in ecclesiastical and academic circles. John Daniel became Auxiliary Bishop of Mainz; John Maurice, electoral and imperial counsellor and praetor at Erfurt, wrote a history of that city, "Historia Erfurtensis" (Duderstadt, 1675); Dr. John Christopher, who was diplomatic representative of the Archdiocese of Mainz at Vienna, and Dr. Urban Ferdinand, who occupied a university chair, became the founders of the two noble branches of the Gudenus family, which still flourish in Austria.

RASS, Convertiten, V (Freiburg, 1867), 366-81; BINDER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; Universal Lexikom, XI (Halle and Leipzig, 1735), 1212-13; KNESCHKE, Neues Allg. Deutsch. Adels-Lexikon, IV (Leipzig, 1863), 86-87.

N.A. WEBER

St. Gudula

(Latin, Guodila).

Born in Brabant, Belgium, of Witger and Amalberga, in the seventh century; died at the beginning of the eighth century. After the birth of Gudula her mother Amalberga, who is herself venerated as a saint, embraced the religious life, and according to tradition received the veil at the hands of St. Aubert, Bishop of Cambrai (d. about 668). Gudula's sister was St. Reinelda, and her brother, St. Emebertus, who succeeded St. Vindician as Bishop of Cambrai about 695. From an early age Gudula proved herself a worthy child of her mother, and with Reinelda and Emebertus lived in an atmosphere of piety and good works. She frequently visited the church of Moorzeele, situated at a distance of two miles from her parents' house. She was buried at Ham (Eastern Flanders). About a century after her death, her relics were removed from Ham to the church of Saint-Sauveur at Moorzeele, where the body was interred behind the altar. Under Duke Charles of Lorraine (977-992), or more exactly, between 977 and 988, the body of the saint was taken from the church of Moorzeele and transferred to the chapel of Saint Géry at Brussels. Count Balderic of Louvain caused another translation to be made in 1047, when the relics of the saint were placed in the church of Saint-Michel. Great indulgences were granted on the feast of the saint in 1330, to all who assisted in the decoration and completion of the church of St. Gudula at Brussels. On 6 June, 1579, the collegiate church was pillaged and wrecked by the Gueux and heretics, and the relics of the saint disinterred and scattered. The feast of the saint is celebrated at Brussels on 8 January, and at Ghent—in which diocese Ham and Moorzeele are located—on 19 January.

If St. Michael is the patron of Brussels, St. Gudula is its most venerated patroness. In iconography, St. Gudula is represented on a seal of the Church of St. Gudula of 1446 reproduced by Pere Ch. Cahier (Caracteristiques des saints, I, 198) holding in her right hand a candle, and in her left a lamp, which a demon endeavours to extinguish. This representation is doubtless in accord with the legend which relates that the saint frequently repaired to the church before cock-crow. The demon wishing to interrupt this pious exercise, extinguished the light which she carried, but the saint obtained from God that her lantern should be rekindled. The flower called "tremella deliquescens", which bears fruit in the beginning of January, is known as "Sinte Goulds lampken" (St. Gudula's lantern). The old woodcarvers who professed to represent the saints born in the states of the House of Austria, depict St. Gudula with a taper in her hand.

Acta Sanctorum Belgii, V, 689-715, 716-735; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scriptores, XV, 2, 1200-1203; Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum bibliothecae regiae Bruxellensis (Brussels, 1886), I, 391; BOLLANDUS, De S. Gudila virgine commentarius praevius, with add. by GHESQUIERE, in Acta Sanctorum Belgii, loc. cit., 667-689; De S. Gudila et ejus translatione and De translatione corporis B. Gudulae virginis ad ecclesiam S. Michaelis et de institutione canonicorum Bruxellae et Lovanii, in LEUCKENBERG, Selecta juris et histor., III, 211-218; CAHIER, Caracteristiques des Saints dans l'art populaire (Paris, 1867), I, 197, II, 507; VAN DER ESSEN, Etude critique et litteraire sur les Vitae des saints Merovingiens de l'ancienne Belgique (Louvain, 1907), 296-298.

L. VAN DER ESSEN

Guelphs and Ghibellines

Names adopted by the two factions that kept Italy divided and devastated by civil war during the greater part of the later Middle Ages.

It has been well observed by Grisar, in his recent biography of Pope Gregory the Great, that the doctrine of two powers to govern the world, one spiritual and the other temporal, each independent within its own limits, is as old as Christianity itself, and based upon the Divine command to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's". The earlier popes, such as Gelasius I (494) and Symmachus (506), write emphatically on this theme, which received illustration in the Christian art of the eighth century in a mosaic of the Lateran palace that represented Christ delivering the keys to St. Silvester and the banner to the Emperor Constantine, and St. Peter giving the papal stole to Leo III and the banner to Charlemagne. The latter scene insists on the papal action in the restoration of the Western Empire, which Dante regards as an act of usurpation on the part of Leo. For Dante, pope and emperor are as two suns to shed light upon man's spiritual and temporal paths respectively, Divinely ordained by the infinite goodness of Him from Whom the power of Peter and of Caesar bifurcates as from a point. Thus, throughout the troubled period of the Middle Ages, men inevitably looked to the harmonious alliance of these two powers to renovate the face of the earth, or, when it seemed no longer possible for the two to work in unison, they appealed to one or the other to come forward as the saviour of society. We get the noblest form of these aspirations in the ideal imperialism of Dante's "De Monarchia", on the one hand; and, on the other, in the conception of the ideal pope, the papa angelico of St. Bernard's "De Consideratione" and the "Letters" of St. Catherine of Siena.

This great conception can vaguely be discerned at the back of the nobler phases of the Guelph and Ghibelline contests; but it was soon obscured by considerations and conditions absolutely unideal and material. Two main factors may be said to have produced and kept alive these struggles: the antagonism between the papacy and the empire, each endeavouring to extend its authority into the field of the other; the mutual hostility between a territorial feudal nobility, of military instincts, and of foreign descent, and a commercial and municipal democracy, clinging to the traditions of Roman law, and ever increasing in wealth and power. Since the coronation of Charlemagne (800), the relations of Church and State had been ill defined, full of the seeds of future contentions, which afterwards bore fruit in the prolonged "War of Investitures", begun by Pope Gregory VII and the Emperor Henry IV (1075), and brought to a close by Callistus II and Henry V (1122). Neither the Church nor the Empire was able to make itself politically supreme in Italy. Throughout the eleventh century, the free Italian communes had arisen, owing a nominal allegiance to the Empire as having succeeded to the power of ancient Rome and as being the sole source of law and right, but looking for support, politically as well as spiritually, to the papacy.

The names "Guelph" and "Ghibelline" appear to have originated in Germany, in the rivalry between the house of Welf (Dukes of Bavaria) and the house of Hohenstaufen (Dukes of Swabia), whose ancestral castle was Waiblingen in Franconia. Agnes, daughter of Henry IV and sister of Henry V, married Duke Frederick of Swabia. "Welf" and "Waiblingen" were first used as rallying cries at the battle of Weinsberg (1140), where Frederick's son, Emperor Conrad III (1138-1152), defeated Welf, the brother of the rebellious Duke of Bavaria, Henry the Proud. Conrad's nephew and successor, Frederick I "Barbarossa" (1152-1190), attempted to reassert the imperial authority over the Italian cities, and to exercise supremacy over the papacy itself. He recognized an antipope, Victor, in opposition to the legitimate sovereign pontiff, Alexander III (1159), and destroyed Milan (1162), but was signally defeated by the forces of the Lombard League at the battle of Legnano (1176) and compelled to agree to the peace of Constance (1183), by which the liberties of the Italian communes were secured. The mutual jealousies of the Italian cities themselves, however, prevented the treaty from having permanent results for the independence and unity of the nation. After the death of Frederick's son and successor, Henry VI (1197), a struggle ensued in Germany and in Italy between the rival claimants for the Empire: Henry's brother, Philip of Swabia (d. 1208), and Otho of Bavaria. According to the more probable theory, it was then that the names of the factions were introduced into Italy. "Guelfo" and "Ghibellino" being the Italian forms of "Welf" and "Waiblingen". The princes of the house of Hohenstaufen being the constant opponents of the papacy, "Guelph" and "Ghibelline" were taken to denote adherents of Church and Empire, respectively. The popes having favoured and fostered the growth of the communes, the Guelphs were in the main the republican, commercial, burgher party; the Ghibellines represented the old feudal aristocracy of Italy. For the most part the latter were descended from Teutonic families planted in the peninsula by the Germanic invasions (of the past), and they naturally looked to the emperors as their protectors against the growing power and pretensions of the cities. It is, however, clear that these names were merely adopted to designate parties that, in one form or another, had existed from the end of the eleventh century. In the endeavour to realize the precise signification of these terms, one must consider the local politics and the special conditions of each individual state and town. Thus, in Florence, a family quarrel between the Buondelmonti and the Amidei, in 1215, led traditionally to the introduction of "Guelph" and "Ghibelline" to mark off the two parties that henceforth kept the city divided; but the factions themselves had virtually existed since the death of the great Countess Mathilda of Tuscany (1115), a hundred years before, had left the republic at liberty to work out its own destinies. The rivalry of city against city was also, in many cases, a more potent inducement for one to declare itself Guelph and another Ghibelline, than any specially papal or imperial proclivities on the part of its citizens. Pavia was Ghibelline, because Milan was Guelph. Florence being the head of the Guelph league in Tuscany, Lucca was Guelph because it needed Florentine protection; Siena was Ghibelline, because it sought the support of the emperor against the Florentines and against the rebellious nobles of its own territory; Pisa was Ghibelline, partly from hostility to Florence, partly from the hope of rivalling with imperial aid the maritime glories of Genoa. In many cities a Guelph faction and a Ghibelline faction alternately got the upper hand, drove out its adversaries, destroyed their houses and confiscated their possessions. Venice, which had aided Alexander III against Frederick I, owed no allegiance to the Western empire, and naturally stood apart.

One of the last acts of Frederick I had been to secure the marriage of his son Henry with Constance, aunt and heiress of William the Good, the last of the Norman kings of Naples and Sicily. The son of this marriage, Frederick II (b. 1194), thus inherited this South Italian kingdom, hitherto a bulwark against the imperial Germanic power in Italy, and was defended in his possession of it against the Emperor Otho by Pope Innocent III, to whose charge he had been left as a ward by his mother. On the death of Otho (1218), Frederick became emperor, and was crowned in Rome by Honorius III (1220). The danger, to the papacy and to Italy alike, of the union of Naples and Sicily (a vassal kingdom of the Holy See) with the empire, was obvious; and Frederick, when elected King of the Romans, had sworn not to unite the southern kingdom with the German crown. His neglect of this pledge, together with the misunderstandings concerning his crusade, speedily brought about a fresh conflict between the Empire and the Church. The prolonged struggle carried on by the successors of Honorius, from Gregory IX to Clement IV, against the last Swabian princes, mingled with the worst excesses of the Italian factions on either side, is the central and most typical phase of the Guelph and Ghibelline story. From 1227, when first excommunicated by Gregory IX, to the end of his life, Frederick had to battle incessantly with the popes, the second Lombard League, and the Guelph pary in general throughout Italy. The Genoese fleet, conveying the French cardinals and prelates to a council summoned at Rome, was destroyed by the Pisans at the battle of Meloria (1241); and Gregory's successor, Innocent IV, was compelled to take refuge in France (1245). The atrocious tyrant, Ezzelino da Romano, raised up a bloody despotism in Verona and Padua; the Guelph nobles were temporarily expelled from Florence; but Frederick's favourite son, King Enzio of Sardinia, was defeated and captured by the Bolognese (1249), and the strenuous opposition of the Italians proved too much for the imperial power. After the death of Frederick (1250), it seemed as if his illegitimate son, Manfred, King of Naples and Sicily (1254-1266), himself practically an Italian, was about to unite all Italy into a Ghibelline, anti-papal monarchy. Although in the north the Ghibelline supremacy was checked by the victory of the Marquis Azzo d'Este over Ezzelino at Cassano on the Adda (1259), in Tuscany even Florence was lost to the Guelph cause by the sanguinary battle of Montaperti (4 Sept., 1260), celebrated in Dante's poem. Urban IV then offered Manfred's crown to Charles of Anjou, the brother of St. Louis of France. Charles came to Italy, and by the great victory of Benevento (26 Feb., 1266), at which Manfred was killed, established a French dynasty upon the throne of Naples and Sicily. The defeat of Frederick's grandson, Conradin, at the battle of Tagliacozzo (1268) followed by his judicial murder at Naples by the command of Charles, marks the end of the struggle and the overthrow of the German imperial power in Italy for two and a half centuries.

Thus the struggle ended in the complete triumph of the Guelphs. Florence, once more free and democratic, had established a special organization within the republic, known as the Parte Guelfa, to maintain Guelph principles and chastise supposed Ghibellines. Siena, hitherto the stronghold of Ghibellinism in Tuscany, became Guelph after the battle of Colle di Valdelsa (1269). The pontificate of the saintly and pacific Gregory X (1271-1276) tended to dissociate the Church from the Guelph party, which now began to look more to the royal house of France. Although they lost Sicily by the "Vespers of Palermo" (1282), the Angevin kings of Naples remained the chief power in Italy, and the natural leaders of the Guelphs, with whose aid they had won their crown. Adherence to Ghibelline principles was still maintained by the republics of Pisa and Arezzo, the Della Scala family at Verona, and a few petty despots here and there in Romagna and elsewhere. No great ideals of any kind were by this time at stake. As Dante declares in the "Paradiso" (canto vi), one party opposed to the imperial eagle the golden lilies, and the other appropriated the eagle to a faction, "so that it is hard to see which sinneth most". The intervention of Boniface VIII in the politics of Tuscany, when the predominant Guelphs of Florence split into two new factions, was the cause of Dante's exile (1301), and drove him for a while into the ranks of the Ghibellines. The next pope, Benedict XI (1303-1304), made earnest attempts to reconcile all parties; but the "Babylonian Captivity" of his successors at Avignon augmented the divisions of Italy. From the death of Frederick II (1250) to the election of Henry VII (1308), the imperial throne was regarded by the Italians as vacant. Henry himself was a chivalrous and high minded idealist, who hated the very names of Guelph and Ghibelline; his expedition to Italy (1310-1313) roused much temporary enthusiasm (reflected in the poetry of Dante and Cino da Pistoia), but he was successfully resisted by King Robert of Naples and the Florentines. After his death, imperial vicars made themselves masters of various cities. Uguccione della Faggiuola (d. 1320), for a brief while lord of Pisa "in marvellous glory", defeated the allied forces of Naples and Florence at the battle of Montecatini (29 Aug., 1315), a famous Guelph overthrow that has left its traces in the popular poetry of the fourteenth century. Can Grande della Scala (d. 1339), Dante's friend and patron, upheld the Ghibelline cause with magnanimity in eastern Lombardy; while Matteo Visconti (d. 1322) established a permanent dynasty in Milan, which became a sort of Ghibelline counterbalance to the power of the Angevin Neapolitans in the south. Castruccio Interminelli (d. 1328), a soldier of fortune who became Duke of Lucca, attempted the like in central Italy; but his signory perished with him. Something of the old Guelph and Ghibelline spirit revived during the struggle between Ludwig of Bavaria and Pope John XXII; Ludwig set up an antipope, and was crowned in Rome by a representative of the Roman people, but his conduct disgusted his own partisans. In the poetry of Fazio degli Uberti (d. after 1368), a new Ghibellinism makes itself heard: Rome declares that Italy can only enjoy peace when united beneath the scepter of one Italian king.

Before the return of the popes from Avignon, "Guelph" and "Ghibelline" had lost all real significance. Men called themselves Guelph or Ghibelline, and even fought furiously under those names, simply because their forbears had adhered to one or other of the factions. In a city which had been officially Guelph in the past, any minority opposed to the government of the day, or obnoxious to the party in power, would be branded as "Ghibelline". Thus, in 1364, we find it enacted by the Republic of Florence that any one who appeals to the pope or his legate or the cardinals shall be declared a Ghibelline. "There are no more wicked nor more mad folk under the vault of heaven than the Guelphs and Ghibellines", says St. Bernardino of Siena in 1427. He gives an appalling picture of the atrocities still perpetuated, even by women, under these names, albeit by that time the primitive signification of the terms had been lost, and declares that the mere professing to belong to either party is in itself a mortal sin. As party catch-words they survived, still attended with bloody consequences, until the coming to Italy of Charles V (1529) finally re-established the imperial power, and opened a new epoch in the relations of pope and emperor.

SISMONDI, Histoire des Republiques italiennes du moyen age; BALBO, Sommario della Storia d'Italia (Florence, 1856); BRYCE, The Holy Roman Empire; TOUT, The Empire and the Papacy (London, 1903); LANZANI, Storia dei communi italiani dalle origini al 1313 (Milan, 1881); SALZER, Ueber die Anfange der Signorie in Oberitalien (Berlin, 1900); BUTLER, The Lombard Communes (London, 1906); CAPPONI, Storia della Repubblica di Firenze (Florence, 1888); VILLARI, I primi due secoli della Storia di Firenze (new ed., Florence, 1905); earlier ed. translated into English by Linda Villari); DOUGLAS, A History of Siena (London, 1902); WIKSTEED AND GARDNER, Dante and Giovanni del Virgilio (London, 1901); RENIER, Liriche edite ed inedite di Fazio degli Uberti (Florence, 1883); SCHOTT, Welfen und Gibelinge in Zeitschrifte f. Geschichtswissenschaft (1846), V, 317; HOLDER-EGGER, Cronica Fratris Salimbene (Hanover, 1905-08).

EDMUND G. GARDNER

Prosper Louis Pascal Guéranger

Benedictine and polygraph; b. 4 April, 1805, at Sablé-sur-Sarthe; d. at Solesmes, 30 January, 1875.

Ordained a priest 7 October, 1827, he was administrator of the parish of the Missions Etrangères until near the close of 1830. He then left Paris and returned to Mans, where he began to publish various historical works, such as "De la prière pour le Roi" (Oct., 1830) and "De l'élection et de la nomination des évêques" (1831), their subject being inspired by the political and religious situation of the day. In 1831 the priory of Solesmes, which was about an hour's journey from Sablé, was put up for sale and Père Guéranger now saw a means of realizing his desire to re-establish, in this monastery, religious life under the Rule of St. Benedict. His decision was made in June, 1831, and, in December, 1832, thanks to private donations, the monastery had become his property. The Bishop of Mans now sanctioned the Constitutions by which the new society was to be organized and fitted subsequently to enter the Benedictine Order. On 11 July, 1833, five priests came together in the restored priory at Solesmes, and on 15 August, 1836, publicly declared their intention of consecrating their lives to the re-establishment of the Order of St. Benedict. In a brief issued 1 September, 1837, Pope Gregory erected the former priory of Solesmes into an abbey and constituted it head of the "Congrégation Française de l'Ordre de Saint Benoît". Dom Guéranger was appointed Abbot of Solesmes (Oct. 31) and Superior General of the Benedictines of the "Congrégation de France", and those of the little society who had received the habit 15 August, 1836, made their solemn profession under the direction of the new abbot, who had pronounced his vows at Rome, 26 July, 1837.

Thenceforth Dom Guéranger's life was given up to developing the young monastic community, to procuring for it the necessary material and indispensable resources, and to inspiring it with an absolute devotion to the Church and the Pope. Amongst those who came to Solesmes, either to follow the monastic life or to seek self-improvement by means of retreats, Dom Guéranger found many collaborators and valuable steadfast friends. Dom Pitra, afterwards Cardinal, renewed the great literary traditions of the Benedictines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; Bishops Pie of Poitiers and Berthaud of Tulle, Pere Lacordaire, the Count de Montalembert and Louis Veuillot, were all interested in the abbot's projects and even shared his labours. Unfortunately the controversy occasioned by several of Dom Guéranger's writings had the effect of drawing his attention to secondary questions and turning it away from the great enterprises of ecclesiastical science, in which he always manifested a lively concern. The result was a work in which polemics figured prominently, and which at present evokes but mediocre interest, and, although the time spent upon it was by no means lost to the cause of the Church, Dom Guéranger's historical and liturgical pursuits suffered in consequence. He devoted himself too largely to personal impressions and neglected detailed and persevering investigation. His quickness of perception and his classical training permitted him to enjoy and to set forth, treat in an interesting way, historical and liturgical subjects which, by nature, were somewhat unattractive. Genuine enthusiasm, a lively imagination, and a style tinged with romanticism have sometimes led him, as he himself realized, to express himself and to judge too vigorously.

Being a devout and ardent servant of the Church, Dom Guéranger wished to re-establish more respectful and more filial relations between France and the See of Rome, and his entire life was spent in endeavouring to effect a closer union between the two. With this end in view he set himself to combat, wherever he thought he found its traces, the separatist spirit that had, of old, allied itself with Gallicanism and Jansenism. With a strategic skill which deserves special recognition, Dom Guéranger worked on the principle that to suppress what is wrong, the thing must be replaced, and he laboured hard to supplant everywhere whatever reflected the opinion he was fighting. He fought to have the Roman liturgy substituted for the diocesan liturgies, and he lived to see his efforts in this line crowned with complete success. On philosophical ground, he struggled with unwavering hope against Naturalism and Liberalism, which he considered a fatal impediment to the constitution of an unreservedly Christian society. He helped, in a measure, to prepare men's minds for the definition of the papal infallibility, that brilliant triumph which succeeded the struggle against papal authority so bitterly carried on a century previously by many Gallican and Josephite bishops. Along historical lines Dom Guéranger's enterprises were less successful and their influence, although once very strong, is daily growing weaker.

In 1841 he began to publish a mystical work by which he hoped to arouse the faithful from their spiritual torpor and to supplant what he deemed the lifeless or erroneous literature that had been produced by the French spiritual writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. "L'Année liturgique", of which the author was not to finish the long series of fifteen volumes, is probably the one of all Dom Guéranger's works that best fulfilled the purpose he had in view. Accommodating himself to the development of the liturgical periods of the year, the author laboured to familiarize the faithful with the official prayer of the Church by lavishly introducing fragments of the Eastern and Western liturgies, with interpretations and commentaries.

Amid his many labours Dom Guéranger had the satisfaction of witnessing the spreading of the restored Benedictine Order. Two unsuccessful attempts at foundations in Paris and Acey respectively did not deter him from new efforts in he same line, and, thanks to his zealous perseverance, monasteries were established at Liguge and Marseilles. Moreover, in his last years, the Abbot of Solesmes founded, at a short distance from his monastery, a community of women under the Rule of St. Benedict. This life, fraught with so many trials and filled with such great achievements, drew to a peaceful close at Solesmes.

The complete bibliography is to be found in 126 numbers in CABROL, Bibliographie des Benedictins (Solesmes, 1889), 3-33. We shall only mention here the most important works: Origines de l'Eglise romaine (Paris, 1836); Institutions liturgiques (Paris, I, 1840, II, 1841, III, 1851), 2nd edition, 4 vols. 8vo (Paris, 1878-1885); Lettre a Mgr. l'archeveque de Reims sur le droit de la liturgie (Le Mans, 1843); Defense des Institutions liturgiques, lettre a Mgr. l'archeveque de Toulouse (Le Mans, 1844); Nouvelle defense des Institutions liturgiques (Paris, 1846-47); L'Annee liturgique (Paris, 1841-1901, tr. SHEPHARD, Worcester, 1895-1903); Memoire sur la question de l'Immaculee Conception de la tres sainte Vierge (Paris, 1850); Essais sur le naturalisme contemporain, 8vo (Paris, 1858); Essai sur l'origine, la signification et les privileges de la medaille ou croix de Saint Benoit, 12mo (Poitiers, 1862); L'Eglise romaine contre les accusations du P. Gratry (Le Mans, 1870); Deuxieme defense (Paris, 1870); Troisieme defense, Eng. tr., Defence of the Roman Church against Father Gratry, by WOODS (London, 1870); De la Monarchie pontificale, a propos du livre de Mgr. l'eveque de Sura, 8vo (Paris, 1870); Sainte Cecile et la Societe romaine aux deux premiers siecles, 4to (Paris, 1874), and Reglements du noviciat pour les Benedictins de la Congregation de France, 16mo (Solesmes, 1885).

H. LECLERCQ

Robert Guérard

Born at Rouen, 1641; died at the monastery of Saint-Ouen, 2 January, 1715. For some time he collaborated at Saint-Denys in the Maurist edition of St. Augustine's works. In 1675, however, he had to leave Saint-Denys by order of the king, who wrongly suspected him of having had a hand in the publication of "L'Abbé commendataire", a work which severely criticized the practice of holding and bestowing abbeys, etc., in commendam. His superior sent him to the monastery of Notre Dame, at Ambronay, in the Diocese of Belley. While in exile, he discovered at the Carthusian monastery of Portes a manuscript of St. Augustine's "Opus imperfectum" against Julian of Eclanum, which was afterwards used in the Maurist edition of St. Augustine's works. After a year of exile he was recalled, and spent the rest of his life successively at the monasteries of Fécamp and Saint-Ouen. He is the author of a biblical work entitled "L'Abrégé de la sainte Bible en forme de questions et de réponses familières", which he published at Rouen in 1707 (latest edition, Paris, 1745).

TASSIN, Histoire literaire de la Congr. de St-Maur (Brussels, 1770), 372-4; BERLIERE, Nouveau Supplement a l'hist. lit. de la Congr. de St-Maur (Paris, 1908), I, 270; MICHAUD, Biographie universelle, s.v.

MICHAEL OTT

Anne-Thérèse Guérin

(In religion, Mother Theodore)

Born at Etables (Côte du Nord), Brittany, France, 2 October, 1798; died 14 May, 1856. She entered the Community of Sisters of Providence, Ruillé-sur-Loire, in 1823, received the religious habit and, by dispensation, made profession of vows, 8 September, 1824, being appointed the same day to the superiorship of the convent at Rennes. She was transferred to Soulaines in 1833, chosen foundress of St. Mary-of-the-Woods, Diocese of Vincennes, Indiana, in 1840, and at the same time declared superior general of the Sisters of Providence in America. The "Life and Life-Work" (1904) of [Bl.] Mother Theodore Guérin reveals her to have been, in the words of [James] Cardinal Gibbons, who furnishes the introduction:

A woman of uncommon valour, one of those religious athletes whose life and teachings effect a spiritual fecundity that secures vast conquests to Christ and His holy Church. . . . Not the least glory encircling the diocese was its possessing such a magnanimous pioneer Religious. . . . She was distinctively a diplomat in religious organizations and eminently a teacher.

Father Charles Coppens, S.J., adds:

She was a very superior woman both in natural gifts and in supernatural virtues. She lived a life of extraordinary union with God and conformity to His holy will, and she practised these virtues under the most difficult circumstances, where they required heroic faith, hope and charity. A perfect model of consummate virtue for all classes of the faithful, but especially for religious men and women.

[Bl.] Mother Theodore's mental attainments were of a superior order. The French Academy recognized her scholarship by according her medallion decorations. She was skilled in medicine and was a thorough theologian. As foundress of an institution whose expansion is evidence of her energetic and penetrating spirit, her whole history is a record of the power of holy souls who live but for the glory of God and the salvation of mankind.

[ Note: Anne-Thérèse (Mother Theodore) Guérin was beatified in Rome by Pope John Paul II on 25 October, 1998.]

ALMA M. LE BRUN

Guérin

(1) Eugénie de Guérin

A French writer; b. at the château of La Cayla, in Languedoc, 15 January, 1805; d. there 5 June, 1848. The Guérins were descended from an old noble family, originally from Venice, which has lived for centuries in Southern France. Among their ancestors, they counted crusaders, a bishop, several cardinals, and Grand Masters of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. In spite of their noble origin, they were in veery moderate circumstances at the beginning of the nineteenth century. M. de Guérin, the father, had lost his wife when Eugénie was thirteen years old, and was left with four children, Eugénie, Marie, Eremberg, and Maurice. Upon her death-bed, the mother, more deeply attached to Maurice than to any of the others, because of his beauty and his delicate health, commended him to the care and solicitude of Eugénie, who loved him dearly. In fact, her whole life was devoted to her brother. Had she been free to follow her own desires, she would have entered the convent; but she remained in the world for the sake of Maurice. Her life was spent entirely in the loneliness of the old homestead, which she left only once, for a few months, in 1838, when she went to Paris to attend the wedding of her brother. Her way of living was simple and eminently Christian. After she had discharged her household duties, she would indulge in reading. The lives of the saints, Bossuet's sermons, and other religious works were her favorite reading. She interested herself also in literature, and her "Journal" shows that she had read Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante, Scott, Goldsmith, not to mention all the great masters of French literature. Speaking of her reading, she said: "I read, not to become learned, but to raise my soul." Her main concern, however, was for her brother. From the day when he left home to go to school, and afterwards, especially when he was at La Chênaie and in Paris, she frequently wrote long letters to him, most of which unfortunately are lost. In 1834 she began a "Journal" or diary of events, which was sent to her brother from time to time. Both in her letters and"journal", she related the insignificant facts of her lonely life, her impressions of nature, her innermost thoughts, and, above all, spoke to him of his soul. During the unfortunate period when he renounced his Faith, she became more tender and loving, in order that her advice might be more surely listened to. Her devotion was rewarded; for, a few months before his death, he returned to the fold. She survived him only eight years, seeking for no other relief to her bereavement than prayer. Her "Journal" had been written for Maurice only, and was not intended for publication. It was, however, printed under the title of "Reliquiæ" (Caen, 1855), first for private circulation. Seven years later a public edition entitled "Journal et lettres d'Eugénie de Guérin" (Paris, 1862), met with considerable success and has been reprinted many times. Together with her devotion to her brother, and her piety, we admire the simple and vivid style of the writer. She loves to depict the scenic beauties that surrounded her, and her descriptions are charming and free from that tinge of pantheism which is so often noticeable in admirers of nature.

(2) Georges-Maurice de Guérin

A French poet, brother of Eugénie; b. at the château of La Cayla, in Languedoc, 5 August, 1810; d. there, 19 July, 1839. At the age of thirteen he went to the preparatory seminary of Toulouse, and two years later to the Collêge Stanislas, at Paris. He then thought of becoming a priest. In 1832 he went to La Chênaie, where Lamennais had established a school of higher religious studies. He met there pious and learned men, among whom must be mentioned the Abbé Gerbet, afterwards a bishop, and the Abbé de Cazalès, whose philosophical and theological discussions he related in his journal. He remained at La Chênaie a little more than a year, and it seems that Lamennais did not pay much attention to him. In the month of February, 1834, he was in Paris, trying to find a position. He was soon imbued with the ideas of the world, and lost his faith. He hoped for a time to enter the College of Juilly as instructor, but was disappointed and obliged to accept a position as substitute in the Collège Stanislas. He occasionally contributed articles to a magazine, "La France Catholique". His life was saddened by his naturally dreamy disposition and a vague regret for his lost faith. Though surrounded by a choice circle of friends, in which he had ample opportunity to display his brilliant qualities, he suffered from constant weariness and poor health. Towards the end of 1838 he married a young Indian girl, whom Eugénie describes as a "charming and refined creature". A few months later, yielding to his sister's entreaties, he returned to Le Cayla, and at the same time came back to the Faith of his childhood, and died piously in 1839. His fame as a writer began only one year after his death, when his poem "Le Centaure" appeared in the "Revue des Deux Mondes", together with an enthusiastic article from the pen of George Sand. He then ranked among the great poets of France, though it may be said that this pantheistic composition was praised a little beyond its real value. The remainder of his works were published for the first time, twenty years later, by Trébutien (2 vols., Caen, 1860). By far the more interesting part is the "Journal", which was written day by day to be sent to his sister. His complete works have been published under the title of "Journal, Lettres et Poèmes". A joint edition of Maurice and Eugénie's works has been given in three vols. (Paris, 1869).

Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du Lundi, XII (Paris, 1856), 231-47; XV (Paris, 1860), 1-34; G. Sand in Revue des deux Mondes, 15 May, 1840; Arnold, Essays on Criticism (London, 1865); Parr, Maurice and Eugénie de Guérin (London, 1870); The Fordham Monthly, XXV, No. 8, The Journal of Eugénie de Guérin.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Joseph Heinrich Aloysius Gügler

Born at Udligerschwyl, near Lucerne, Switzerland, 25 August, 1782; died at Lucerne, 28 February, 1827. The only son of simple country people, he was a delicate child and received no regular schooling, but read the books belonging to his father again and again, so that, when only twelve years old, he had read the entire Holy Scriptures several times. Religiously inclined from childhood, he early desired to enter the clerical state, and after many entreaties his parents permitted him to begin his studies at the abbey school of Einsiedeln. When the storms of the French Revolution crossed the Rhine, Abbot Beatus, the religious, and students, in May, 1798, went to the Abbey of St. Gerold, and at the end of the year Gügler was sent to Petershausen, near Constance. In 1800 he continued his classical course at Solothurn. In 1801 he began philosophy, which he finished with great credit at Lucerne according to Kant and Jacobi. Even as a student he showed those opposite traits of character, for which he was noted all through life: a courage ready to overcome any obstacles and fearing no consequences in the defence of right, with at the same time an unobtrusive, almost shrinking nature; a very comprehensive knowledge of men and affairs together with a dread of showing it. During this period he became acquainted with Widmer, a fellow-student, the acquaintance ripening into a life-long friendship. Through the influence of Widmer, Gügler, who had become undecided as to his future career, took up the study of theology, which both pursued at Landshut under Sailer and Zimmer. Shortly before his ordination to the priesthood he was appointed professor of exegesis at the lyceum in Lucerne. After he had received Holy orders, 9 March, 1805, at the hands of Testa Ferrata, the papal legate, he was made a canon of the collegiate church of St. Leodegar (Saint-Léger), retaining his position as professor of exegesis. Later he also taught pastoral theology, and 1822-24 acted as prefect of the lyceum.

Gügler and Widmer, who had also been made a professor at Lucerne, put new life into the study of the Scriptures, theology, and cognate branches. Students were encouraged to drop antiquated notions, to think and investigate for themselves, to gain solid knowledge, and to avoid superficiality. The methods of the new teachers brought them into conflict, as well with the supporters of the old school, as with the followers of Wessenberg and the "Illuminati" of Switzerland who accused the professors of unchristian mysticism. A controversy followed between Gügler and Thaddæus Müller, city pastor of Lucerne, during which appeared, among other writings, Gügler's "Geist des Christentums und der Literatur im Verhältniss zu den Thaddæus Müllerschen Schriften". Müller made a formal demand to the municipal authorities for the removal of Gügler from the professorship, which was decreed 12 Dec., 1810. Immediately Widmer handed in his resignation, a large number of students threatened to leave, and even the majority of citizens sided with Gügler. Müller saw his mistake, and, at his special request Gügler was reinstated 23 Jan., 1811. Gügler had also a dispute with Marcus Lutz, pastor at Leufelfingen, and issued the sarcastic pamphlet "Chemische Analyse und Synthese des Marcus Lutz zu Leufelfingen" (1816). Another controversy was with Troxler, who later became known as a philosopher. Gügler devoted his time chiefly to teaching and to literary work, but he frequently preached, and he wrote a poem for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sailer's ordination. To his scholars he was a true friend, adviser, and consoler. Perhaps the last literary work of Gügler was a protest against the admission of non-Catholics to the Canton of Lucerne, as he wished to preserve for the people the inestimable boon of unity in faith. His career, though short, was a source of great blessing to his country. Sketches of his life were written by Widmer and Geiger, and his biography was prepared by Joseph L. Schiffmann, "Lebensgeschichte des Chorherrn und Professors Aloys Gügler" (Augsburg, 1833); a lengthy article on Gügler and his exegetical works appeared in the "Katholik" (1829), XXXIV, 53, 196.

His principal work is: "Die hl. Kunst oder die Kunst der Hebräer" (1814, 1817, 1818), 3 vols. It is a philosophical exposition of Old Testament Revelation undertaken by a mind which gives full credence to the truth of Revelation, and under the veil of the letter sees hidden treasures of wonderful wisdom which it considers the highest achievement of human investigation to find and give to the world. In 1819 Widmer published the continuation of this work in relation to the New Testament: "Ziffern der Sphinx oder Typen der Zeit und ihr Deuten auf die Zukunft" (Solothurn, 1819). This wishes to show the divine order of current events which are presented in grand pictures and prophetic visions. A periodical founded by Gügler in 1823, "Zeichen der Zeit im Guten und Bösen", was continued by Dr. Segesser. Among Gügler's published works is a volume entitled "Privatvorträge", lectures on the Gospel of St. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Christian doctrine of St. Augustine, together with a brief sketch of the sacred books of the Old Testament (Sarmenstorf, 1842). His posthumous works were edited by Widmer between 1828 and 1842. A complete list of all his printed works is given in the "Thesaurus librorum rei catholicæ" (Würzburg, 1856), I, 337.

HURTER, Nomencl., s. v.; Tübinger Quartalschrift (1836), 453; Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XXIV, 489; Allg. Deutsche Biogr., X, 95; WERNER, Geschichte der apologet. u. polem. Literatur (Schaffhausen, 1867), V, 356.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Giovanni Battista Guglielmini

Scientist, b. at Bologna, 16 August, 1763; d. in the same city, l5 December, 1817. He is known as the first scientific experimenter on the mechanical demonstration of the earth's rotation. He received the tonsure in early youth, with the title of Abate, but does not seem to have received any higher orders, and died single. With the help and protection of Cardinal Ignazio Boncompagni, he pursued higher studies, and graduated in philosophy, in 1787, at the age of 24. Two years later he published his. first treatise in Rome, "Riflessioni sopra un nuovo esperimento in prova del diurno moto della terra" (Rome, 1789). The experiments which followed were made in the city tower of Bologna, called "Asinelli", and famous from former experiments of Riccioli on the laws of falling bodies. A small octavo volume, published in Bologna in 1792, "De diuturno terræ motu experimentis physico-mathematicis confirmato opusculum" gives (in the preface) the history and description of Guglielmini's experiments, then resumes in the first article the contents of the "Riflessioni", defends the same in the second article against opponents, and in the third presents the results. The book bears the imprimatur of the Holy Office at Bologna. Sixteen balls were dropped from a height of 241 feet, between June and September, 1791, and the plumb-line fixed in February, 1792, all during the night and mostly after midnight. The mean deviations towards east and south proved to be 8.4"' and 5.3"' respectively, while the computation gave 7.6"' and 6.2"' (1"'= 1-12 inch). In spite of their agreement both observation and calculation were defective, the plumb-line having been determined half a year later, and the theory of motion relative to the moving earth being as yet undeveloped.

The experimental skill and laborious precautions of Guglielmini, however, served his followers, Benzenberg (1802 and 1804) and Reich (1831), as models, and the inner agreement of his results was never surpassed. Guglielmini's theory was right, in considering the absolute path of the falling body (apart from the resistance of the air) as elliptical, or approximately parabolical, and the orbital plane as passing a little north of the vertical, through the centre of attraction, while the errors in his formulæ, afterwards repeated by Olbers, served to incite Gauss and Laplace to develop the correct theory of relative motion. Two years later, Guglielmini was nominated professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna, which office he held for twenty-three years (1794-1817). In 1801, he also filled the chair of astronomy, and during the scholastic year 1814-15, officiated as rector of the University. From about 1802 until 1810, Guglielmini was put in charge of the extensive waterworks of Bologna. If he was a relative of the famous engineer and physician, Domenico Guglielmini, who had been general superintendent of the Bologna waterworks a hundred years previously, he was certainly not his direct descendant. Don Guglielmini bore the title of "Cavaliere", was a member of the "Accademia Benedettina" (founded by Benedict XIV), of the "Regio Istituto Italiano" and "Elettore del Collegio dei Dotti". He was continually in frail health, and died of slow consumption, at the age of 54. In 1837, the city of Bologna ordered a marble bust of him to be erected in the pantheon of the cemetery.

MAZZETTI, Memorie storiche sopra l'Università e l'Istituto delle Scienze di Bologna (Bologna, 1840); Repertorio di tutti i professori... della famosa Università e del celebre Istituto delle scienze di Bologna, etc. (Bologna, 1847); BENZENBERG, Versuche über die Umdrehung der Erde (Dortmund, 1804), 294, 384; POGGENDORFF, Handwörterbuch (Leipzig, 1863); Il Panteon di Bologna (Bologna, 1881).

J.G. HAGEN

Guiana

(Or Guayana.)

Guiana was the name given to all that region of South America which extends along the Atlantic coast from the Orinoco to the Amazon. This name is still locally applied to a district of Venezuela and another in Brazil, but its ordinary geographical application is limited to the three colonies of British, Dutch, and French Guiana. British Guiana is separated from Venezuela, partially by the Orinoco, and partly by a line drawn to the east of that river. The Corentyn separates British Guiana from Dutch Guiana, on the east, while the latter is separated from the French colony by the Maroni. A decided similarity exists in the climate, physical formation, flora, and fauna of all Guiana; the low, flat coast lying between 8° and 2° N. lat. is hot, humid, and so scourged with yellow fever and other tropical diseases that the French government has been obliged to stop the use of Cayenne as a penal colony for white convicts. This coast country is hemmed on on the south by high table lands, rising in Mount Roraima to a height of about 8000 feet. The lowlands are fertile, and their forests are comparable to those of the Amazon basin, while the elevated country, with a fairly healthy climate, is mostly barren. Guiana is the habitat of several dangerous species of wild beasts, including the jaguar, as well as of the anaconda and of the most deadly reptiles in the New World.

Among the first explorers to visit this coast were Vespucci, Pinzon, Ojeda, and Balboa (1499-1504), but the first real discovery of Guiana is claimed by Diego de Ordaz, a follower of Cortés (1531). During this earliest period Catholic missionaries are said to have gone inland to attempt to the conversion of the Arawaks, Warraus, and other races. But exploration was diverted during the sixteenth century from the Guiana coast to the neighbouring Orinoco, which Raleigh ascended in 1595, in quest, like other adventurers of his day, of the fabled "Dorado" or "Gilded Man". In 1580, Dutch adventurers attempted a settlement near the Pomerun River; the earliest French attempts, chiefly on the Sinnamary River, were made in 1604. in 1635 a corporation of merchants of Normandy, having been granted by the French king all the privileges within the whole territory of Guiana, made a settlement where now is the city of Cayenne, but eight years later, Poncet de Brétigny, coming with reinforcements, found only a few of predecessors alive, living as savages among the aborigines. Of all these, and a still later reinforcement, only two remained alive in 1645, to take refuge in the Dutch settlement in Surinam. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the long, though intermittent struggle between French, Dutch, and English for the possession of this country had fairly begun. The French being then absent from Guiana, Charles II of England, in defiance of the treaty of Westphalia, which had given all Guiana to the Dutch West India Company, granted to Francis, Lord Willoughby of Parham, the territorial rights of Paramaribo. By the Treaty of Breda, in 1667, the British gave up all claims to any part of Guiana in exchange for the surrender by the Dutch of all their claims in the territory of New Netherlands (now New York), which had in fact been occupied by an English force, under the orders of the Duke of York, three years previously. In 1664 the Dutch West India Company had begun in earnest the settlement of Guiana. Simultaneously the French West India Company made a new attempt to settle Cayenne, and from that time forward the Cayenne territory has remained French.

During most of the eighteenth century, Guiana, with the exception of this French portion, remained Dutch. The difficulties of the Dutch during this period came chiefly from rebellious slaves or savages who roamed the interior. But when the American revolution deprived the British of New York, aggression recommenced in Guiana, and in 1799 a British administration replaced the Dutch. What is now British Guiana became so between the years 1803 and 1815, while in the latter years Surinam was restored to the Dutch. The actual existing status in Guiana may be considered as having begun in 1815.

Leaving aside the vague reports of early Spanish missionaries, the history of Catholicism in Guiana during the first century after the discovery belongs to the story of Portuguese missionary effort. The Treaty of Tordesillas gave this territory to Portugal. No important success appears to have been achieved in the conversion of the aborigines until the seventeenth century. With French West India Company's colonists some Dominican arrived at Cayenne, and these friars were followed by Capuchins. In 1666 the proprietary company brought the Jesuits in Cayenne, and that order laboured with considerable success among the negro slaves and the savages. Among the most remarkable Jesuits in this missionary field were Fathers de Creuilly, Lombard, d'Ayma, Fauque, Dausillac, and d'Huberland. De Creuilly spent thirty-three years on the mission (1685-1718), during a great part of which he cruised from point to point along the coast, landing there to preach; the others are memorable for having established settlements of Indian converts on the plan of the Paraguay "reductions". While in Protestant Dutch Guiana, little could be done for the spread of the Faith, in Cayenne at least the work was in a promising condition when the anti-Jesuit movement in continental Europe brought about the expulsion of the Society from this field (1768). The revolution checked the efforts of the French secular clergy to continue what the Jesuits had begun.

British Guiana, the largest of the three colonies, has an area of 90,277 square miles. Its western boundary was the subject of a dispute with Venezuela in 1894; the United States intervening and insisting that the matter should be settled by arbitration; Great Britain accepted the award of the arbitrators in October, 1899. The population is about 307,000. Of these, the whites are less than 6 per cent.; negroes, 41 per cent.; coolies, 38 per cent.; aborigines, 3 per cent. The government is carried on by an English governor, assisted by a council.

The Vicariate Apostolic of British Guiana, established by Gregory XVI in 1837, covers a mission which has now for some time been entrusted to the Society of Jesus. The vicar Apostolic resides at Georgetown, and his jurisdiction includes Barbados. There are twenty-six churches and five mission stations, served by seventeen priests. the Catholic population is about 22,000.

Dutch Guiana, or Surinam, with an area of 46,060 miles, had in 1905 a population of 75,465. The government, is administered by a council under the presidency of a Dutch governor. The Vicariate Apostolic of Dutch Guiana, with its seat at Paramaribo, was erected by Gregory XVI in 1842, and has spiritual jurisdiction over 13,300 Catholics, a number exceeded by no other Christian denomination in the colony except the Moravians (28,025). The coolie population numbers nearly 12,000 pagans, besides a large number of Mohammedans. The mission here has been entrusted by the Holy See to the Redemptorists.

French Guiana, also called Cayenne, has an area of 30,500 square miles, and since 1855, has been used as a penal settlement. Its population in 1901 was 32,908, including 4097 convicts at hard labour, and 2193 on ticket of leave. The capital city, Cayenne, has a population of over 12,000. The government appointed from Paris, is assisted by a council of five members, in addition to which there is an elective assembly, and the colony is represented in the Paris chamber by one deputy. The chief industry is placer gold-mining. The Prefecture Apostolic of Cayenne, separated from Martinique in 1731, includes jurisdiction over the Brazilian district of Guiana. There are about 20,000 Catholics, 27 churches or chapels, 18 mission stations, 22 priests, and five schools with 900 pupils. The Sisters of Saint-Paul de Chartres have had charge of the hospital at Cayenne since 1818. The mission was the scene of the heroic labours of Mother Anne-Marie de Javouhey (d. 1851), who was locally known as la Mère des Noirs.

Piolet, Les missions catholiques françaises (Paris, 1903), VI; André, A Naturalist in the Guianas (London, 1904); Mulhall, The English in South America (Buenos Aires, 1877); Scruggs and Storrow, the Brief for Venezuela (London, 1896).

E. MACPHERSON

Guibert of Ravenna

An antipope, known as Clement III, 1080 (1084) to 1100; born at Parma about 1025; died at Cività Castellana, 8 Sept., 1100. This adversary of Pope Gregory VII and of his reform policies came from a noble family of Parma, which was related to the Margraves of Canossa. We first find him in history as a cleric and imperial chancellor for Italy. This office he received in the year 1057 from the Empress Agnes. He retained it until 1063. Guibert took part in the synod which was held by the newly elected pope, Nicholas II (1058-1061), at Sutri in January, 1059. But on the latter's death he contrived through his influence with the anti-reform party of the Upper Italian clergy and at the imperial court to bring about the election of the antipope, Cadalous of Parma (Honorius II), and became an opponent of Pope Alexander II. Owing to the active support of Duke Godfrey of Lorraine, of Archbishop Anno of Cologne, and especially of St. Peter Damian, the lawful pope was soon recognized even in Germany and by the Empress Agnes. Perhaps this was the reason of Guibert's dismissal in 1063 from the chancellorship. The following nine years give us no trace of him. He must have continued, however, in friendly relations with the German Court, and retained the favour of the Empress Agnes, for when, in the year 1072, the Archbishopric of Ravenna became vacant, Emperor Henry IV, on the recommendation of the empress, named him to this important archiepiscopal see. Pope Alexander II hesitated to confirm this choice, but was prevailed upon by Cardinal Hildebrand to sanction it. Guibert thereupon took the oath of allegiance to the Holy Father and to his successors, and was consecrated Archbishop of Ravenna (1073).

Alexander II died shortly afterwards, and was succeeded by Hildebrand, who assumed his holy office on 29 April, 1073, under the name of Gregory VII. Guibert participated in the first Lenten synod of the new pope, which was held in Rome (March, 1074), and at which important laws were passed against simony and the incontinence of the clergy. But it was not long before he joined the party in opposition to the great pontiff, with whom he had quarrelled about the city of Imola. The accusation was made against him that he had entered into an alliance with Cencius and Cardinal Hugo Candidus, the antagonists of Gregory VII in Rome. He absented himself from the Lenten Synod of 1075, although he was bound by oath to obey the summons to attend it. By his absence he made manifest his opposition to Gregory VII, who now suspended him for his refusal to attend the synod. It was in this same year that Emperor Henry IV began his open war on Gregory. At the synod of the German bishops at Worms (January, 1076), a resolution was adopted deposing Gregory, and in this decision the simoniacal bishops of Lombardy joined. Among these must have been Guibert, for he shared in the sentence of excommunication and interdiction which Gregory VII pronounced against the guilty bishops of Upper Italy at the Lenten Synod of 1076.

In April of the same year a synod was held at Pavia by a number of Lombard bishops and abbots, presided over by Guibert. As these did not hesitate to proclaim the excommunication of the pope, Gregory found himself compelled to resort to still stronger measures with regard to Guibert. At the Lenten Synod of February, 1078, he excommunicated Guibert by name, and with him Archbishop Tebaldo of Milan. In March, 1080, he renewed his decree of anathema against Henry IV, and gave his recognition to Rudolph of Swabia as ruler of Germany, whereupon Henry summoned such partisans as he had among the German and Lombard bishops to a meeting at Brixen (June, 1080). This meeting drew up a new decree purporting to depose the sovereign pontiff, which Henry himself also signed, and then proceeded to elect the Archbishop of Ravenna antipope. Henry at once recognized him as pope, swearing that he would lead him to Rome, and there receive from his hands the imperial crown. Guibert put on papal garments and proceeded with great pomp to Ravenna. At the Lenten Synod of 1081 Gregory VII reiterated against Henry and his followers his decree of excommunication. The antipope failed to secure recognition outside of Henry's dominions; he was in fact but a tool in the hands of the latter, and quite devoid of personal initiative. On 21 March, 1084, Henry IV succeeded after many fruitless attempts in gaining possession of the greater part of Rome. Gregory VII found himself besieged in the Castle of Sant' Angelo, while, on 24 March, Guibert was enthroned as pope in the church of St. John Lateran as Clement III. On 31 March Guibert crowned Henry IV emperor at St. Peter's. However, when the news was brought that Robert Guiscard was hastening to the aid of Gregory, Henry with his antipope left Rome to take up the fight in Tuscany against the troops of the Margravine Matilda. Gregory, escorted by Robert Guiscard, repaired to Salerno, where he renewed his excommunication of Henry and Guibert. This was at the close of the year 1084.

The German episcopate stood divided. While bishops loyal to Gregory held a synod in Quedlinburg, at which they denounced and condemned the antipope, those who supported Henry approved at Mainz the deposition of Gregory and the elevation of Guibert (1085). This conflict continued even after the death of the great Gregory (25 May, 1085), during the entire reigns of whose successors, Victor III, Urban II, and Paschal II, Guibert figured as the antipope of Henry and his party. Victor III, who was elected after a prolonged vacancy caused by the critical position of the Church in Rome, was compelled, eight days after his coronation in St. Peter's (3 May, 1087), to fly from Rome before the partisans of Guibert. The latter were in turn assailed by the troops of Countess Matilda, and entrenched themselves in the Pantheon. The succeeding pope, Urban II (1088-1099), was at one time master of Rome, but he was afterwards driven from the city by the adherents of Guibert, and sought refuge in Lower Italy and in France. In June, 1089, at a pseudo-synod held in Rome, the antipope declared invalid the decree of excommunication launched against Henry, and various charges were made against the supporters of the legitimate pope. Still, the years which followed brought to Urban ever-increasing prestige, while Henry IV's power and influence were more and more on the wane. The greater part of the city of Rome was captured by an army of crusaders under Count Hugh of Vermandois, brother of the King of France. The party of Guibert retained only the castle of Sant' Angelo, and even this in 1098 fell into the hands of the papal champion. Guibert's influence, after Henry IV's withdrawal from Italy, was virtually confined to Ravenna and a few other districts of Northern Italy. He repaired to Albano after the accession of Paschal II (1099-1118), hoping again to become master of Rome, but he was compelled to withdraw. He reached Cività Castellana, where he died on 8 September, 1100. His followers, it is true, elected another antipope, Bishop Theodorus of S. Rufina, who, however, never held any real power. (Compare also the articles GREGORY VII; VICTOR III; URBAN II; and PASCHAL II.)

Libelli de lite Imperatorum et Pontificum saec. XI et XII conscripti in Mon. Germ, hist. (3 vols., Hanover, 1890-1897); JAFFÉ, Regesta Romanorum Pontif., 2nd ed., I, 649-55; KÖHNCKE, Wibert von Ravenna (Leipzig, 1888); HEFELE, Konziliengesch., 2nd ed., V, 20 sqq.; HERGENRÖTHER AND KIRSCH, Kirchengesch., 4th ed., II, 346 sqq.: cf. also the bibliography given under the articles mentioned above.

J.P. KIRSCH

Francesco Guicciardini

An historian and statesman; born at Florence, 1483; died there, 23 May, 1540. His parents, Piero di Jacopo Guicciardini and Simona Gianfigliazzi, belonged to ancient Florentine families, attached to the party of the Medici. Francesco's early career was that of a successful lawyer. He increased his aristocratic and Medicean connexions by his marriage with Maria Salviati (1508), whose family was bitterly opposed to the then dominant republican regime. In 1511, though legally too young for the post, he was sent as Florentine ambassador to the King of Spain. During his absence, the Medici were restored in Florence. On his return (1514), he entered their service, from which he passed into that of the Church. Under Leo X he governed Modena and Reggio with conspicuous success; and, in the confusion that followed the pope's death, he distinguished himself by his defence of Parma against the French (1521). He was influential with Clement VII in forming the anti-imperial League of Cognac (1526), and was lieutenant-general of the army that, through no fault of his, failed to prevent the sack of Rome in 1527. For a while, Guicciardini kept on terms with the restored republican government of Florence; but, at the beginning of the siege, he joined the pope, and was declared a rebel by the democratic party. On the surrender of Florence to the papal and imperial armies, he returned to the city (Sept., 1530), was made a member of the Eight (Otto di pratica), and became one of the chief agents in the subjugation of the state to the Medicean rule. From June, 1531, to September, 1534, he ruled Bologna as papal vice-legate. Returning to Florence on the death of Clement VII, he supported the tyranny of Alessandro de' Medici. After the murder of Alessandro, he played the chief part in securing the succession of Cosimo de'Medici (1537); but fell into disfavour when he attempted to check the new duke's absolutism by giving the government an oligarchical complexion. Henceforth, although until his death Guicciardini held various public offices in Florence, his influence was at an end. The few remaining years of his life were mainly passed in retirement, in his villa at Arcetri, devoting his enforced leisure to the composition of his great "Storia d'Italia".

The "Storia d'Italia" embraces the whole period from the death of Lorenzo de'Medici in 1492 to that of Clement VII in 1534, that most disastrous epoch in Italian history which witnessed the loss of the nation's independence. Its vast accumulation of details does not obscure the main lines of the terrible story. The author writes as an eyewitness who has himself taken part in the scenes he describes; a keen observer, with no delusions, no enthusiasms, and little hope for the future; one above all intent upon tracing the motives of men's actions — almost invariably, in his opinion, bad or unworthy. His minor works, such as the earlier "Storia Fiorentina" (1509) and the dialogue "Del Reggimento di Firenze" (circa 1527), are less artificial in style. The "Ricordi politici e civili" (1530) reveal much of the author's character and beliefs. While mistrusting all patriotism, and regarding the profession of noble motives as a mere cloak for personal ends, he declares that the three things he most longs to see are the establishment of a well-ordered republic in Florence, the liberation of Italy from the barbarians, and the overthrow of the rule of bad ecclesiastics throughout the world. He admits that, had not his own personal interests been bound up with the temporal success of two popes, he would have loved Martin Luther as himself. Much of his political correspondence has been preserved.

CANESTRINI, Opere inedite di Francesco Guicciardini (10 vols., Florence, 1857-1867); VILLARI, Niccolò Machiavelli e i suoi tempi (3 vols., Milan, 1895, 1897); ROSSI, Francesco Guicciardini e il Governo Fiorentino (Bologna, 1896-99); ZANONI, Vita pubblica di Francesco Guicciardini (Bologna, 1896); MORLEY, Miscellanies, Fourth Series (London and New York, 1908). A critical edition of the Storia d'italia by the late ALESSANDRO GHERARDI is now promised; hitherto the most accessible edition has been that of ROSINI (5 vols., Turin, 1874). The best English translation is that of FENTON (1579). An admirable translation of the " Ricordi" has been made by THOMPSON, Counsels and Reflections of Francesco Guicciardini (London, 1890).

EDMUND G. GARDNER.

Guido of Arezzo

(Guido Aretinus).

A monk of the Order of St. Benedict, b. (according to Dom Morin in the "Revue de l'art Chretien", 1888, iii) near Paris c. 995; d. at Avellano, near Arezzo, 1050. He invented the system of staff-notation still in use, and rendered various other services to the progress of musical art and science. He was educated by and became a member of the Benedictine Order in the monastery of St. Maur des Fosses, near Paris. Early in his career Guido observed the confusion which prevailed in the teaching and performance of liturgical melodies generally, and especially in his immediate surroundings. His endeavours to improve these conditions by innovations in the current methods of teaching are fully described in his writings; these made him unpopular with his brethren in the order and led to his removals to the monastery of Pomposa near Ferrara, Italy. Here the same lot seems to have befallen him. Intrigues and calumnies caused him to ask for admission to the monastery of Arezzo. The exact date of his entrance into this community is uncertain, but it occurred during the incumbency of Theudald as Bishop of Arezzo (i.e., between 1033 and 1036), and while Grunwald was abbot of the monastery. It was during this period that Guido perfected the new system of notation which brought such order and clearness into the teaching of music. Guido seems by this time to have overcome all opposition to his new method, and to have removed all doubt as to its value among those who took cognizance of it and saw its application. His fame soon reached the reigning pope, John XIX (1024-1033), who sent three different messengers urging Guido to come to Rome and exhibit his antiphonary containing the liturgical melodies transcribed from the sign-notation heretofore in use into his own staff-notation. Pope John was overjoyed at the ease with which he was enabled to decipher and learn the melodies without the aid of a master, and invited Guido to take up his abode in Rome, to instruct the Roman clergy in the new system, and to introduce it into general practice in the Eternal City. Unfortunately the Roman climate made it impossible for Guido to accept the invitation of the supreme pontiff. He soon fell ill of Roman fever and had to leave the city. He now returned to the monastery of Pomposa. The abbot (also called Guido) and monks, who had caused him so much chagrin by their opposition to his innovations, now received him with open arms, admitted their former mistake, and urged him to become a member of the community. His stay at Pomposa seems to have been only of short duration, for he soon returned to Arezzo. Regarding the remaining days of the reformer, traditional reports vary. M. Faulty (Studi su Guido Monaco, 1882) holds that Guido ended his days at Arezzo, while others are of the opinion, based upon the chronicle and other evidences of a Camaldolese monastery near Avellano, that Guido died there as prior in the year 1050. Guido himself has left to posterity in his "Epistola Michaeli monaco Pomposiano" (reprinted in Gerbert's Scriptures, ii) a naive but lively description of his, for the most part, eventful life, its trials and bitterness, and his final triumph over the opponents of his innovations.

In order to realize the importance of Guido's services to musical progress and development it is necessary to take a glance at the systems of the notation in use before his time. Since in the early Church the liturgical melodies were not very numerous and were in daily use, they were easily perpetuated by oral transmission among the clergy, the chanters, and the people; but, as Christian hymnody developed with the expansion of the liturgy, and as the number of feasts increased the melodies became too numerous to be learned and retained by the memory without the aid of some unchangeable means. The absence of this determining means, the frequent carelessness of copyists, the temperament and even caprice of singers, and the great variety of conditions under which they were propagated and performed caused the melodies to undergo numerous changes. The necessity for a system of notation which would clearly record the various intervals of the melodies became more and more urgent. While in theoretical treatises the practice of the Greeks of employing the first fifteen letters of the alphabet to designate the various intervals was still in use, there was no means at hand by which the intervals and rhythm of a melody;might be graphically displayed, so that anyone might learn it from a manuscript without the aid of a master. The so-called neumatic notation (from meuma, a nod), which probably in the eighth century found its way from the Orient into the Latin Church, where it suffered many modifications, had mainly a rhythmical purpose, and was intended to serve only in a general way a diastematic end, i.e. an indication of the intervals of the melody. An attempt to indicate the intervals with greater precision was made by placing the neumatic signs at a lesser or greater distance from the words comprising the text, and, in order to obtain more exact results from this proceeding, the copyist would draw a line upon which he would place one of the letters of the alphabet and from which he would measure the distance of the melodic steps above or below. It is held that Guido found two such lines in use, namely, a red one upon which F was placed, and a yellow one for C, indicating the place of the tones represented by these letters of the alphabet and employed by theorists of his time. His great improvement consisted in adding two more lines to the existing ones, in utilizing the spaces between the lines themselves and in indicating, by combining the letters of the alphabet with the neumatic signs, not only the various intervals of the melody, but also its rhythm. This system, called staff-notation, has been used ever since. The reason why only four lines were used, instead of the five we employ, is that these four and the five spaces were regarded as sufficient for the ambitus, or range, of the average Gregorian melody. In the course of time as the melodies were transcribed into the new notation, the neumatic signs formerly in use evolved into our present notes, and the letters F and C became the clefs of later times. Guido's influence was so great in his time that many things have been attributed to him which belong to a later period; but which are elaborations and developments of his teachings. The impetus he gave to musical progress lasted throughout the Middle Ages. Especially did incipient polyphony advance by his advocacy of contrary motion of the voices as against the still prevailing parallelism. Of the works attributed to him, the following are undoubtedly authentic: "Micrologus de disciplina artis musicae', which treatise, especially the fifteenth chapter, is invaluable to present-day students endeavoring to ascertain the original rhythmical and melodic form of the Gregorian chant; "Regulae de ignoto cantu", prologue to his antiphonarium in staff-notation; "Epistola Michaeli monaco de ignoto cantu directa:. All these were reproduced in Gerbert's "Scriptores", ii, 2-50.

Falchi, Studi su Guido monaco (1882); Les melodies gregoriennes d'apres la tradition (Tournai, 1880); Ambros, Geschichie der Musik, II (Leipzig, 1880), 144-216; Riemann, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, I (Leipzig, 1905), ii.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Guigues du Chastel

(Guigo de Castro).

Fifth prior of the Grande Chartreuse, legislator of the Carthusian Order and ascetical writer, born at Saint-Romain in Dauphiné in 1083 or 1084; died 27 July, 1137 (1136 and 1138 are also given). He became a monk of the Grande Chartreuse in 1107, and three years later his brethren elected him prior. To Guigues the Carthusian Order in great measure owes its fame, if not its very existence. When he became prior, only two charterhouses existed, the Grande Chartreuse and the Calabrian house where St. Bruno had died; nine more were founded during his twenty-seven years' priorship. These new foundations made it necessary to reduce to writing the traditional customs of the mother-house. Guigues's "Consuetudines" (see CARTHUSIAN ORDER), composed in 1127 or 1128, have always remained the basis of all Carthusian legislation. After the disastrous avalanche of 1132, Guigues rebuilt the Grande Chartreuse on the present site.

A man of considerable learning, endowed with a tenacious memory and the gift of eloquence, Guigues was a great organizer and disciplinarian. He was a close friend of St. Bernard and of Peter the Venerable, both of whom have left accounts of the impression of sanctity which he made upon them. His name is inscribed in certain martyrologies on 27 July, and he is sometimes called "Venerable" or "Blessed", but the Bollandists can find "no trace whatever of any ecclesiastical cultus". Guigues edited the letters of St. Jerome, but his edition is lost. Of his genuine writings there are still in existence, besides the "Consuetudines," a "Life of St. Hugh of Grenoble", whom he had known intimately, written by command of Pope Innocent II after the canonization of the saint in 1134; "Meditations", and six letters (P.L., CLIII). These letters are all that remain of a great number, many of them addressed to the most distinguished men of the day. Guigues's letters to St. Bernard are lost, but some of the saint's replies are extant. Other works which have been attributed to him are: the letter "Ad Fratres de Monte Dei" (P.L., CLXXXIV), which is perhaps genuinely his, but is also attributed to William of Saint-Thierry, and the "Scala Paradisi" (P.L., XL), probably the work of his namesake, the ninth prior.

RAYMUND WEBSTER

André Guijon

Bishop and orator; born in November, 1548, at Autun; died in September, 1631. He was the son of Jean Guijon, a physician and Oriental scholar, who travelled in the East and brought back to France a Greek manuscript copy of the New Testament, dating from the eleventh century. He had three brothers with more than one title to fame: Jacques, Jean, and Hugues, all three lawyers, writers, and savants. Philibert de la Mare, counsellor at the Parliament of Dijon, collected the principal works of the four brothers in one volume, in quarto of 612 pages, under the title "Jacobi, Joannis, Andreæ et Hugonis fratrum Guiionorum opera varia" (1658). This contained both their prose works and Latin poems. André became vicar-general to Cardinal de Joyeuse, and afterwards Bishop of Autun. He went to Rome to be consecrated and came back to France in 1586. His "Remontrance à la cour du Parlement de Normandie sur l'octroy des sentences fulminatoires" is extant. Unfortunately his "Eloge funèbre de Pierre Jeannin" has not been preserved.

J. EDMUND ROY

Guilds

Guilds were voluntary associations for religious, social, and commercial purposes. These associations, which attained their highest development among the Teutonic nations, especially the English, during the Middle Ages, were of four kinds:

1. religious guilds,
2. frith guilds,
3. merchant guilds, and
4. craft guilds.

The word itself, less commonly, but more correctly, written gild, was derived from the Anglo-Saxon gildan meaning "to pay", whence came the noun gegilda, "the subscribing member of a guild". In its origin the word guild is found in the sense of "idol" and also of "sacrifice", which has led some writers to connect the origin of the guilds with the sacrificial assemblies and banquets of the heathen Germanic tribes. Brentano, the first to investigate the question thoroughly, associating these facts with the importance of family relationship among Teutonic nations, considers that the guild in its earliest form was developed from the family, and that the spirit of association, being congenial to Christianity, was so fostered by the Church that the institution and development of the guilds progressed rapidly. This theory finds more favour with recent scholars than the attempts to trace the guilds back to the Roman collegia. The connexion or identity of the guilds with the Carlovingian geldoniœ or confratriœ cannot be ascertained, for lack of definite information about these latter institutions, which were discouraged by the legislation of Charlemagne.

IN ENGLAND

The earliest traces of guilds in England are found in the laws of Ina in the seventh century. These guilds were formed for religious and social purposes and were voluntary in character. Subsequent enactments down to the time of Athelstan (925-940) show that they soon developed into frith guilds or peace guilds, associations with a corporate responsibility for the good conduct of their members and their mutual liability. Very frequently, as in the case of London in early times, the guild law came to be the law of the town. The main objects of these guilds was the preservation of peace, right, and liberty. Religious observances also formed an important part of guild-life, and the members assisted one another both in spiritual and temporal necessities. The oldest extant charter of a guild dates from the reign of Canute, and from this we learn that a certain Orcy presented a guild-hall (gegyld-halle) to the gyldschipe of Abbotsbury in Dorset, and that the members were associated in almsgiving, care of the sick, burial of the dead, and in providing Masses for the souls of deceased members. The social side of the guild is shown in the annual feast for which provision is made. In the "Dooms of London" we find the same religious and social practices described, with the addition of certain advantageous commercial arrangements, such as the establishment of a kind of insurance-fund against losses, and the furnishing of assistance in the capture of thieves. These provisions, however, are characteristic rather of the merchant guilds which grew up during the latter half of the eleventh century.

Merchant Guilds

These differed from their predecessors, the religious or frith guilds, by being established primarily for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining the privilege of carrying on trade. Having secured this privilege the guilds guarded their monopoly jealously. Everywhere the right to buy and sell articles of food seems to have been left free, but every other branch of trade was regulated by the merchant guild or hanse, as it was often called. The first positive mention of a merchant guild, the "enighten on Cantwareberig of ceapmannegilde", occurs during the primacy of St. Anselm (1093-1109). From the time of Henry I the charters of successive sovereigns bear witness to the existence of merchant guilds in the principal towns. These charters, such as those granted to Bristol, Carlisle, Durham, Lincoln, Oxford, Salisbury, and Southampton, were of the utmost importance to the guilds as they secured to them the right and power of enforcing the guild regulations with the sanction of law. For this reason Glanvill, the lawyer, writing in the twelfth century, regards the guild merchant as identical with the commune, that is, the body of citizens with rights of municipal self-government (Ashley, op. cit., inf., 72). From the fact that out of one hundred and sixty towns which were represented in the parliaments of Edward I, ninety-two are certainly known to have possessed a merchant guild, the conclusion is drawn that a guild was to be found in every town of any size, including some that were not much more than villages.

The organization of the merchant guilds is known from the constitutions or guild rolls which have survived. These documents are only four in number, but fortunately refer to towns in four different parts of England. They are the guild statutes of Berwick and of Southampton, and the guild rolls for Leicester and Totnes (Ashley, p. 67). From these we learn that each guild was presided over by one or two aldermen assisted by two or four wardens or échevins. These officials presided over the meetings of the society and administered its funds and estates. They were assisted by a council of twelve or twenty-four members. The guildsmen were originally the actual burgesses, those inhabitants who held land within the town boundaries, whether they were merchants or holders of agricultural land; but in course of time rights of membership passed by inheritance and even by purchase. Thus the eldest sons of guildsmen were admitted free as of right, while the younger sons paid a smaller fee than others. The guildsmen could sell their rights, and heiresses might exercise their membership either in person or through their husbands or sons.

The merchant guilds possessed extensive powers, including the control and monopoly of all the trades in the town, which involved the power of fining all traders who were not members of the guild for illicit trading, and of inflicting punishment for all breaches of honesty or offences against the regulations of the guild. They also had liberty of trading in other towns and of protecting their guildsmen wherever they were trading. They exercised supervision over the quality of goods sold, and prevented strangers from directly or indirectly buying or selling to the injury of the guild. Besides these commercial advantages the guild entered largely into the life of all its members. The guildsmen took their part as a corporate body in all religious celebrations in the town, organized festivities, provided for sick or impoverished brethren, undertook the care of their orphan children, and provided for Masses and dirges for deceased members. As time went on the merchant guilds became more exclusive, and when the rise of manufactures in the twelfth century caused an increase in the number of craftsmen, it was natural that these should organize on their own account and form their own guilds.

Craft Guilds

Seeing that the merchant guilds had become identical with the municipality, the craftsmen, ever increasing in numbers, struggled to break down the trading monopoly of the merchant guilds and to win for themselves the right of supervision over their own body. The weavers and fullers were the first crafts to obtain royal recognition of their guilds, and by 1130 they had guilds established in London, Lincoln, and Oxford. Little by little through the next two centuries they broke down the power of the merchant guilds, which received their death-blow by the statute of Edward III which in 1335 allowed foreign merchants to trade freely in England. In the system of craft guilds the administration lay in the hands of wardens, bailiffs, or masters, while for admission a long apprenticeship was necessary. Like the merchant guilds, the craft guilds cared for the interests both spiritual and temporal of their members, providing old age and sick pensions, pensions for widows, and burial funds. The master craftsman was an independent producer, needing little or no capital, and employing journeymen and apprentices who hoped in time to become master craftsmen themselves. Thus there was no "working class" as such, and no conflict between capital and labour. At the end of the reign of Edward III there were in London forty-eight companies, a number which later on rose to sixty. Besides the merchant and craft guilds, the religious and social guilds continued to exist through the Middle Ages, being largely in the nature of confraternities. At the Reformation these were all suppressed as superstitious foundations. The trade guilds survived as corporations or companies, such as the twelve great companies of London which still maintain a corporate existence for charitable and social purposes, though they have ceased to have close connexions with the crafts, the names of which they bear. The merchant guild of Preston also survives in a similar state, but such bodies have no real significance. The Reformation shook their constitution, while the altered industrial and social conditions finally deprived them of the power and influence they had possessed in the Middle Ages.

IN FLANDERS AND FRANCE

The word gilde, or ghilde, is but one of many terms used formerly in France and in the Low Countries to denote what the more modern word corporation stands for, viz., an association among men of the same community or profession. Gilde, métier, métier juré, confrérie, nation, maîtrises et jurandes, and other like appellations, all essentially express this idea of association, at the same time laying stress on some particular feature of it. The word gilde, however, is the first to appear and we meet it very early in the history of western continental Europe. A capitulary of 779 says: "Let no one dare to take the oath by which people are wont to form guilds. Whatever may be the conditions which have been agreed upon, let no one bind himself by oaths concerning the payment of contributions in case of fire or shipwreck." This prohibition appears several times in the laws enacted under the Carlovingian emperors; nevertheless the guilds continued to exist, at least in the northern part of the empire. The records of the provincial councils held in those districts also show that the guilds were a matter of no small concern for the ecclesiastical authorities; for a long time the Church was bent on extirpating from their organization a number of objectionable features which made them a menace to morals.

In France and the Low Countries a guild was originally a sort of fraternity for common support, protection, and amusement. The members paid each a certain contribution to the common fund; they pledged their word to give one another assistance; they took care of the children of the deceased members and had Masses offered up for the repose of their souls; they celebrated the patron saint's day with great festivities in which the poor had their share. These and other features of the guilds did not, of course, appear all at the same time. Like most human institutions they had a modest beginning, and they developed according to circumstances. Again, it should be noted that they do not everywhere present one and the same type. Some are mainly social, others emphasize the religious side of the organization, while, later on, in the merchant and craft guilds, it is the economic aspect which becomes predominant. Before speaking of the latter a word should be said of the origin of the guilds in the two countries with which we are concerned here. This has been a much debated question. Some scholars consider the guilds as the product in Christian soil, of the German instinct of association, and they would assign for their remotest origin the banquets (convivia) so common among the Teutons and Scandinavians. Others claim that they were nothing else than the Roman corporations (collegia) established in Western Europe under Roman sway and reconstructed on Christian principles after the great invasions. That the Roman colleges of artisans flourished in southern and central Gaul has been established beyond doubt by the discovery of numerous inscriptions at Nice, Nîmes, Narbonne, Lyons, and other cities. It is not likely that the Barbarian invasion broke entirely the Roman traditions in countries where the influence of Rome had been felt so deeply, and one is warranted in saying that in southern and central France the origin of the guilds was to a certain extent Roman. Such an assertion, however, could hardly be made for northern France and still less for the Low Countries. There is no evidence to show that the Roman collegia ever attained great importance in these regions. At any rate, the dominion of Rome was established there much later than in the South and was never so deep-rooted. Roman institutions and customs had scarcely had time to take root before the German invasion, and they must have given way very easily under the pressure of the conquerors, whose numbers, rapidly increasing, soon insured to them a preponderating influence.

But whether a legacy of Roman civilization or a native institution of the young Teutonic race, the guild would never have attained its wonderful development had not the Church taken it under its tutelage and infused into it the vivifying spirit of Christian charity. Furthermore, it is certain that a large number of guilds owed their existence solely to the aspirations which gave rise to chivalry and induced thousands of men to join the monastic communities. Towards the end of the tenth century, with the greater security following the Norman invasions, there was an increase of trade on the Continent. In each of the large towns, such as Rouen, Paris, Bruges, Arras, Saint-Omer, there soon arose a corporation which was known as the Merchant Guild and which was, in some instances at least, a development of an older association. None but the brethren of the corporation were allowed to trade in any article except food. Whether the communes (chartered towns) of France and the Low Countries had their origin in the Merchant Guild is a moot question, although it seems certain that the merchants were at least instrumental in the granting of charters by princes, for the right of managing its own affairs, conferred on the town, practically meant that its government fell into the hands of the trading class. At the origin of the Merchant Guild, any townsman might become a member of the corporation on payment of a stated fee, but with the increase of their wealth, the traders showed more and more a tendency to shut out the poorer classes from their association. The latter classes, however, were not without organization; they had their own corporations (the craft guilds), most of which seem to have been constituted in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Each one of these craft guilds, like the merchant guilds, had its charter and statutes, its patron saint, its banner and altar, its hall, its feast day, and its place in the religious processions and public festivities. There were in the craft guilds three classes of persons: the apprentices, or learners (apprendre, "to learn"), the journeymen (journée, "day"), or men hired to work by the day, and the masters or employers.

The apprentice had to remain from three to ten years in a condition of entire dependence under a master, in order to be qualified to exercise his trade as a journeyman. Before a master could engage an apprentice, he had to satisfy the officers of the guild of the soundness of his moral character. He was to treat the boy as he would his own child, and was held responsible not only for his professional, but also for his moral, education. On completing his apprenticeship, the young artisan became a journeyman (compagnon); at least, such was the rule from the fourteenth century onward. To become a master, he must have some means and pass an examination before the elders. At the head of the corporation was a board of trustees composed of two or more deans (doyens, syndics) assisted by a secretary, a treasurer, and six or more jurymen (jurés, assesseurs, trouveurs, prud'hommes). These officers were elected from among the masters and entrusted with the management of the guild's interests, the care of its orphans, the defence of its privileges, and the protection of its members. It was more especially the duty of the jurymen to enforce the statutes of the guild bearing on the relations between employer and employee, engagement of apprentices and journeymen, salaries, hours of work, holidays, etc. They could punish or even expel from the corporation any member whose conduct incurred their disapprobation.

From this strong organization, all pervaded with the spirit of Christianity, there resulted great benefits for the artisan. His work, which was well regulated and broken by many holidays, did not tax his strength too severely; the good life he was induced to live saved him from need, while his rights and interests were protected against the vexations of the local or central government. Still more noteworthy was the brotherly character of the relations between employee and employer, to which the great cities of the Middle Ages were indebted for the social peace which they enjoyed for many centuries. This alone would outweigh what disadvantages may have been attached to this organization of labour. The guilds of the Low Countries, otherwise similar to the French guilds, differed from them in one respect: political importance. The latter never gained enough influence to free themselves from the condition of utter dependence in which they had been placed by the kings, but in the Low Countries several circumstances combined which gave the labouring classes a power they could not have in France. Of these circumstances, the most important were the wealth of the cities, the large number of artisans, and their organization into military brotherhoods (confréries militaires) which formed a regular militia, capable of holding its own against the feudal armies, as was illustrated many times in the history of Flanders and Liège.

As this article has to deal mainly with the guilds in the Middle Ages, but little can be said of the corporations of artists, which, in France and the Low Countries, were few and had not much importance before the sixteenth century. The explanation of this tardy growth is found, at least partly, in the fact that, during the greater part of the Middle Ages, the fine arts remained within the Church or under its supervision; even in the thirteenth century the number of laymen engaged in these professions was still very small, as is shown in "Le Livre des métiers de Paris", or book of the statutes of the Paris craft guilds, drawn up by Etienne Boileau under the direction of St. Louis. Two other classes of guilds which deserve a special mention are the basoches (see Vol. VI, p. 193) and the temporary or permanent corporations for the exhibition of religious and other plays. The best known of the latter class of guilds is "La Confrérie de la Passion", established in 1402. Its Mystères form the link which unites the French tragedy of the seventeenth century with the dramatic literature of the Middle Ages.

After the end of the fifteenth century, under the despotic rule of the French kings, the guilds ceased to be a means of protection for a majority of their members — the journeymen — who formed associations of their own, regardless of all professional and even religious distinctions. Their privileges became a means of filling the royal coffers at the expense of the employers; the latter retaliated on the public, all the more readily that they had no competition to fear. By the middle of the eighteenth century the outcry against the guilds was general in France. In 1776 Turgot, then prime minister, planned their suppression, but his fall gave them some respite. In 1791 they were abolished by the Constituent Assembly. But remnants of these corporations are still found in many French and Belgian customs, as, for instance, the fees to be paid by notaries, solicitors, sheriff's officers, when they enter office. In the first half of the nineteenth century, several attempts were made in France to partially restore the craft guilds, but without success. During the last thirty years, however, there has been a Catholic movement in France and Belgium to counteract the evil effects of socialism by forming associations of employers and employed.

IN GERMANY

The first well-known German guild is that of the watermen of Worms, its charter (Zunftbrief) dating from 1106; the shoemakers of Würzburg received theirs in 1112; the weavers of Cologne, in 1149, the shoemakers of Magdeburg, in 1158. But it was not until the thirteenth century that the German guilds became numerous and important. Zunft, Innung, Genossenschaft, Brüderschaft, Gesellschaft, are the terms used in Germany to designate these associations. Here, as in Italy and the Low Countries, the most conspicuous guilds were those connected with the manufacture of linen and wool. In Ulm, for instance, towards the end of the fifteenth century, there were so many linen-weavers that the number of pieces of linen prepared in one year amounted at one time to 200,000. In the year 1466 there were 743 master weavers in Augsburg (Herberger, "Augsburg, und seine frühere Industrie", p. 46). In the large cities, the linen- and the wool-weavers formed two distinct corporations, and the wool-weavers again were divided into two classes: the makers of fine Flemish or Italian goods, and the makers of the coarser homespun materials.

Other important guilds were those of the tanners and the furriers; the latter included the shoemakers, the tailors, the glove-makers, and the stocking-knitters. In the shoemaker's trade there was a sharp distinction between the Neumeister, who made new shoes, the cobbler, and the slipper maker. The most striking example of an elaborate classification according to craft is found in the metal-workers: the farriers, knife-makers, locksmiths, chain-forgers, nail-makers, often formed separate and distinct corporations; the armourers were divided into helmet-makers, escutcheon-makers, harness-makers, harness-polishers, etc. Sometimes they went so far as to have special guilds for each separate article of a suit of armour. This accounts for the remarkable skill and finish seen in the simplest details.

A class of brotherhoods which deserves special mention is that of the guilds of the mining trades, which from an early date were very important in Saxony and Bohemia. "No politician or socialist of modern times", says H. Achenbach (Gemeines Deutsches Bergrecht, I, 69, 109), "can suggest a labour organization which will better accomplish the object of helping the labourer, elevating his position, and maintaining fair relations between the employer and the employed than that of the mining works centuries ago." The statutes of these mining guilds show, indeed, a remarkable care for the well-being of the labourer and the protection of his interests. Hygienic conditions in the mines, ventilation of the pits, precautions against accident, bathing houses, time of labour (eight hours daily — sometimes less), supply of the necessaries of life at fair prices, scale of wages, care of the sick and disabled, etc. — no detail seems to have been lost sight of.

As to their organization, government, and relations with the public or the civil authorities, the German guilds did not substantially differ from those in other European countries. The members were divided into apprentices, journeymen, and masters. At the head of the corporation was a director assisted by several officers. He was the sworn and responsible power of the guild, called the meetings, presided at them, had the right of final decision, managed the property of the guild, led it in case of war. Each guild had its fully equipped court of justice and enjoyed complete independence in all private concerns, but all the guilds were subject to the town council and town authorities, and were obliged to submit their statutes and ordinances to them. In the event of quarrels, either within or between the guilds, the civil authorities exercised the rights of a commercial judge; in conjunction with the guild, they also made regulations for the markets and police arrangements, fixed the prices of wares, organized the supervision of traffic and the protection from fraud or dishonest dealing.

The purchase of raw material was managed by the guild as a body so as to prevent monopoly. Strict regulations protected the rights of every one. There was equality between all the members with regard to the sale of their productions. The protection of purchasers and customers was assured by the city authorities; the guild was held responsible for the quality and quantity of the goods which it brought for sale to the market. In Germany, as elsewhere, however, the most striking feature of the guilds was the close connexion they established between religion and daily life. Labour was conceived by them as the complement of prayer, as the foundation of a well-regulated life. We read in the book "A Christian Admonition": "Let the societies and brotherhoods so regulate their lives according to Christian love in all things that their work may be blessed. Let us work according to God's law, and not for reward, else shall our labour be without blessing and bring evil on our souls." Each guild had its patron saint, who, according to tradition, had practised its particular branch of industry, and whose feast day was celebrated by attending church and by processions; each had its banner, its altar, or chapel in the church, and had Masses offered up for the living and the dead members. The religious observance of Sunday and holy days was commanded by most of the guilds. Whoever worked or made others work on those days, or on Saturday after the vesper bell, or neglected to fast on the days appointed by the Church, incurred a penalty. This union of religion and labour was a strong tie between the members of the guilds, and it was of great assistance in settling peacefully the differences arising between masters and companions.

The guilds were also mutual and benevolent societies; they helped the impoverished and sick members; they took care of the widows and orphans; they remembered the poor outside the society. Many benevolent institutions owed their foundation to some guild, as, for instance, St. Job's Hospital for smallpox patients at Hamburg, which was founded in 1505 by a guild of fishmongers, shopkeepers, and hucksters. There were a large number of these benevolent associations of tradesmen in the Middle Ages; at the close of the fifteenth century there were seventy at Lubeck, eighty at Cologne, and over one hundred at Hamburg.

In connexion with the guilds should be mentioned the workmen's clubs, which were very common at the end of the fifteenth century. So long as the German journeyman remained at work in a city, he belonged to one of these clubs, which supplied for him the place of his family and country. If he fell sick he was not left to public charity, but taken into the family of some master or cared for by his brother members wherever he went he could make himself known by the society's badge or password, and receive help and protection from the local branch of the association to which he belonged. Thus the journeyman was, in the first place, associated with the family of his employer, in whose house he generally lodged and boarded; in the second place, he stood in close relation with his associates of the same age and trade, co-members with him of the society which protected and helped him; finally, he enjoyed special connexion with the Church, because he generally belonged to one of the sodalities which were ordinarily, but not necessarily, a part of the society's organization.

Side by side with the artisans' guilds, there were also merchants' guilds, organized on the same plan as the former, and having similar objects in view with respect to the communal life of their members and their moral and religious well-being. But they differed in their attitude towards trade; for, while the chief object of the artisans' guilds was the protection and improvement of the different trades, the merchants' guilds aimed at securing commercial advantages for their members and obtaining the monopoly of the trade of some country or some particular class of goods. Not alone in the German cities, but also in all foreign countries where German commerce prevailed, corporations of this sort, guilds, or Hansa (the word Hansa has the same signification as guild), had existed from an early date and had obtained recognition, privileges, and rights from the foreign rulers and communities. By degrees these Hansa in foreign countries became banded together in one large association forming an important and rival commercial body in the midst of the native merchants and traders. Such was the case in London, where the merchants who had come from Cologne, Lübeck, Hamburg, and other cities formed an association of German merchants.

To further strengthen their position, the guilds belonging to different foreign cities decided to join in one common association. In England, those of Bristol, York, Ipswich, Norwich, Hull, and other cities were affiliated with the London Hansa, and were each represented there. On the same plan were organized the associations of Novgorod in Russia, of Wisby in the island of Gothland, and the so-called Komtoor of Bruges. The last-named was divided into three branches: one comprising with Lübeck the cities of the Slavonic country and of Saxony; the second, those of Prussia and Westphalia; and the third, those of Gothland, Livonia, and Sweden. This vast corporation, calling itself the Society of German Merchants of the Holy Roman Empire, was the foundation of the general German Hansa, or Hanseatic League, which by degrees embraced all the cities (at one time more than ninety) of Lower Germany, from Riga to the Flemish boundaries, and those in the South as far as the Thuringian forests. This league attained the summit of its power in the fifteenth century, and Dantzic was then universally acknowledged as its most important city; in the year 1481, more than 1100 ships had gone from its harbour to Holland. The ships were divided into flotillas of from thirty to forty craft, each flotilla having armed ships, called Orlogschiffe or Friedenskoggen, attached to it for its protection.

After a time, the Hanseatic League was broken up into separate sections whose centres were Lübeck for the Slavonic country, Cologne for the Rhenish, Brunswick for Saxony, and Dantzic for Prussia and Livonia. The Hansa lasted from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century; its last meeting took place in 1669, and the cities of Lübeck, Bremen, Brunswick, Cologne, Hamburg, and Dantzic were the only ones that had sent representatives. The causes of the ruin of this once so powerful association were the growth of the commerce of Holland and England, the Wars of the League, against Denmark and Sweden in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and the Thirty Years' War, which was so detrimental to German commerce and manufactures. Lübeck, Bremen, and Hamburg are still called the Hanseatic cities.

The history of the German guilds of artists is closely connected with that of the guilds of artisans. For a long time the artists were incorporated in the trade associations, and their organization into independent corporations took place only at the close of the Middle Ages. The architects were probably the first to have their own organization.

In Germany, as in the other countries of Europe, the guilds were compulsory bodies, having the right to regulate trade, under the supervision of the civil authorities; but the system was not injurious in the Middle Ages. It was so only at the close of the sixteenth century, when the guilds became narrowly exclusive with regard to the admission of new members, and were nothing but a mere benefit society for a small number of masters and their associates. The abuses of the German corporations were brought to the attention of the Imperial Government in the diets of 1548, 1577, and 1654, but it was only in the course of the nineteenth century that the guilds were successively abolished in the different States of Germany. In the last twenty-five years, there were enacted in that country a number of laws whose aim was not the re-establishment of the old corporations, which had each its special domain and privileges, but the protection of the labourers, who had been left without organization and defence by the abolition of the guilds.

IN ITALY

"Of all the establishments of Numa", says Plutarch, "no one is more highly prized than his distribution of the people into colleges according to trade and craft. "From these words we should infer that the first well-known Italian corporations date from the seventh century b.c., but some authors, whose contention is founded on a text of Florus, have claimed that Servius Tullius, and not Numa, was the founder of the Roman colleges of artisans (e. g., Heineccius, "De collegiis et corporibus opificum", 138). Whatever may be the truth on this point, it is certain that the collegia opificum existed in the sixth century b.c., because they were incorporated in the constitution of Servius Tullius which remained in force until 241 b.c. There were but few of these corporations in the Republic, but their numbers increased under the emperors; in Rome alone there were in the third century more than thirty colleges, private and public (Theodosian Code, XIII and XIV). The latter were four in number: the navicularii, who supplied Rome with provisions, the bakers, the pork butchers, and the calcis coctores et vectores, who supplied Rome with lime for building. The members of these corporations received a fixed salary from the State.

Among the private colleges were numbered the argentarii, or bankers, the negotiatores vini, or wine merchants, the medici, or physicians, and the professores, or teachers. On the whole it might be said that the collegia were prosperous until the end of the third century b.c., but in the course of the next century they began to show signs of decline. The few privileges they enjoyed had ceased to be a compensation for their responsibilities to the State, and it was only by the most drastic measures that the last emperors succeeded in keeping the artisans in their collegia.

And now arise the questions: What remained of these corporations after the invasions? Is there any connexion between them and the Italian guilds of the thirteenth century? We can only answer this query by conjecture. The period extending from the fifth to the eleventh century is extremely poor in documents; the few annalists of those days have limited their work to a bare enumeration of events and a dry list of dates. Mention is made here and there of the existence of a guild, but we are not told whether these guilds are new associations or the development of an older organization. Since we know, however, that the Roman law was to a large extent incorporated in the codes of the Goths and Lombards, we have good ground to believe that many of the municipal institutions survived the fall of Rome. In support of this view, we have the well-known fact that the Barbarians usually dwelt in the country and left the government of the cities in the hands of the clergy, most of whom, being Italians, were naturally inclined to retain the Roman institutions, all the more readily as a better education enabled them to appreciate their value. All this leads to the conclusion that, in most cities, enough of the old Roman corporation must have been preserved to form the nucleus of a new organization which slowly but steadily developed into the guild of the Middle Ages.

The mercanzia, the earliest well-known type of these guilds, existed in Venice, Genoa, Milan, Verona, Pisa, and elsewhere in the tenth century; it somewhat resembled the merchant guild of Northern Europe, being an association of all the mercantile interests of the community without any professional distinction, but, as the increase of trade which followed the First Crusade brought about an increase of industrial activity, the arts found it more convenient to have an association of their own, and the mercanzia was split into craft guilds. As an example of this evolution, we may take the Roman mercanzia. Although it had been in existence at least since the beginning of the eleventh century, it received its final constitution only in 1285. At that time it was composed of thirteen arts, all united into one common association, but in the course of the following century we see these arts withdrawing successively from the mother guild and forming independent corporations until finally the mercanzia was merely a merchant guild.

The Italian arts were not all placed on the same footing. Some, being more important, had a right of precedence over the others and a larger share of the political rights. This hierarchy varied, of course, from one city to another; in Rome the farmers and drapers came first; in Venice and Genoa, the merchants. In Florence we find the most striking illustration of this type of organization. The arts were divided into major and minor. The former were, in the order of importance, the judges and notaries, the drapers, the bankers, the wool-manufacturers, the physicians and apothecaries, the silk-manufacturers, and the skin-dressers. They formed the popolo grosso, or burgesses, and governed the city with the old feudal families; but in 1282 the latter were deprived of their political rights, and the burgesses were compelled to share the government of Florence with the popolo minuto, or minor arts — the blacksmiths, the bakers, the shoemakers, the carpenters, and the retailers of wine.

In its main lines, the organization of the Italian guilds resembled that of the French guilds. Their members were divided into apprentices, journeymen, and employers. Their life was regulated by an elaborate system of statutes bearing on the professional and religious duties of the brethren, the relations of the corporations as a body with the local government, competition, monopoly, care of the sick, of the orphans, etc. The officers were all elected usually for a term not exceeding six months. At first they were few, but their number increased rapidly with the importance of the guild. One of the most remarkable illustrations of guild government is given us by the Roman corporations. At the head of each one was a cardinal protector, but the real managers were the consuls (sometimes called priori, capitudini). Until the beginning of the fifteenth century they were invested with great judicial power, but after the return of the popes to Rome their functions became merely administrative and their authority was limited by a number of other officers-assessors, procurators, delegates, defensors, secretaries, archivists. The second great officer of the corporation was the camerlingo, or treasurer; at one time his office was even more important than that of the consul, but little by little a large part of his powers went to computors, exactors, taxators, depositors. The proveditor had the custody of the guild's furniture and was to preserve good order in the assemblies; the syndics examined the administration of the officers at the end of their term; the physician and nurses attended the sick members free of charge, and the visitor had to call on those who were in prison. Besides, there were many officers attached to the chapel: vestrymen, churchwardens, chaplains.

Guilds of artists appeared very early in Italy. Sienna, Pisa, Venice seem to have been in the lead. The first of these cities had a corporation of architects and sculptors in 1212; the statutes of the sculptors and stone-cutters of Venice date from 1307; those of the carpenters and cabinet-makers in the same city from 1385. In Rome the guilds of artists were formed relatively late; the sculptors in 1406, the painters in 1478, the goldsmiths in 1509, the masons in 1527. On the whole it is seen that the arts connected with construction were the first to have their own association, then came the goldsmiths, and finally the painters. It often happened that artists were incorporated into trade guilds, as, for instance, the painters of Florence, who still belonged to the grocers' guild in the sixteenth century. The famous "Accademia del Desegno" of that city, one of the first academies of fine arts in Europe, grew out of the "Compagnia di San Luca", a semi-religious, semi-artistic guild. The decline of the Italian guilds began in the sixteenth century and was brought about by the decay of the commerce of the country. They were abolished in Rome by Pius VII in 1807, and by the end of the first half of the nineteenth century they had become a thing of the past in all Italian cities.

IN SPAIN

What has been said of the origin of the guilds in Italy applies to Spain. In no other province (except, perhaps, Southern Gaul) had the inhabitants been influenced more deeply by Roman civilization, and the Visigoths, who settled there in the fifth century, were, of all the Barbarians, those who showed the strongest tendency to retain Roman institutions and customs. Unfortunately, the growth of this neo-Roman civilization was stopped by the Arabian invasion in the eighth century, and in the following 700 years the Christians of Spain, who were bent on the task of wresting their country from the infidels, turned their energies to warfare. Domestic trade fell into the hands of the Jews, foreign trade into those of the Italians, and manufactures existed mostly in cities under Moorish dominion. Religious and military associations were many and powerful, but merchant and craft guilds could not grow on this battlefield.

ENGLAND: TOULMIN SMITH, English Gilds; ordinances of over 100 English Gilds, with the usages of Winchester, Worcester, Bristol etc. Introduction on the history of guilds by BRENTANO. Early English Text Society, Vol. XL (London, 1870); GROSS, Gilda mercatoria (Göttingen, 1883); BLANC, Bibliographie des corporations ouvrières avant 1789 (Paris, 1885); SELIGMAN, Mediœval Gilds of England in Publications of American Economic Association, II, No. 5 (New York, 1887); ASHLEY, Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I (London, 1888); LAMBERT, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life, containing bibliography by PAGE (Hull, 1891); MILNES, From Gild to Factory (London, 1904); GASQUET, Eve of the Reformation (London, 1900).

FLANDERS AND FRANCE: SAINT-LÉON, Histoire des corporations de métiers depuis leurs origines jusqu'à leur suppression en 1791 (Paris, 1887); VALLEROUX, Les corporations d'arts et métiers et les syndicats professionnels en France et à l'étranger (Paris, 1885); LEVASSEUR, Histoire des classes ouvrières en France depuis la conquête de Jules César jusqu'à la Révolulion (Paris, 1859); PYCKE, Mémoire sur les corporations connues sous le nom de métiers (Bruxelles, 1827); BROUWER ANCHER, De Gilden (The Hague, 1895); DEPPING, Introduction aux réglements sur les arts et métiers de Paris, rédigés au XII ^ème siècle et connus sous le nom de Livre des métiers d'Etienne Boileau (Paris, 1837); GUIBERT, Les anciennes corporations de métiers en Limousin (Limoges, 1883); CHAUVIGNÉ, Histoire des corporations d'arts et métiers de Touraine (Tours, 1885); DU BOURG, Les corporations ouvrières de la ville de Toulouse du XIII ^ème au XV ^ème siècle (Toulouse, 1884); LACROIX, Histoire des anciennes corporations d'arts et métiers et des confréries religieuses de la capitale de la Normandie (Rouen, 1850); DE MAROLLES, Considérations historiques sur les bienfaits du régime corporatif in Annales internationales d'histoire (Paris, 1902); BLANC, Bibliographie des corporations ouvrières avant 1789 (Paris, 1885); CHÉRUEL, Dictionnaire historique des institutions, mœurs et coutumes de la France (Paris, 1884); Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires (Paris, 1850); THIERRY, Recueil de monuments inédits de l'histoire du Tiers-Etat (Paris, 1850-70); VANDERKINDERE, Liberté et propriété en Flandre du IX ^ème au XII ^ème siècle in Bulletin de l'Académie royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1906); DE LETTENHOVE, Histoire de Flandre (Brussels, 1847-50); GUIZOT, Histoire de la civilisation en Europe depuis la chute de l'empire romain jusqu'à la Revolution française (Paris, 1873).

GERMANY: For the establishment of the guilds in Germany, STIEDA in HILDEBRAND, Jahrbuch für Nationalökonomie, II (Jena, 1876), pp. 1-133; EBERSTADT, Der Ursprung des Zunftwesens (Leipzig, 1900). The following will also give valuable information: JANSSEN, History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages (tr., London, 1896); WILDA, Das Gildwesen im Mittel Alter (Halle, 1831); NITZSCH, Ueber die Niederdeutschen Genossenschaften des XII und XIII Jahrhunderts in Monatsberichte der Akad. der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1879); HEGEL, Städte und Gilden der germanischen Völker (Leipzig, 1891); LAPPENBERG, Urkundliche Geschichte des Ursprungs der deutschen Hansa (Leipzig, 1854); HÖFPEBAUM, Hansisches Urkundenbuch (Halle, 1876-84); Hansische Geschichtsblätter (Leipzig, 1871-82).

SPAIN: WALFORD, Guilds, their Origin, etc. (London, 1880); GROSS, The Guild Merchant (Oxford, 1890); OLIVIERI, Le forme medievali d'associazione (Ancona, 1890); RYLLO, L'associazione nella storia (Catanzaro, 1892); Florentine Wool Trade in Transac. Royal Hist. Soc., XII; PERRENS, Histoire de Florence (Paris, 1877-83); RODOCANACHI, Corporations ouvrières de Rome au moyen-âge (Paris, 1894); CANTÚ, Storia d'Italia (French tr., Paris, 1859-62); LABARTE, Histoire des arts industriels au moyen-âge (Paris, 1864-66); GIBBINS, History of Commerce in Europe (London, 1892); SETON, Commerce of Italy in the Middle Ages in Catholic World, XIII (1876), 79; LAFUENTE Y ZANALLOU, Historia general de España (Madrid, 1850-69).

EDWIN BURTON P.J. MARIQUE

Patrick Robert Guiney

Second and eldest surviving son of James Roger Guiney and Judith Macrae; born at Parkstown, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, on 15 Jan., 1835; died at Boston, 21 March, 1877. From his father's people he inherited Jacobite blood, gentle and adventurous, with one French cross in it. James Guiney, impoverished and dispirited after an ill-assorted runaway marriage, brought with him on his second voyage to New Brunswick his favourite child, then not six years old. After some years, Mrs. Guiney rejoined her husband, lately crippled by a fall from his horse; a settlement followed in Portland, Maine, where the boy attended the public schools. Clever, studious, and a capital athlete, he matriculated at Holy Cross College, Worcester, but left before graduating, actuated by a scruple of honour entirely characteristic. His book-loving, sympathetic father having meanwhile died, he went to study for the Bar under Judge Walton, and was admitted in Lewiston, Maine, in 1856, evincing from the first a genius for criminal law. In politics he was a Republican. He won its first suit for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1859 he married in the old cathedral, Boston, Miss Janet Margaret Doyle, related to the distinguished "J. K. L.", the Rt. Rev. James Warren Doyle, Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. They had one son, who died in infancy, and one daughter. Home life in Roxbury and professional success were cut short by the outbreak of the Civil War. Familiar with the manual of arms, Guiney enlisted for example's sake as a private, refusing a commission from Governor Andrew until he had worked hard to help recruit the Ninth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers. Within two years (July, 1862), the first colonel having died from a wound received in action, Lieutenant-Colonel Guiney succeeded young to the command. He fought in over thirty engagements, and won high official praise, notably for courage and presence of mind at the Battle of the Chickahominy, or Gaines's Mill, Virginia. Here, after three successive colour-bearers had been shot down, the colonel himself seized the flag, threw aside coat and sword-belt, rose white-shirted and conspicuous in the stirrups, inspired a final rally, and turned the fortune of the day. After many escapes, he was struck in the face by a sharpshooter at the Wilderness (5 May, 1864); the Minié ball destroyed the left eye, and inflicted, as was believed, a fatal wound. During an interval of consciousness, however, Guiney insisted on an operation which saved his life. Honourably discharged just before the mustering out of his old regiment, he did not receive his commission as brigadier-general by brevet until 13 March, 1865, although throughout 1864 he had been frequently in command of his brigade, the Second, First Division, Fifth Corps, A. P. Brevet was then bestowed "for gallant and meritorious services during the War". Kept alive for years by nursing and by force of will, he ran unsuccessfully for Congress on a sort of "Christian Socialist" platform, was elected assistant district attorney (1866-70), and acted as consulting lawyer (not being longer able to plead) on many locally celebrated cases. His last exertions were devoted to the defeat of the corruption and misuse of the Probate Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, of which he had become registrar (1869-77). He died suddenly and was found kneeling against an elm in the little park near his home, having answered his summons in this soldierly and deeply religious fashion, as he had always meant to do. General Guiney was Commandant of the Loyal Legion, Major-General Commandant of the Veteran Military League, member of the Irish Charitable Society, and one of the founders and first members of the Catholic Union of Boston. He was notable throughout a brief, thwarted career for the charm of his manner and his chivalrous ideals in public life. A good literary critic, he printed a few graphic prose sketches and some graceful verse.

Adjutant General's Reports; Newspapers, passim; Family in formation.

LOUISE IMOGEN GUINEY.

Robert Guiscard

Duke of Apulia and Calabria, founder of the Norman state of the Two Sicilies; born about 1016; died 17 July, 1085. He was the eldest son of the second marriage of Tancred, seigneur of Haute-ville-la-Guichard near Coutances, Normandy, a fief of ten chevaliers. Already three of his brothers, William Bras-de-Fer and Drogo, about 1034, and Humphrey, about 1045, had entered the pay of the Lombard princes of Southern Italy who were in revolt against the Byzantine Empire. In turn Robert left Normandy accompanied by five horsemen and thirty foot-soldiers, and set out to rejoin his brothers in 1046. Of gigantic stature, broad-shouldered, with blond hair, ruddy complexion, and deep voice, he owed to his crafty shrewdness the soubriquet of "Guiscard" (Wiseacre). He encountered difficulties on his first entrance into Italy. His brother Drogo, who had been elected Count of the Normans, repulsed him. Having wandered about for a time he returned to enter the service of Drogo and assisted him to conquer Calabria. He established himself at the head of a small troop on the heights of San Marco, which dominated the valley of the Crati, whence he practised actual brigandage, surprising the Byzantine posts, pillaging monasteries, and robbing travellers. But subsequent to his marriage with Aubrée, a kinswoman of a Norman chief of the territory of Benevento, he renounced this manner of life and had two hundred horsemen under his command. Drogo having been assassinated in 1051, his brother Humphrey succeeded to his possessions and the title of Count of the Normans, and Guiscard remained in his service. In 1053, he took part in the battle of Civitella, in which Pope Leo IX was vanquished and taken prisoner by the Normans. In 1055, he took possession of Otranto. On the death of Humphrey in 1057, Robert Guiscard caused himself to be elected leader of the Normans to the detriment of the two sons of his brother, whose inheritance he appropriated. At this juncture the Normans aimed openly at taking possession of southern Italy. Richard of Aversa, who had just taken Capua, was after Guiscard the most powerful leader. Through energy of character and skilful policy, Robert Guiscard succeeded in inducing the Norman chiefs to submit to his authority and in accomplishing with them the conquest of Italy. He established his young brother Roger in Calabria in 1058. In 1059, Hildebrand, the chief councillor of Pope Nicholas II, desiring to shield the papacy from the attacks of the adversaries of ecclesiastical reform, entered into an alliance with the Normans. At the Council of Melfi (August, 1059), Guiscard declared himself the vassal of the Holy See, pledged himself to bring about the observance of the decrees of the Council of Lateran with regard to the election of popes, and received in exchange the title of Duke with the investiture of his conquests in Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. He at once began to make war on the remaining Byzantine possessions, took possession of Reggio (1060), despatched his brother Roger to begin the conquest of Sicily, took Brindisi (1002), and finally, in 1068, laid siege to Bari, the capital of Byzantine Italy, which he entered after a siege of three years on 16 April, 1071. In the following year, the capture of Palermo, besieged at once by Robert and Roger, left the Normans masters of all Sicily. Roger retained the greater part of the country, but remained his brother's vassal.

These conquests would have been but of ephemeral duration had Guiscard not devoted all his energy to consolidating them. The Norman chiefs who had become his vassals were not too readily disposed to submit to his authority, and revolted while he was in Sicily. In 1073 Guiscard besieged and reduced to submission all the rebels in succession. The great commercial republic of Amalfi yielded voluntarily to him. At this juncture, however, Gregory VII, alarmed by Guiscard's aggressions on the papal territories excommunicated him. At the same time, Guiscard having wished on the occasion of his daughter's marriage to raise the usual feudal aid, his vassals once more revolted (1078). Having put down this revolt, Guiscard was once again all-powerful, and Gregory VII, threatened by the intrigues of Emperor Henry IV, became reconciled to him (1080). In the interval Salerno had fallen under his sway, and, save for the Norman principality of Capua, which remained independent, and the city of Naples, all southern Italy obeyed him.

Having now reached the height of his power, Guiscard conceived the ambition, at the age of sixty-four, to undertake the conquest of the Byzantine empire, whose civilization exercised over him a powerful attraction. As the master of Byzantine Italy, he considered himself the heir of the emperors, caused himself to be depicted on his seal in their costume, and thus inaugurated a tradition which nearly all sovereigns of the Two Sicilies down to Charles of Anjou sought to follow. In May, 1081, Robert and his son Bohemond set out for Otranto, captured the island of Corfu, and disembarked before Durazzo, the possession of which would assure them access to the Via Egnatia, which led through Macedonia to Constantinople. But the emperor Alexius Comnenus had formed an alliance with Venice, whose fleet won a great victory over that of the Normans (July). Alexius came himself to the assistance of Durazzo, but Guiscard, who had burnt his ships in order to inspire courage in his troops, put the imperial army to flight (18 October). Despite this victory, the Normans, being still incapable of laying siege in the regular manner, could not have entered into the place, if Guiscard had not contrived that it should be delivered to him by treason (21 February, 1082). Guiscard was now master of the route to Constantinople, and had advanced as far as Castoria when he received a letter from Gregory VII recalling him to Italy. Henry IV, with whom Alexius Comnenus had formed an alliance, had come down into Italy and was threatening Rome. At his approach the Lombard vassals of Apulia and the Prince of Capua had revolted. Guiscard resigned the command of his expedition to his son Bohemond, who abandoned the march on Constantinople to ravage Thessaly. Guiscard returned to Italy and profited by Henry IV's short delay in Lombardy to subdue his rebellious vassals, capturing their cities one by one (1083). During this time Henry IV returned and laid siege to Rome. On 2 June, 1083, he took possession of the Leonine City, and compelled Gregory VII to seek refuge in the castle of Sant' Angelo. The emperor made his entry into Rome on 21 March, 1084, and, on the following 31 March, he was crowned at St. Peter's by the antipope Clement III. Gregory VII, who all the time was confined to the castle of Sant' Angelo, sent a message to Robert Guiscard. On 24 May, 30,000 Normans camped beneath the walls of Rome. On the 27 May, Guiscard captured the Porta Flaminia, gave battle on the Campo Mania, delivered Gregory VII and installed him in the Lateran while the imperial troops beat a retreat. But the Romans, exasperated by the pillaging of the Normans, revolted. The city was sacked, and the inhabitants massacred or sold as slaves. On the 28 June, Guiscard left Rome and conducted Gregory VII as far as Salerno. Thanks to his intervention the projects of Henry IV had been baffled and the cause of ecclesiastical reform had triumphed.

But Robert Guiscard thought only of resuming his expedition against Constantinople. Beaten by the troops of Alexius Comnenus, Bohemond had been compelled to retire with his army to Italy (1083). Guiscard made fresh preparations, and, at the end of 1084, embarked at Otranto. After having defeated the Venetian fleet, he recovered Corfu and was preparing to capture Cephalonia, where he had just disembarked, when he died after a short illness, 17 July, 1085. Having come into Italy forty years previously as a mere soldier of fortune, he had since founded a sovereign state and become one of the most important personages of Christendom. Two emperors had had to reckon with him. From one of them he had taken Rome, from the other he had been on the point of taking Constantinople. In 1058, he had repudiated Aubrée, the mother of Bohemond, to wed the Lombard Sykelgaite, sister of Gisulf, Prince of Salerno. She gave him three Sons and seven daughters, and appears to have been actively associated in all his undertakings, accompanying him in his expeditions and exercising so much influence over him as to cause him to designate as his successor his son Roger, to the detriment of Bohemond.

Gesta Roberti Wiscardi (Epic in 5 cantos by WILLIAM OF APULIA, composed at the request of Urban II and dedicated to Duke Roger), ed. WILMANS, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scriptores, IX, 241 sqq.; AMATUS OF MONTE CASINO, Ystoire de li Normant (ed. SOCIÉTÉ DE L'HIST. DE FRANCE, Paris, 1835. Fr. tr. of fourteenth century from orig.); LEO OSTIENSIS (MARSICANUS), Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. WATTENBACH, in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., VII, 574 sq.; LUPUS PROTOSPATHARIUS, Annales, 805-1102, ed. in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script, V, 52 sq.; GEOFFREY MALATERRA, Historia Sicula (to 1099), ed. MURATORI, Rerum italic. Scriptor., V. 574 sqq.; ANNA COMNENA, Alexiade, ed. REIFFERSCHEID (Leipzig, 1884), I-VI; Cecaumeni Strategicon, ed. WASILIEWSKY (St. Petersburg, 1886), 35; GREGORY VII, Registrum epistolarum, ed. JAFFÉ, Bibliotheca rer. germanic., II; CHALANDON, La Diplomatique des Normands de Sicile et de l'Italie méridionaie (Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'école française de Rome, 1900); HEINEMANN, Normanische Herzogs- und Königsurkunden (Tübingen, 1899); ENGEL, Recherches sur la numismatique et la sigillographie des Normands d'Italie (Paris, 1882); GAY, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin (Paris, 1904); CHALANDON, Histoire de La domination normande en Italie (Paris, 1907), I, containing excellent bibliography; IDEM, Essai sur le règne d'Alexis I Comnène (Paris, 1900); HEINEMANN, Geschichte der Normannem im Unteritalien und Sicilien (Leipsic, 1894), I; DENTZER, Topographie der Feldzüge Robert Guiscards gegen das byzantinische Reich (Breslau, 1901).

LOUIS BRÉHIER

House of Guise

The House of Guise, a branch of the ducal family of Lorraine, played an important part in the religious troubles of France during the seventeenth century. By reason of descent from Charlemagne, it laid claim for a brief period to the throne of France. The Guises upheld firmly Catholic interests not only in France, but also in Scotland, where Marie de Lorraine and her daughter, Mary Stuart, were allied to them. Their religious zeal, however, was often tarnished by their own violence, and by that of their partisans; it also covered certain plans for political reform that were dangerous to monarchical centralization. Finally, the relations which existed for thirty-five years between Spain and the House of Guise roused the suspicion of French patriotism. In their favour it must be said that the Huegonots were also guilty of many acts of violence, and appealed to England, as the Guises did to Spain, and that the Calvinistic nobility was even more dangerous to French unity than the Catholic. We shall here consider only those members of this famous family who are especially interesting from the viewpoint of religious history.

I. CLAUDE DE LORRAINE

First Duke of Guise, born at the Château de Condé, 20 Oct., 1496; d. at Joinville, 12 April, 1550, the son of René II, Duke of Lorraine, and his second wife, Philippa of Guelders. Claude de Guise wished to possess the Duchy of Lorraine, to the detriment of his elder brother Antoine, whom he declared illegitimate, inasmuch as he was born during the lifetime of Marguerite d'Harcourt, the (divorced) first wife of René II, but he was obliged to be content with the Countships of Guise and Aumale, the Barony of Joinville, and the Seigniories of Mayenne and Elbeuf, which his father possessed in France. He soon made his appearance at the French court, where he at once gave evidence of his ability to please. He followed Francis I to Italy, and at the battle of Marignano (1515) received twenty-two wounds. He took a courageous part in the campaigns against Charles V, for which Francis I rewarded him by making him master of the hounds and first chamberlain, and by the erection of the countship of Guise to a ducal peerage, an honour hitherto reserved for princes of the blood. Claude de Guise also merited the gratitude of the Catholic party for the struggle which he maintained in 1525 against the bands of Anabaptists attempted to invade Lorraine, whom he exterminated at Lupstein near Saverne (Zabern), 16 May, 1525. His campaign in Luxembourg (1542), the services which he rendered in 1543 by his defence of Landrecies, and his success in quieting the Parisians, alarmed by the approach of the imperial forces, justified the favour of the king, who finally confided to him the government of Burgundy; the Duke's ambition, however, his large fortune, and powerful relatives gave offense to Francis I. It was said that the latter counseled Henry II never to admit the Guises to a share in government, and a popular quatrain current in Paris ran:—

François premier prédit ce point
Que ceux de la maison de Guise
Mettraient ses enfants en purpoint
Et son pauvre peuple en chemise.

In 1513 Claude de Guise married Antoinette de Bourbon (1493-1583), noted for the simplicity of her life, her renunciation of all rich materials in dress, and her great charity toward hospitals, the poor, and orphans. By her he had eight sons and four daughters. If the memoirs of François de Guise, Claude's son, are to be credited, his father died of poison.

II. JEAN DE LORRAINE

Brother of the above, b. 1498; d. 18 May, 1550. He became a cardinal at twenty, the first cardinal of Lorraine. His activity was exercised chiefly in France, where he assisted Claude de Guise to strengthen the ascendancy of his family. Having been sent in 1536 as the ambassador of Francis I to Charles V to reconcile their differences, he warned the king on his return of the unmistakably warlike intentions of the emperor. Even before Claude de Guise had offended the king, the cardinal was regarded with suspicion. He fell into disgrace with Francis I in 1542, but still retained great influence owing to the bounties which he was able to make with his immense revenues, for he had acquired the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, Verdun, Thérouanne, Luçon, and Valence, the Archbishoprics of Lyon, Reims, and Narbonne, and a number of abbeys. "Thou art either Christ or the Cardinal of Lorraine", exclaimed a Roman beggar on whom he had bestowed large alms.

III. FRANÇOIS DE LORRAINE

Second Duke of Guise, b. at the Château de Bar, 17 Feb., 1519, of Claude de Guise and Antoinette de Bourbon; d, 24 Feb, 1563. He was the warrior of the family, el gran capitan de Guysa, as the Spanish called him. A wound which he received at the siege of Boulogne (1545), won for him the surname Balafré (the Scarred). His defense of Metz against Charles V (1552) crowned his reputation. After a siege of two months the emperor was obliged to retire with a loss of 30,000 men. François de Lorraine fought valiantly at the battle of Renty (1554). The Truce of Vaucelles, signed in 1556 for a period of six years, followed by the abdication of Charles V, seemed about to end his military career.

The dukes of Guise, however, as descendants of the House of Anjou, had certain pretensions to the Kingdom of Naples, and it was doubtless with the secret intention of defending these claims that François de Lorraine furthered an alliance between Henry II and Pope Paul IV which was menaced by Philip II. In consequence of this alliance François de Guise entered Milanese territory (Jan., 1557), marched thence through Italy, and although neither the petty princes nor the pope gave him the assistance he expected, he took the little Neapolitan town of Campli (17 April, 1557), and on 24 April laid siege to Civitella. At the end of twenty-two days, being threatened at the same time by epidemic and the Duke of Alva, he fell back upon Rome, where he reorganized his army, and was preparing to return southward, when Henry II, after the victory of the Spaniards over the Constable de Montmorency at Saint-Quentin (23 Aug., 1557), summoned him to "restore France".

Guise returned to court (20 Oct., 1557) and was invested with the title of lieutenant-general of the kingdom. He captured the city of Calais (1-8 January, 1558) by taking into account the plans of attack drawn up by Coligny. In June he took Thionville, in July, Arlon. He was about to attack Luxemburg when he was halted by the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis (3 April, 1559), concluded by Henry II, despite the protests of the duke. Moreover, Henry was on the point of disgracing François de Guise, at the insistence of Diana of Poitiers and the Constable de Montmorency.

The accession of Francis II (10 July, 1559), however, and his consort, Mary Stuart, niece of François d Guise, was a triumph for the Guise family, and the Constable de Montmorency was disgraced. "François de Guise was supreme in the royal council. "My advice", he would say, "is so-and-so; we must act thus." Occasionally he signed public acts in the royal manner, with his baptismal name only. At the investigation of Antoine de Bourbon and the Prince de Condé, La Renaudie, a Protestant gentlemen of Périgord, organized a plot to seize the person of François de Guise and his brother, the second cardinal of Lorraine. The plot was discovered (conspiracy of Amboise, 1560) and violently suppressed. Condé was obliged to flee the court, and the power of the Guises was increased. The discourse which Coligny, leader of the Huguenots, pronounced against them in the Assembly of the notables at Fountainbleau (August, 1560), did not influence Francis II in the least, but resulted rather in the imprisonment of Condé. The king, however, died, 5 December, 1560—a year full of calamity for the Guises both in Scotland and France (see below, VI. Mary of Guise). Within a few months their influence waxed great and waned. After the accession of Charles, IX, François de Guise lived in retirement on his estates. The regent, Catharine de' Medici, at first inclined to favour the Protestants, and to save the Catholic party, François de Guise formed with his old enemy, the Constable de Montmorency and the Maréchal de Saint-André the so-called triumvirate (April, 1561), hostile to the policy of concession which Catharine de' Medici attempted to inaugurate in favour of the Protestants. The plan of the Triumvirate was to treat with Spain and the Holy See, and also to come to an understanding with the Lutheran princes of Germany to induce them to abandon the idea of relieving the French Protestants. About July, 1561, Guise wrote to this effect to the Duke of Würtemberg. The Colloquy of Poissy (September and October, 1561) between theologians of the two confessions was fruitless, and the conciliation policy of Catharine de' Medici was defeated. From 15 to 18 February, 1562, Guise visited the Duke of Würtemberg at Saverne, and convinced him that if the conference at Poissy had failed, the fault was that of the Calvinists. As Guise passed through Vassay on his was to Paris (1 March, 1562), a massacre of Protestants took place. It is not known to what extent he was responsible for this, but it kindled the religious war. Rouen was retaken from the Protestants by Guise after a month's siege (October); the battle of Dreux, at which Montmorency was taken prison and Saint-André slain, was in the end turned by Guise to the advantage of the Catholic cause (19 December), and Condé, leader of the Huguenots, taken prisoner. Guise was about to take Orléans from the Huguenots when (18 February, 1563) he was wounded by the Protestant Poltrot de Méré, and died six days later. "We cannot deny", wrote the Protestant Coligny, in reference to his death, "the manifest miracles of God."

At the suggestion of Henry II Guise has married in 1549 Anne d'Este (1531-1607), daughter of Hercule II d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, and of René of France, through her mother, granddaughter of Louis XII; she had been on the point of becoming the wife of Sigismund I, King of Poland. By her Guise had six sons and one daughter. Anne held the Admiral de Coligny responsible for the death of her husband, and her interview with the admiral at Moulins was only an apparent reconciliation. She soon married James of Savoy (d. 1583), by whom she had two children. She lived to see the extinction of the House of Este by the death of Alphonso II, fifth Duke of Ferrara, and to see two of her sons, Henry Duke of Guise, and the Cardinal of Guise (see below) slain at the château de Blois. "Oh great king", she cried before the statue of her grandfather, Louis XII, "did you build this château that the children of your granddaughter might perish in it?" The poet Ronsard sang the praises of the wife of François de Guise, according to the fashion of the time:

Venus la sainte en ses grâces habite,
Tous les amours logent en ses regards;
Pour ce, a bon droit, telle dam mérite
D'avoir été femme de notre Mars.

IV. CHARLES DE LORRAINE

Cardinal of Guise, b. at Joinville, 17 Feb., 1524; d. at Avignon, 26 December 1574; appointed archbishop of Reims in 1538, cardinal in 1547, the day after the coronation of Henry II, at which he had officiated. He was known at first of the Cardinal of Guise, and as the second Cardinal of Lorraine, after the death of his uncle, Jean (1550), first Cardinal of Lorraine. His protection of Rabelais and Ronsard and his generous foundation of the University of Reims (1547-49) assure him a place in the history of contemporary letters; his chief importance, however, is in political and religious history.

The efforts of this cardinal to enforce his family's pretensions to the Countship of Provance, and his temporary assumption, with this object, of the title of Cardinal of Anjou were without success. He failed also when he attempted, in 1551, to dissuade Henry II form uniting the Dutchy of Lorraine to France. He succeeded, however, in creating for his family interests certain political alliances that occasionally seemed in conflict with each other. He coquetted, for instance, on the one hand with the Lutheran princes of Germany, and on the other, with his interview (1558) with the Cardinal de Granvelle (at Péronne), he initiated friendly relations between the Guises and the royal house of Spain. Thus the man who, as the Archbishop of Reims, crowned successively Henry II, Francis II, and Charles IX had a personal policy which was often at variance with that of the court. This policy rendered him at times an enigma to his contemporaries. The chronicler L'Estoile accused him of great duplicity; Brantôme spoke of his "deeply stained soul, churchman though he was", accused him of skepticism, and claimed to have heard him occasionally speak half approvingly of the Confession of Augsburg. He is also often held to be responsible for the outbreak of the Huguenot wars, and seems now and then to have attempted to establish the Inquisition in France. Many libelous pamphlets aroused against him strong religious and political passions. From 1560 at least twenty-two were in circulation and fell into his hands; they damaged his reputation with posterity as well as among his contemporaries. One of them, "La Guerre Cardinale" (1565), accuses him of seeking to restore to the Empire the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, which had been conquered by Henry II. A discourse attributed to Théodore de Bèze (1566) denounced the pluralism of the cardinal in the matter of benefices.

Under Charles IX, the Cardinal of Guise constantly alternated between disgrace and favour. In 1562, he attended the Council of Trent, possessing the full confidence of his royal master. Louis de Saint-Gélais, Sieur de Lansac, Arnaud du Ferrier, president of the Parlement of Paris, and Guy de Faur de Pibrac, royal counsellor, who represented Charles IX at the Council from 26 May, 1562, towards the end of the year were joined by the Cardinal Lorraine. He was instructed to arrive at an understanding with the Germans, who proposed to reform the church in head and members and to authorize at once Communion under Both Kinds, prayers in the vernacular, and the marriage of the clergy. In the reform articles which he presented (2 Jan., 1563), he was silent on the last point, but petitioned for the other two. Pius IV was indignant, and the cardinal denounced Rome as the source of all abuses. In the questions of precedence which arose between him and the Spanish ambassador, Count de Luna, Pius IV decided for the latter. However, in September 1563, while on a visit to Rome, the cardinal, intent perhaps on securing the pope's assistances for the realization of the political ambitions of the Guises, professed opinions less decided Gallican. Moreover, when he learned that the French ambassadors, who had left the council, were dissatisfied because the legates had obtained from the council approval of a project for the "reformation of the princes", which the latter deemed contrary to the liberties of the Gallican church, he endeavoured, though without success, to bring about the return of the ambassadors, prevailed on the legates to withdraw the objectionable articles, and strove to secure the immediate publication in France of the decrees of the council; this, however, was refused by Catharine di' Medici.

When, in 1566, François de Montmorency, governor of Paris and his personal enemy, attempted to prevent the cardinal from entering the capital with an armed escort, the ensuing conflict and the precipitate flight of the cardinal gave rise to an outcry of derision which obliged him to retire to his diocese for two years. In 1570 he aroused the anger of Charles IX by inducing Duke Henri, the eldest of his nephews, to solicit the hand of Margaret of Valois, the king's sister, and in 1574 he vexed the king still more when, through spite, he prevented the marriage of this princess with the king of Portugal. His share in the negotiations for the marriage between Charles IX and Elizabeth of Austria, and for that of Margaret Valois with the prince of Navarre, seems to have won him some favor which, however, was but brief, for Catharine di' Medici knew only too well what a constant menace the personal policy of the Guises constituted for that of the king. Shortly after the death of Charles IX, the cardinal appeared before his successor, Henry III, but died soon afterwards.

V. LOUIS I DE LORRAINE

Cardinal of Guise, b. 21 Oct., 1527, d. at Paris, 24 March, 1578, the brother of François de Guise and of the second cardinal of Lorraine. He became Bishop of Troyes in 1545, of Albi in 1550, cardinal in 1553, under the name of Cardinal of Guise, Archbishop of Sens in 1561, but resigned the episcopal see in 1562, in favour of Cardinal de Pellevée. He crowned Henry III, 13 Feb., 1575. Contemporary witnesses do not seem to agree with regard to him. L'Estoile calls him a merry gourmet, le cardinal des bouteilles, while Brantôme praises his knowledge and political good sense, especially in his old age.

VI. MARY OF GUISE

Queen of Scotland, b. 22 Nov. 1515; d. at Edinburgh, 10 June 1560; sister of François de Guise, and of the second cardinal of Lorraine, and eldest of the twelve children of Claude de Lorraine, Duke of Guise, and Antoinette de Bourbon. Left a widow in 1535, after a year of married life with Louis II d'Orleans, Duke of Longueville, she refused to marry Henry VIII, King of England, but at the express command of Francis I consented to go to Scotland to wed (9 May, 1538) James V, king of Scotland, whose first wife, Margaret of France, had died a year before. By James V she had (7 or 8 Dec, 1542) one daughter, Mary Stuart, and a week later (14 Dec.) she became a widow and regent. Henry VIII sought to take advantage of this regency to establish in Scotland an anti-Catholic influence, and to this end wrung from Mary of Guise the treaty of 12 March, 1543, which promised Mary Stuart in marriage to Edward, his son. Mary of Guise, however, particularly after the death of her advisor, Cardinal Beaton, looked to France for the support of a Catholic policy, and it was decided by the Estates of Scotland (5 Feb., 1548), that Mary Stuart should be sent to that country, Scotland's oldest and most faithful ally, to be married to the young Dauphin Francis, son of Henry II. While the Reformation continued to progress in Scotland, Mary de Guise, through the advice and assistance of her brothers, François de Guise and the second Cardinal of Lorraine, succeeded in maintaining her authority. From Paris her brothers kept her informed of the great success achieved by her daughter, Mary Stuart. "She rules the king and queen", wrote the Cardinal de Lorraine. On the marriage of Henry II with the Dauphin Francis, Henry II desired them to assume the titles of king and Queen of England and Ireland, alleging that Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII, and Anne Boleyn, was ineligible, having been the child of an illegitimate marriage, also a heretic. The Guises hoped for a brief period that as a result of their policy Catholic rule would be established throughout Britain. Nicholas de Bellève, Bishop of Amiens, and several doctors of the Sorbonne, went to Scotland in 1559 to prevail upon Mary of Guise to put on trial all non-Catholic ecclesiastics. Though of a moderate temper, and though she wrote to the Guises that the only means of preserving the old religion in Scotland was to allow the people complete liberty of conscience, the queen dared not oppose the order from France. A revolt followed; the Protestants pillaged churches and monasteries and entered Edinburgh. John Knox proclaimed the right of insurrection against tyranny; and the assembly of the peers and the barons of the kingdom declared Mary of Guise deposed from the regency (21 Oct., 1559). She was then at Leith, guarded by a troop of French soldiers. They soon overcame the Protestant troops and she was then able to enter Edinburgh, but an English army sent by Elizabeth to the assistance of the Protestant laid siege to Edinburgh, and at this juncture, Mary of Guise died.

VII. HENRI I DE LORRAINE

Prince de Joinville, and in 1563 third Duke of Guise, b. 31 Dec. 1550, the son of François de Guise and Anne d'Este; d. at Blois, 23 Dec., 1588. The rumours which attributed to Coligny a share in the murder of François de Guise hailed in the young Henri de Guise, then thirteen years old, the avenger of his father and the leader of the Catholic party. While the Cardinal of Lorraine retained the ascendancy and the numerous following of his family, the young Henri, leaving France, had no part in the patched-up reconciliation at Moulins between his mother and Coligny. In July, 1556, he went to Hungary to fight in the emperor's service against the Turks. When he returned to France he took part in the second and third Huguenot wars, distinguishing himself at the battles of Saint-Denis (1567), Jarnac, Moncontour, and at the defence of Portiers (1569) against Coligny. His pretension (1570) to the hand of Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX, seriously offended the king, but he was restored to favour on his hastily marrying Catherine de Clèves (1548-1633), widow of the Prince of Porcien and goddaughter of Catharine de' Medici, noted for the frivolity of her youth and for the strange freedom with which she had caused her lovers to be painted in her Book of Hours as crucified.

Between 1570 and 1572 Henri de Guise was much disturbed by the ascendancy of Coligny and the Protestants in the counsels of Charles IX. To similar suspicious fears, shared by Catharine de' Medici, must be traced the St. Bartholomew massacre. Guise was accused of having given the impulse by stationing Maurevers (22 Aug., 1572) on the route taken by Coligny, and when the next day Catharine de' Medici insisted that, in order to forestall an outbreak of Protestant vengeance, Charles IX should order the death of several of their chiefs, Guise was summoned to the palace to arrange for the execution of the plan. For the massacre and the deplorable proportions its assumed, see Saint Bartholomew's Day. during the night of 24 August, Henri de Guise, with a body of armed men, went to Coligny's dwelling, and while his attendants slew Coligny, he waited on horseback in the courtyard and cried, "Is he quite dead?" In repelling the repeated attacks of the Huguenots at the battle of Dormans (10 Oct. 1575) during the Huguenot war, Henri received a wound on the cheek which led to his being thenceforth known, like his father, as Le Balafré. His power increased, and he was regarded as a second Judas Machabeus. His popularity was now so great that a contemporary wrote, "It is too little to say that France was in love with that man; she was bewitched by him."

King Henry III began to feel that his own safety was threatened, the powerful family was beginning to aspire to the throne. In 1576 the Holy League was organized, centered at once about the popular hero, Henri de Guise, and in a few months had at its disposal 26,000 infantry and 5000 cavalry. The object of the League was to defend the Catholic religion in France. Still earlier at Toulouse (1563), Angers (1565), Dijon (1567), Bourges and Troyes (1568), Catholic leagues had been formed, composed of loyal and pious middle class citizens. In 1576, however, the Holy League was established among the nobility and, according to a declaration spread throughout France by Guise, this association of princes, lords, and gentlemen had a twofold purpose: (1) to establish in its fullness the law of God; to restore and maintain God's holy service according to the form and manner of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman church; to preserve king Henry III in the state of splendour, authority, duty, and obedience owed to him by his subjects, but with the proviso that nothing shall be done to the prejudice of what may be enjoined by the States-General. (2) To restore to the provinces and states of the realm, under the protection of the League, their ancient rights, pre-eminence, franchises and liberties such as they have been from the time of Clovis, the first Christian king, and as much better and more profitable, if improvement were possible, as they could be made under the protection of the League. From the beginning, therefore, a decentralizing as well as a Catholic tendency characterized the League.

The Huguenots soon pretended to have discovered among the papers of one Jean David that the Guises had forwarded to Rome a memoir claiming that, by reason of their descent from Charlemagne, Henry III should yield them the throne of France.

The League was first organized in Picardy, under the direction of the Maréchal de Humiéres, governor of Péronne, Roye, and Montdider, then in other provinces, and finally in Paris, under the direction of the avocat, Pierre Henequin, and the Labruyères, father and son. Henry III, fearing to become a prisoner of the Catholic forces, immediately signed with the Protestants the Peace of Beaulieu, by which he granted them important concessions, but at the States-General (November-December, 1576, the influence of the League was preponderant. By the edict of 1 Jan, 1577, the Court annulled the Peace of Beaulieu, and Henry III even joined the League. This was the signal for two new religious wars, during which the military talents and Catholic zeal of Henri de Guise naturally contrasted with the cowardice and wavering policy of the king. The former stood out more and more distinctly as the leader of the Catholic party, while Henry of Navarre, the future Henry IV, now posed as the champion of the Protestants.

In the meantime occurred the death of Francis of Valois (10 June, 1584), brother of Henry III and heir presumptive to the throne. It was at once obvious that the Valois dynasty would become extinct with Henry III, and that Henry of Navarre, leader of the Protestants, would be the natural heir to the throne. Henri de Guise and the League determined at once to provide against the possibility of such an event. On the one hand, pamphleteers and genealogists, with an eye to the future, wrote countless brochures to prove that the Guises were the real descendants of Charlemagne, and that, like Pepin the Short, they might, with the assistance of the Holy See ascend the throne of France. On the other hand Henri de Guise concluded the Treaty of Joinville (31 Dec., 1584) with Philip II of Spain, and had it ratified by Sixtus V. This stipulated that, at the death of Henry III, the Cardinal de Bourbon, Archbishop of Rouen (1520-90), the third son of Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendôme, should be recognized as heir to the crown, "to the exclusion of all French princes of the blood at present heretics and relapsed". The Cardinal de Bourbon published a manifesto to this effect (1 April, 1585). Philip II of Spain granted the League a subsidy of 50,000 crowns a month; moreover the clergy and lower middle classes of Paris organized for the Catholic defence, although the municipality was hostile to the League.

Civil war now broke out, and by the treaty of Namours Henry III took sides with the League and revoke all edicts which granted liberty to Protestants (18 July, 1585). When Sixtus V was assured that Henry III and Henri de Guise had come to an agreement, he launched a Bull of excommunication against the future Henry IV. So long as he was solicited to uphold the Guises against Henry III, the pope had temporized, but now that the League was operating under royal authority, he interfered in favour of the movement. The Guises in the meantime roused all Champagne and Picardy, and took Toul and Verdun. Their lieutenant, Anne de Joyeuse, was defeated at Coutras by Henry of Navarre, but the victories of Henri de Guise at Vimory (26 Oct., 1587) compelled the withdrawal of the German Protestant troops. A secret committee organized the League at Paris. In the provinces it was supported by the nobility, but in Paris it drew its strength from the common people and the religious orders. The secret committee, at first five members, then sixteen, divided Paris into quarters, and in each quarter made preparation for war. Soon 30,000 Parisians declared themselves ready to serve Guise, while in the pulpits the preachers of the League upheld in impassioned language the rights of the people and of the pope. Furthermore, by agreement with Philip II, Guise sent the Duc d'Aumale to overthrow the strongholds of Picardy, in order to assure by this means a way of retreat to the Invincible Armada, which was being sent to England to avenge Mary Stuart, niece of François de Guise, executed at the command of Elizabeth (8 Feb., 1587).

Henry III now took fright and ordered Henri de Guise to remain in his government of Champagne; he entered Paris, nevertheless, in defiance of the king (9 May, 1588), and was welcomed with enthusiasm by the masses. Repairing to the Louvre, accompanied by 400 gentlemen, he called on Henry III to establish the Inquisition and promulgate in France the decrees of the Council of Trent. The king protested and sought to bring troops to Paris on whom he might rely. A riot then broke out, and the people were about to march on the Louvre (Day of the Barricades, 12 May, 1588), but Guise, on horseback and unarmed, rode about Paris calming them. He felt assured that the king, who had made him fine promises, was thenceforth in his hands. The former, however, to escape Guise's tutelage, withdrew on the morrow to Chartres.

Guise was now absolute master of Paris, and for some days was all-powerful. The brilliancy of his victory, however, encouraged the extremist of the League. The Sixteen, now in possession of the municipalities, committed many excesses, while such preachers as Boucher, Guincestre, and Pighenat, cried loudly for civil war. Feeling that he was overruled, Guise now offered to treat with the king, and the latter signed the Edict of Union at Rouen (10 July, 1588), by which he ratified the League, gave Guise various offices of trust, and made him lieutenant-general of the kingdom in opposition to the Protestants, barred Henry of Navarre from succession to the throne, and promised the immediate convocation of the States-general. In this way Henry III gained time.

The States-General assembled at Blois (Sept.-Dec. 1588), the members of the League being in control. Speeches were made, some aristocratic in sentiment, others democratic, but all against royal absolutism; and Guise was thenceforth the leader, not only of a religious, but also of a political movement. The members of the assembly treated Henry II as a sluggard king; the rôle of Guise resembled that of Charlemagne's forebears under the last Merovingians.

At this junction, Henry III determined to rid himself of Guise, and his death was decided upon. Upon taking his seat at table (22 Dec., 1588) Guise found beneath his napkin a note which warned him that a plot was on foot against him. Below the warning he wrote, "None would dare", and threw it away. The next morning he was summoned to Henry III, and was slain by the guards. A carpet was thrown over his body, and the courtiers made sarcastic speeches as they passed, calling him the "handsome king of Paris". Henry III left his apartments to kick the dead man in the face. That same night, Louis, Cardinal of Guise (1555-88), brother of Henri, was assassinated by four archers of the king, who feared less the cardinal should become a peril to the State. The bodies of the two leaders of the League were burned and thrown into the Loire. This double assassination was at once the subject of a multitude of pamphlets.

By Catherine de Clèves, Henri de Guise had seven daughters and seven sons, on one of whom, François-Alexandre (1589-1614), a posthumous son, the enthusiastic Parisians bestowed a third name, Paris.

VIII. CHARLES DE LORRAINE

Duke of Mayenne, b. 26 March, 1554; d. at Soissons, 3 Oct. 1611; son of François de Guise and brother of Henri de Guise. He first bore arms in 1569 besides Henri de Guise at the defence of Portiers against Coligny, then at the battle of Moncontour and at the siege of Brouage. After the close of this war he went to Venice to engage in the campaign against the Turks, became a Venetian lord, and embarked with a fleet to assist the expedition of Don Juan of Austria. He did not return to France until after the massacre of St. Bartholomew. He took part in the fourth Huguenot war, and accompanied the Duke of Anjou to the siege of La Rochelle (1573). Later he followed the duke to his domain in Poland, and when the death of Charles IX made the duke King of France, under the name Henry III, Mayenne escorted him thither. He took part in the sixth and seventh Huguenot wars, capturing Poitou (1577) and Dauphiny (1580). His policy was that of his brother, Henri: alliances with Spain against Henry of Navarre, ultimately against Henry III, to bring about the succession to the throne of the Cardinal de Bourbon and ultimately the Guises. Henry III, it is true, had allied himself with the League by the Treat of Nemours, but Mayenne soon realized the uncertainty of the royal attitude. The Maréchal de Matignon, who governed Guyenne for the king, hindered more than he favoured Mayenne's campaign against the Protestants of the south. When the assassination of Henri de Guise revealed the extent of royal duplicity, Mayenne was at Lyons. Warned by Bernardo de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, he had time to gain a place of safety before the arrival of Colonel d'Ornano, whom Henry VIII had sent to arrest him. He retired to his government of Burgundy, roused that province and also Champagne, of which his dead brother had been governor, marched on Paris, and began his active share in the history of the League.

Henry III, who had caused the assassination of Henri de Guise, was denounced by the preachers as a traitor, a heretic, and excommunicate. The Sorbonne and the Parlement proclaimed his disposition. Together with the aldermen and the city councillors, representatives of the Parisian middle classes, Mayenne organized the General Council of Union (Conseil général d'union). This council undertook measures in behalf of the whole kingdom, decreased taxes by one-fourth, prepared to defend Paris against Henry of Navarre, called for material assistance from Philip II and for moral aid from the pope, and entered into communion with most of the large cities of the kingdom.

Civil war now raged in France, and many cities took the side of the League and Catholicism against the Protestant Henry of Navarre and the indecision of Henry III. After vainly endeavouring to enter into negotiations with Mayenne, who naturally distrusted the assassin of his brother, Henry III joined forces with the Protestant troops of Henry of Navarre (1 May, 1589). For some time Mayenne waged war against the allied forces, but after the defeat of the Duc D'Aumale at Senlis (17 May), he felt that Paris was threatened and was obliged to fall back for its defence. The united Royalist and Protestant forces received assistance from Switzerland and Germany, while the troops of Mayenne and the League, shut up in Paris (1 June), were cut off from all reinforcements, weakened by desertions, and reduced to 8000 men, when Henry III and Henry of Navarre, with a force of 42,000 began an active siege of the capital (28 July). A sort of terror now seized upon the Parisian populace. Suspicion fell on all; domiciliary visits and proscriptions were the order of the day. Finally the Dominican monk, Jacques Clément, assassinated Henry III, whereupon Henry of Navarre, abandoned by some of his troops, raised the siege.

The throne was now vacant, the Catholics who formed the majority of France being unwilling to recognize the protestant Henry of Navarre. Had Mayenne dared to seize the throne and proclaim himself king, his boldness might have succeeded. With Henri de Guise, however, he had five years previously designated the aged Cardinal de Bourbon as heir presumptive, and while the latter lived it was difficult for Mayenne to pretend to the throne. But the sick and aged prelate was a prisoner of Henry of Navarre; the members of the League were therefore unable to place their candidate securely upon the throne, since he was in the hands of the Protestant pretender. Mayenne assumed the title of Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom, took the offensive, and set out for Normandy. At Arques, near Dieppe, he vainly offered battle to Henry of Navarre, and after eleven days of skirmishing (September, 1589), withdrew to Amiens. Learning suddenly that Henry of Navarre had stolen on Paris, and had taken by surprise the suburbs of of the left bank of the Siene, he hastened to the capital to compel the retreat of Navarre.

A certain number of moderate Catholics, known as les Politiques, were in favour of the latter, and he agreed with them that within six months he would submit the religious question to a council, and until that event would offer no hindrance to the practice of the Catholic religion. Among the Politiques were some who already cherished the hope that Henry of Navarre would become a Catholic. One of them, Faudoas de Belin, urged Mayenne to join the Politiques and to entreat Henry IV to become a Catholic. While the violence of the Leaguers in Paris caused Mayenne to reflect, he nonetheless did not accept Belin's proposal, and in the spring of 1590, being reinforced from Flanders and Lorraine, he attacked Henry IV on the plain of Ivry (14 March 1590). Being defeated, he was compelled to return to Paris, where he announced to the inhabitants that he was going to seek reinforcements in Flanders, and called upon them to defend themselves energetically. The death of Cardinal de Bourbon (8 May, 1590) left the members of the League uncertain on an important point, namely, who was the Catholic heir to the throne.

Then began, in Mayenne's absence, the famous siege of Paris by Henry IV. Each day the Spanish ambassador, Bernardo de Mendoza, distributed 120 crowns' worth of bread, the papal legate gave his plate to pay the troops, and even the ornaments of the churches were sold. The people satisfied their hunger at the street corners, where they ate from great cauldrons, in which a mixture of oats and bran was boiling, and spent the days in the churches, where twice a day the preachers encouraged them. They assured the people that Mayenne and Alessandro Farnesse, Duke of Parma, would come to their relief. Mayenne, however, tarried, and the famine continued. Henry of Navarre permitted the beggars, women, and students to leave the city, but the provisions still grew less. Men ate the skin of animals, ground and boiled their bones, disinterred the bodies in the cemetery of the Innocents and made food of them.

Mayenne, meanwhile, was negotiating with Alessandro Farnese, governor of the Spanish Low Countries, for reinforcements. He succeeded in sending some troops to the relief of Paris (17 June), and the arrival of Farnese (23 Aug.), who joined Mayenne at Meaux, made it possible to revictual the city. Henry of Navarre was compelled to retire, and Mayenne re-entered Paris (18 Sept.). The war dragged on, but the capture by Mayenne of Château-Thierry in 1591 could not offset the damage done by the occupation by Henry of Navarre of the city of Chartres, regarded as the granary of Paris.

The League now suffered from divided counsels. The young son of Duke Henri de Guise had just left his prison at Tours, and the more enthusiastic members of the League planned his marriage to a Spanish princess, after which they would make him king. Mayenne was considered too lukewarm, and when Gregory XIV, elected 5 Dec., 1590, and more resolutely devoted to the League than Sixtus V, had renewed the excommunication of Henry of Navarre, and hurled anathema against his adherents (March-June, 1591), the faction of the Sixteen, a body drawn from the councils (nine members each) which directed the various quarters of Paris, and about which were gathered more than 30,000 adherents, desired the establishment of radical laws, according to which every heretic, whether prince, lord, or citizen, should be burned alive, also that the new king should make war on all foreign heretical princes. If the young Duke of Guise could not or would not become king, the Sixteen were quite willing, under certain conditions, to accept Philip II as King of France. To assert their power and intentions, they forthwith hung several Catholics of the moderate party; Brisson, first President of the Parlement, and the two councillors Larcher and Tardif (15 Nov., 1591).

This news reached Mayenne at Laon, and he returned precipitously to Paris (28 Nov.); he caused four of the Sixteen to be strangled (4 Dec.) and ranged himself decisively on the side of the moderate party. Negotiation with the victor was henceforth a matter of time. President Jeannin transmitted Mayenne's conditions to Henry of Navarre (8 May, 1592). These were that the latter should abjure Protestantism, that all the places in possession of the Catholics should remain for six years under the protection of the League, that Mayenne should become hereditary Duke of Burgundy and Lyonnais, and grand constable or lieutenant-general of the realm, and that all the members of the League should retain their posts. Henry IV rejected these conditions, and many members of the League were also dissatisfied with them. Mayenne then convoked the States-General (26 Jan., 1593) and announced that they were confronted by the task of electing a king. He adjourned the body until 2 April. Mayenne desired neither a Protestant king nor a Spanish queen, hence his delays. But he was in the midst of the Parisians who were for the most part inclined to have as Queen of France the Spanish Infanta, daughter of Philip II, on the condition she should wed the young Duke of Guise. Mayenne could not openly oppose the project, but he shrewdly caused the Parlement to issue a decree forbidding the transfer of the crown to foreign princesses or princes (28 June, 1593), the result of which was the abandonment of the Spanish match.

Henry IV made his abjuration 25 July, 1593, and on 31 July signed a truce with Mayenne. While the satire "Ménippée", professing to speak for France, held up to public ridicule the favour exhibited towards Spain by certain members of the League, another pamphlet, the "Dialogue du Maheustre et du manat", issued by the Leaguers of the extreme left, cast aspersions on the ability of Mayenne and all but accused him of treason. On 3 January 1594, the Parlement rallied to Henry IV and expressed the desire that Mayenne should treat definitely with him. Paris, moreover, had ceased to be in sympathy with the League, and was preparing to welcome Henry IV (22 March, 1594). Mayenne kept up the struggle for two years longer, assisted by the Spaniards, who, nevertheless, distrusted him since he had prevented their Infanta from becoming Queen of France. Finally, Mayenne retired, discouraged, to his government of Burgundy, and by a definite treaty with Henry IV (January, 1596), declared the League dissolved, retained three places of safety, Soissons, Chalon-sur-Sâone, and Seurre, obtained that the princes of the League should be declared innocent of the assassination of Henry III, and that the debts which he had contracted for his party should be paid by Henry IV to the sum of 350,000 crowns. He resigned his government of Burgundy; but his son, Henri de Lorraine, became governor of the Ile de France (exclusive of Paris) and grand chamberlain. Until his death Mayenne remained a faithful subject of Henry IV and the regent, Marie de' Medici. By his wife, Henriette de Savoie, he had two sons and two daughters.

IX. CHARLES DE LORRAINE

Fourth Duke of Guise, b. 20 Aug., 1571; d. at Cune (Siena), 30 September, 1640; the eldest son of Henri de Guise. He was arrested at Blois on the day of his father's assassination, and was held prisoner at Tours until 1591. His liberation weakened more than its strengthened the League, for while the Parlement of Paris and the forty members of the League who formed the Council of Union at Paris wished to place Mayenne, the brother of Henri de Guise, on the throne, the faction of the Sixteen and the populace, on the contrary, claimed as king this young Duke of Guise, thus giving rise to dissensions in the League. The chances of the young duke were increased by the possibility of his marriage to the daughter of the King of Spain, Mayenne being already married. But at the States-General of 1593, convoked by Mayenne after the death of the Cardinal de Bourbon, Mayenne diverted the discussion, postponed a decision, and had himself simply confirmed in his position as lieutenant-general of the realm. The Duke of Guise soon ceased to belong to the League. In 1594 he declared himself a subject of Henry IV, and slew with his own hand an old member of the League, the Maréchal de Saint-Pol, who reproached him with betraying the memory of his father. Henry IV completed the conquest of the young duke by the confidence which he placed in him. Despite the longstanding pretensions of the Guises to Provence, the king sent him thither to capture Marseilles from the Duc d'Epernon, who occupied the city in the name of the League. Thus, after 1595, the Duke of Guise, who two years before was on the point of being made king by the League, was in arms against it. Thus ended the political and religious policy of the Guises. Charles de Lorraine married (1611) Henriette-Catherine de Joyeuse, by whom he had ten children. He served under Louis XIII against the Protestants, and, having taken the side of the queen-mother, Marie de' Medici, against Richelieu, retired to Italy in 1631, where he died in obscurity.

X. HENRI DE LORRAINE

Fifth Duke of Guise, son of Charles de Lorraine, b. 1614, d. 1664. He distinguished himself in 1647 and 1654 during the revolt of the Neapolitan Masaniello against Spain by the two ineffectual attempts which he made, with the consent of France, to wrest from the Spaniards for his own benefit the throne of Naples, to which he revived his family's former pretension. He died without issue.

Contemporary documents: Mémoires-journaux du duc François de Guise in Collection Michaud et Poujoulat; Correspondance de François de Lorraine avec Christophe, duc de Würtemberg, in Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du protestantisme français, XXIV (1875); Mémoires de la Ligue (Amsterdam, 1758); Aubigné, Histoire universelle, ed. Ruble, I-IX (Paris, 1886-97); de Thou, Histoire universelle (London, 1773); Mémoires journaux de l'Estoile; Mathieu, Histoire des derniers troubles de France depuis les premiers mouvements de la Ligue jusqu'à la clôture des Etats à Blois (Lyons, 1597); Journal de siège de Paris, ed. Franklin (Paris, 1876); Palma Cayet, Chronologie novénaire (1589-98); journal d'un curé liguer, ed. Barthélémy (Paris, 1886).Historical works: de Bouiullé, Histoire des ducs de Guise (4 vols., Paris, 1849); de Croze, Les Guise, les Valois et Philippe II (2 vols., Paris, 1866); Forneron, Les ducs du Guise et leur époque (2 vols., Paris, 1878); de Lacombe, Catherine de Médicis entre Guise et Condé (Paris, 1899); Romier, Le maréchal de Saint-André (Paris, 1909); Chalambert, Histoire de la Ligue (2 vols, Paris, 1854); de l'Epinois, La Ligue et les Papes (Paris, 1886); Labitte, De la démocratie chez les prédicateurs de la Ligue (Paris, 1841); Zeller, Le mouvement Guisard en 1588 in Revue historique, XLI (1889). For special treatment of Cardinal de Lorraine's connection with the Council of Trent, consult Dupuy, Instructions et lettres des rois très chrétiens et des leurs ambassadeurs concernant le concile de Trente (Paris, 1654); Hanotaux, Instructions données aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France à Rome (Paris, 1888), preface. lxvi-lxxiii.

GEORGES GOYAU

Guitmund

A Bishop of Aversa, a Benedictine monk, theologian, and opponent of Berengarius; born at an unknown place in Normandy during the first quarter of the eleventh century; died between 1090-95, at Aversa, near Naples. In his youth he entered the Benedictine monastery of La-Croix-St-Leufroy in the Diocese of Evreux, and about 1060 he was studying theology at the monastery of Bec, where he had Lanfranc as teacher and St. Anselm of Canterbury as fellow-student. In 1070 King William the Conqueror called him to England and, as an inducement to remain there, offered him a diocese. The humble monk, however, not only refused the offer, but fearlessly denounced the conquest of England by the Normans as an act of robbery ("Oratio ad Guillelmum I" in P. L., CXLIX, 1509). He then returned to Normandy and became a stanch defender of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation against the heretical Berengarius of Tours. Some time between 1073-77 he wrote, at the instance of one of his fellow-monks by the name of Roger, his famous treatise on the Holy Eucharist, entitled "De corporis et sanguinis Jesu Christi veritate in Eucharistia". It is written in the form of a dialogue between himself and Roger and contains an exposition as well as a refutation of the doctrines of Berengarius concerning the Holy Eucharist. Guitmund ably defends Transubstantiation against Berengarius, but his notion of the manner of the Real Presence is obscure. Moreover, he does not well distinguish between substance and accident, and hence concludes that the corruptibility of the species is merely a deception of our senses. The work has often appeared in print. The first printed edition was brought out by Erasmus (Freiburg, 1530). Shortly after Guitmund had published his treatise against Berengarius, he obtained permission from his abbot, Odilo, to make a pilgrimage to Rome. Because the name Guitmund had become too well known to suit the humble monk, he exchanged it for that of Christianus and lived for some time in the obscurity of a Roman monastery. When Urban II, who had previously been a monk at Cluny, became pope, he appointed Guitmund Bishop of Aversa, near Naples, in 1088. A few historians hold that he afterwards became a cardinal, but there seems not to be sufficient evidence for this assumption. Besides the work mentioned above, Guitmund is the author of a short treatise on the Trinity and of an epistle to a certain Erfastus, which deals with the same subject. His works are published in "Bibl. Patr. Lugd.", XVIII, 440 sqq.; in Gallandi, "Bibl. veterum Patr.", XIV, 240 sqq., and Migne, "P. L.", CXLIX, 1427-1513.

Histoire littéraire de la France, VIII, 553-573; WERNER, Gerbert von Aurillac (Vienna, 1881), 178-182; SCHEEBEN in Kirchenlex, s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1903), I, 1053-4; SCHNITZER, Berengar von Tours (Stuttgart, 1892), 350 sqq.; 406 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT.

Gulf of St. Lawrence

Vicariate erected 12 September, 1905, and formed from the prefecture Apostolic of the same name organized 29 May, 1882. It comprises the north-eastern part of the Province of Quebec, east of the Diocese of Chicoutimi, and is a suffragan of Quebec. All the missions of this vicariate have been entrusted to the care of the Eudist Fathers, except the Montagnais Indian stations and other missions for the Naskapi and Eskimo, which are attended by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. The first vicar Apostolic was the Reverend Gustave Blanch, C.J.M., who was born 30 April, 1849, at Josselin, Diocese of Vannes, France, and ordained priest 16 March, 1878. He was appointed Titular Bishop of Sicca and Vicar Apostolic of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 12 September, 1905, and consecrated in the cathedral of Chicoutimi, 28 October, 1905. He fixed his residence at Seven Islands, Saguenay County, Quebec. There is a Catholic population of 9,650 (including 2,000 Indians) in the vicariate, attended by 20 priests, who care for 12 missions with residences, 28 other stations, 19 chapels, and 19 oratories. The Sisters of the Congregation of the Daughters of Jesus teach in 28 schools having 950 pupils (380 boys; 570 girls).

Le Canada Ecclsiastique (Montreal 1909); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, l909).

THOMAS F. MEECHAN

The Gunpowder Plot

(Oath taken May, 1604, plot discovered November, 1605). Robert Catesby, the originator of the Powder Plot, owned estates at Lapworth and Ashby St. Legers. His ancient and honourable family had stood, with occasional lapses, perhaps, but on the whole with fidelity and courage, for the ancient faith. Robert, however, had begun differently. He had been at Oxford in 1586, after Protestantism had won the upper hand, had married into a Protestant family, and his son was baptized in the Protestant church. Father Gerard says that he "was very wild, and as he kept company with the best noblemen in the land, so he spent much above his rate." But at, or soon after, his father's death in 1598 "he was reclaimed from his wild courses and became a Catholic", and was conspicuously earnest in all practices of religion. We, unfortunately, also find in him an habitual inclination towards political and violent measures. This was conspicuously shown during the brief revolt of the Earl of Essex, in February, 1601. Upon receiving a promise of toleration for his co-religionists, Catesby immediately joined him, and also induced some other Catholics to join -- among others, Thomas Percy, Thomas Winter, John Wright, and Lord Monteagle, all of whom we shall afterwards find in, or at the edge of, the Powder Plot. Catesby, who is said to have behaved with great courage and determination, escaped the fate of Essex with a ruinous fine, from which his estates never recovered.

But the mental warp caused by those few days at Southampton House was more deleterious still. He was probably henceforth connected with all the schemes for political or forcible remedies which were mooted at this time. Early in 1602 his ally, Thomas Winter, is found negotiating in Spain for assistance, in case Elizabeth's death should leave the Catholics a chance of asserting themselves, for it was one of Elizabeth's manias to leave the succession an open question. Again, he knew of, perhaps had something to do with, the obtaining of a Brief from Clement VII which exhorted Catholics to work for a Catholic successor to the throne (The Month, June, 1903). Still it is not to be imagined that Catesby's faction, for all their ultra-Catholic professions, thought themselves debarred from treating with Protestants when that was to their advantage. While Winter negotiated at Madrid, Percy was busy at Edinburgh, and received from James promises of favour for the English Catholics. So notorious was it that the Catesby clique were "hunger-starved for innovations", that when Elizabeth was sickening, he, with Tresham, Bainham and the two Wrights, was put under restraint by order of the council, but apparently for a few days only (Camden to Cotton, 15 march, 1603); and Privy Council Registers, XXXII, 490). Then the queen died and James succeeded (24 March 1603). After that everything seemed full of promise, and, so far as we can see, the universal hope of better things to come brought a period of peace to Catesby's restless mind.

But as time went on, James found it difficult, nay impossible, with Elizabeth's ministers still in office, to carry out those promises of toleration, which he had made to the Catholics when he was in Scotland, and believed that their aid would be extremely important. When he felt secure on his throne and saw the weakness of the Catholics, his tone changed. It was reported that, when he had crossed the English border on his way to London, and found himself welcomed by all classes, he had turned to one of his old councillors, and said "Na, na, gud fayth, wee's not need the Papists now" (Tierney-Dodd, Vol. IV). His accession was indeed marked by a very welcome relaxation of the previous persecution. The fines exacted for recusancy sank in King James's first year to about one-sixth of what they used to be. But the policy of toleration was intensely abhorrent to the Puritan spirit in England, and James could not continue it with the government machinery at his command, and he began to give way. In the fifth half-year of his reign the fines were actually higher than they had ever been before, and the number of martyrs was not far short of the Elizabethan average. At the first indication of this change of policy (March, 1604), Catesby made up his mind that there was no remedy except in extremes, resolved on the Powder Plot, and insisted in his masterful way on his former allies joining him in the venture. Thomas Winter says that when Catesby sent for him in the beginning of Lent, and explained his project, "he wondered at the strangeness of the conceit", expressed some doubt as to its success, and no doubt as to the scandal and ruin that would result from its failure. But there was no resisting his imperious friend, and he soon expressed himself ready "for this, or whatever else, if he resolved upon it.". The first orders were that Winter should go to the Spanish Netherlands and see whether political pressure applied by Spain might not relieve the sufferings of the Catholics in England, but he was also to bring back "some confident [i.e. trusty] gentleman", such as Mr. Guy Fawkes. Winter soon discovered what Catesby had probably foreseen in England, that there was no hope at all of any immediate relief from friends abroad, and he returned with Fawkes in his company.

Early in May, 1605, Catesby, Thomas Percy (who by some is believed to have been the originator of the plot), Thomas Winter, John Wright, and Fawkes met in London, were initiated into the plot, and ten adjourned till they could take an oath of secrecy. They did this one May morning in "a house behind St. Clement's", and then, passing to another room, heard Mass and received Communion together, the priest (whom they believed to be Father John Gerard) having no inkling of their real intentions. It is of course impossible to give a rational explanation of their insensate crime. They did not belong to the criminal class, they were not actuated by personal ambitions. They were of gentle birth, men of means and honour, some were married and had children, several of them were zealous converts who had made sacrifices to embrace Catholicism, or rather to return to it, for they mostly came from Catholic parents. On the other hand, though religiously minded, they were by no means saints. They were dare-devils and duelists, and Percy was a bigamist. They were kept in a state of constant irritation against the government by a code of infamous laws against their religion, and a series of galling fines. They had, as we have seen, dabbled in treason and plans of violence for some years past, and now they had formed themselves into a secret society, ready to poniard any of their number who should oppose their objects. They understood their oath to contain a promise not to tell even their confessors of their plans, so sure did they feel of the rectitude of their design. Nor did they do so until fifteen months later, when, Father Garnet having written to Rome to procure a clear condemnation of any and every attempt at violence, Catesby, with the cognizance of Winter, had recourse to Father Greenway with results to which we must return later.

The first active step (24 May, 1604) was to hire as a lodging Mr. Whynniard's tenement, which lay close to the House of Parliament, and had a garden that stretched down towards the Thames. But no sooner was this taken than a government committee claimed the right of sitting there, so the preparations for mining had to be postponed for six months. Before Christmas, however, they had opened a mine from the ground floor of their house, and advanced as far as the wall of the House of Lords; then they made slow progress in working their way through its medieval masonry. In March, however, they discovered that the cellar of the House of Lords might be hired, and on Lady Day, 1605, a bargain was struck for that purpose. They had now only to carry in their powder, and cover it with faggots of firewood, and the first part of their task had been accomplished with surprising facility. They then separated, to make preparations for what should follow when the blow was struck. For this it was necessary to procure more money, and by consequence to admit more members. Five were mentioned before, and five more, Christopher Wright, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Winter, and John Grant had been added since. Three richer men were now sworn in, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, and lastly, Francis Tresham. It was this thirteenth man who has been generally believed to have caused the detection of the plot, by a letter sent to his cousin Lord Monteagle on 26 October. This mysterious document, which is still extant, is written in a feigned hand, with an affectation if illiterateness and in the obscurest of styles. The recipient was warned against attending Parliament on the day appointed, and hints were added as to the specific character of a "terrible blow" that would befall it. "There [will] be no appearance of any stir"; "they shall not see who hurt them"; "the danger will be past as soon [i.e. quickly] as you have burnt this letter." Monteagle, having received this letter, first caused it to be read aloud at his table before some mutual friends of the conspirators, then he took it to the government.

Contrary to what might have been expected, no measures were taken for the security of the House, and the conspirators, who had heard of Monteagle's letter breathed again. Catesby had from the first laid down this principle, "Let us give an attempt, and where it faileth, pass no further." The attempt had not yet failed, they did not think the time had come to "pass no further". So the continued all their preparations, and their friends were invited to meet for a big hunt in Warwickshire on the fatal day. The official account of the government delay is briefly this: No one at first understood the inner meaning of the letter until it was shown to James, who "did upon the instant interpret and apprehend some dark phrases therein, and thereupon ordered a search to be made". That this story is not strictly true is acknowledged by every critic (See end of this article). Whatever the germ of truth in it may be, the delay in itself was far from sagacious. If the conspirators had not been foolhardy, they would have fled as soon as they knew that one of their number had turned informer. However, on the last day before that fixed for the explosion, an inspection of the precincts of the House was resolved upon and conducted by a high official, but led to no result. Yet another search was then ordered, on the pretext that some hangings of Parliament house had been purloined, and this was immediately successful. The powder was found and Fawkes, who was on the watch close by, was arrested. Next day (5 November) the conspirators fled to their rendezvous, and thus betrayed themselves. It was with difficulty that they got their own retainers to keep with them, the Catholics everywhere refusing them aid.

Their only chance, they thought, was to fly into Wales, where, in the hilly country, and among a people which had not yet fully accepted religious changes they might still possibly find safety. But on reaching Holbeche, in Worcestershire, they perceived that further retreat was impossible, and were preparing to sell their lives dearly when a chance spark exploded their store of powder, wounding some and discouraging all. It seemed a judgment of God, that those who had plotted with powder should perish through powder. Their eyes seemed to have been at length opened to the reality of their offence. They made their last confessions to a passing priest, Father Hammond, and they prepared without illusions for the fate that was before them. Next morning (8 November) they were attacked, and defended themselves bravely against heavy odds -- Catesby, Percy, and the two Wrights were killed, and the rest wounded and captured. After an almost endless series of examinations the survivors were put on their trials on 27 January, and executed on 31 January, 1606. Their deaths did them credit; in particular the last letters and verses of Sir Everard Digby, which were not intended for the public eye, and were not discovered or published till long after, produce the impression of a man who deserved a happier fate.

THE ATTEMPT TO INCRIMINATE THE CHURCH

We have already seen that the plot had been occasioned by the persecution. "If any one green leaf for Catholics could have been visibly discerned by the eye of Catesby, Winter, Garnet, Faux and the rest, they would neither have entered into practice [i.e. treason] nor missions nor combinations" ("True Relation", sig. M. 4). This was a boast of one of the king's ministers, to show how far toleration had ever been from their policy. Now their object was to make the plot an excuse for increasing the persecution. The following words of Lord Salisbury (4 Dec., 1605), to a private secretary of James, will show the spirit and method with which they addressed themselves to their task: "I have received from your directions to learn the names of those priests, which have been confessors and ministers of the sacraments to those conspirators, because it followeth indeed in consequence that they could not be ignorant of their purposes. For all men that doubt, resort to them for satisfaction, and all men use confession to obtain absolution." He then goes on to say that most of the conspirators "have wilfully forsworn that the priests knew anything in particular, and obstinately refuse to be accusers of them, yea what tortures soever they be put to." But, of course, the unfortunate victims were not able to resist indefinitely, and ere long the inquisitors discovered that the conspirators had frequented the Jesuit fathers for confession. So a proclamation was issued, 15 Jan., 1606, declaring that Fathers Henry Garnet, John Gerard, and Oswald Greenway (Greenwell) were proved to be co-operators in the plot "by divers confessions of many conspirators". This accusation was reaffirmed in no less than four Acts of Parliament (James I, cc. 1,2,4,5), in the indictment of the conspirators, and in other public documents, though as yet the government knew nothing of the real state of the case, of which we shall now hear. Indeed Salisbury afterwards confessed in an unguarded moment that it was by the hole-in-the-wall trick that "the Lords had some light and proof of matter against you [Garnet], which must otherwise have been discovered by violence and coertion". The true extent of the intercourse of the conspirators with the priests will be best shown, going back to the commencement and following the historical order.

Catesby, then, had been acquainted with Garnet since the close of Elizabeth's reign, and probably since his conversation, for he was a visitor at the house of the Vauxes and Brookesbys, with whom Garnet lived as chaplain. And as far back as May, 1604, he had noticed Catesby's aversion of mind from the king and government. On 29 Aug., 1604, he wrote to his superiors in Rome (apropos of the treaty of peace with Spain, which he hoped might contain a clause in favour of the English Catholics): "If the affair of toleration go not well, Catholics will no more be quiet. Jesuits cannot hinder it. Let the pope forbid all Catholics to stir." Next spring (8 May, 1605) he wrote in still more urgent tones: "All are desperate. Divers Catholics are offended with Jesuits, and say that Jesuits do impugn and hinder all forcible enterprises. I dare not inform myself of their plans, because of the prohibition of Father General for meddling in such affairs, and so I cannot give you an exact account. This I know by mere chance." The "desperation" referred to here was caused by the serious increase of persecution at this time. In particular Garnet had in mind the "little tumult" in Whales, where the Catholics had assembled in force (21 march, 1605) and had defiantly buried with religious ceremonies the body of Mrs. Alice Wellington, after the parson had refused to do so, because she was, he said, excommunicated (Cath. Record Society, ii, 291). Garnet's letter, which may have been backed by others, drew from Rome a letter ordering the archpriest Blackwell and himself, in mandato Papae, "to hinder by all possible means all conspiracies of Catholics. This prohibition was published by Blackwell, 22 July, 1605, and his letter is still extant (Record Office, Dom. Jac., xv, 13).

Till June, 1605, Garned had no serious suspicions of Catesby. On 9 June, however, at Garnet's lodging on Thames Street, London, Catesby asked him whether it were lawful to explode mines in war, even though some non-combatants might be killed together with the enemy's soldiers. Garnet, as any divine might do, answered in the affirmative, and thought no more about it, until Catesby came up to him when they were alone, and promised him never to betray the answer he had given. At this Garnet's suspicions were decidedly aroused, and at their next meeting, in July, he insisted on the need of patience, and on the prohibitions that had come from Rome of all violent courses. Catesby's answer calmed the Father's fears for the time, but still at their next meeting Garnet thought well to read to him the pope's prohibition of violent courses, which Blackwell was about to publish. Catesby's answer was not submissive; he was not bound, he said, to accept Garnet's word as to the pope's commands. Garnet rather weakly suggested that he should ask the pope himself, and to this the crafty conspirator at once consented, for with careful management he could thus stave off the papal prohibition, until it would be too late to stop. Though here and elsewhere Garnet does not show himself possessed of the wisdom of the serpent, his mild and straightforward conduct was not without its effect, even on the masterful Catesby. For only now, after having committed himself so thoroughly to his desperate enterprise, did he feel the need of consulting his confessor on its liceity, and told the story under the seal of confession to Father Greenway, and "so that he could reveal it to none but Garnet" (Foley, iv, 104). Not knowing what to do in the presence of such a danger, Greenway (26 July) came and consulted Garnet, of course again under the seal. Garnet conjured Greenway to do everything he possibly could to stop Catesby's mad enterprise, and Greenway afterwards solemnly declared that he had in truth done his best, "as much as if the life of the pope had been at stake" (Apologia", 258).

Catesby did not refuse to obey, and Garnet too easily assumed, until too late, that the attempt was, if not given up, postponed till the pope should be consulted, though in truth the plotting continued unchecked until all was discovered. Garnet afterwards asked pardon for this, admitting that between hope and fear, embarrassment and uncertainty, he had not taken absolutely all the means to stop the conspirators, which he might perhaps have taken on the strength of his general suspicions, even though he could do nothing in virtue of his sacramental knowledge. We have already seen that a proclamation for his arrest was issued on 15 January, 1606, and on 31 January he was found stiff and unable to move, after lying a week cramped in a hiding-hole with Father Oldcorne, the martyr, in the house of Mr. Abington at Hindlip, Worcestershire. At first Garnet successfully withstood every attempt to incriminate him, but he was finally thrown off his balance by stratagem. He was shown a chink in his door through which he might whisper to the cell of Father Oldcorne. Acting on the hint, the two Jesuits conferred on the matters that lay nearest to their hearts, making their confessions one to another, an recounting what questions they had been asked, and how they had answered; but spies, who had been stationed hard by, overheard all this confidential intercourse. After some days, Garnet was charged with one of his own confessions, and when he endeavoured to evade it, he found to his consternation that all his secrets were betrayed.

Though the extant reports of the spies show that the subjects overheard were by no means fully understood, Garnet was made to believe that the evidence was fatal and overwhelming against others, as well as against himself. Not knowing how to act, he thought hat his only course was to tell everything frankly and clearly, and so made use of the permission which Greenway had given him, to speak about the secret in case a case of grave necessity, after the matter had become public. The government thus eventually came to know the whole story. Though, in moments of supreme difficulty like these, Garnet seems somewhat lacking in worldly wisdom it is hard to see where we can definitely blame him, considering the simplicity of his character and the continuous deceptions practiced upon him, which were far more numerous than can be set forth here. "If I had been in Garnet's place", wrote Dr. Lingard to a friend, "I think I should have acted exactly as he did". In his public trial, on the other hand, he showed to advantage. Though attacked unscrupulously by the ablest lawyers of the day, and of course condemned, his defence was simple, honest, and convincing. His story could not be shaken.

After sentence he was long kept in prison, where further frauds were practised upon him. One of these was very subtle. Sir William Waade, Lieutenant of the Tower, wrote (4 April 1606): "I hope to use the means to make him acknowledge. . .that the discourse he had with Greenway of those horrible treasons was not in confession. I draw him to say he conceived it to be in confession" -- as if that were the first step to an acknowledgement that in truth it was not so -- "howsoever Greenway did understand it" (The Month, July, 1901). These last words about Greenway's dissenting from Garnet (which he never did), taken together with the presence in Waade's letter of an intercepted note from Garnet addressed to Greenway in prison (Greenway was really free and out of England), leads obviously to the inference that Waade had conveyed to Garnet the false information that Greenway was taken, and was alleging that he did not understand that their discourse was in confession. Garnet had in fact again been overreached, and had sent through his keeper (who feigned friendliness and volunteered to carry letters secretly) the note to Greenway, which had come into Waade's hands. If Garnet had not been clear about the fact of the confession both in mind and conscience, this note would most certainly have betrayed him; as it is, his letter, by its sincerity and consistency, offers to us convincing evidence of the truth of his story. Garnet's execution took place in St. Paul's churchyard, before a crowd, the like of which had never been seen before, on 3 May, 1606. As he had done at his trial, Garnet made a favourable impression on his audience. Being still under the illusions described above, he carefully avoided every appearance of claiming beforehand the victory of martyrdom, but this, in effect, rather increased than diminished the lustre of his faith, piety and patience.

The results of the plot on the fortunes of the English Catholics were indeed serious. The government made use of the anti-Catholic excitement to pass new and drastic measures of persecution. Besides a sweeping act of attainder, which condemned many innocent with the guilty, there was the severe Act 3 James I, c. 4, against recusants, which, amongst other new aggravations, introduced the ensnaring Oath of Allegiance. These laws were not repealed till 1846 (9 and 10 Vict. C. 59), though at earlier dates the Emancipation Acts and other relief bills had rendered their pains and penalties inoperative. Still more protracted has been the controversy to which the plot gave rise, of which in fact we have not yet seen the end. The fifth of November was celebrated by law (repealed in 1859) as a sort of legal feast-day of Protestant tradition. Fawkes's Christian name has became a byword for figures fit to be burned with derision, and "the traditional story" of the plot has been recounted again and again, garnished with all manner of unhistorical accretions. These accretions were confuted in 1897 by Father John Gerard in his "What the Gunpowder Plot was", which while professedly traversing Father Gerard's criticism, does not in truth attempt to re-establish "the traditional story", but only his (Gardiner's) own much more moderate account of the plot which he had previously published in his well known History.

This is the main difference between the two critics. In truth "the traditional story" may be exaggerated, and in need of correction in every detail, which is Father Gerard's contention; and yet Gardiner's view, that truth will be found a short way beneath the surface, may also be valid and sound. The most substantial divergence between the two is found in relation to the time at which they conceived the government heard of the Plot. If, as Father Gerard thinks (and he is not at all alone in his opinion), the government knew of it for some time before Monteagle's letter and yet allowed it to proceed, from that time it was no longer a conspiracy against the crown, but a conspiracy of the crown against political adversaries, whom they were luring on, by some agent provocateur, to their doom. In the case of the Babington Plot, indeed, we have direct proof that this was done in the letters of the provocateurs themselves. In this case, however, direct proof is wanting, and the conclusion is inferential only.

"Discourse of the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot", 1605, etc., etc.; "True and Perfect relation of the proceedings against the late Traitors" (reprinted in State Trials and translated into French and Latin -- "Actio in Henricum Garnettum et caeteros"); "The Calendars of State Papers and Hatfield Calendar" (Hist. MSS. Commission); JARDINE, "Criminal Trials, II (1832), and "A Narrative of the gunpowder Plot", 1857; GARDINER, "History of England" (1883), I; IDEM, "What the Gunpowder Plot was" (1889); "The Life of a Conspirator, being a biography of Sir Everard Digby, by one of his descendants (1895); GERARD, "What was Gunpowder Plot" (1897); "The Problem of the Gunpowder Plot" (1897); (cf. "The Month", 1894-1895, Dec. to May; 1896, May, June; 1897, Sept. Nov.); SPINK, "The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Monteagle's Letter (1902); SIDNEY, "A History of the Gunpowder Plot" (1904). For Fther Garnet see POLLEN, "Father Garnet and the Gunpowder Plot" (1888); "The Month", 1888, cf. 1901, June, July). EUDAEMON-JOANNES, "Apologia pro R. P. H. Garnetto (1610); ABBOTT, "Antilogia adversus A. Eudaemon-Joannem" (1611; CAUSABON, "Epistola ad Frontonem Ducaeum" (Ep. 730, ed. 1709). Also Dict. Nat. Biog., s. vv. "Catesby, Robert"; "Winter, Thomas", "Garnet, Henry"; "Coke, Edward"; Cecil, Robert"; etc.

J.H. POLLEN

Blessed Gunther

A hermit in Bohemia in the eleventh century; b. about 955; d. at Hartmanitz, Bohemia, 9 Oct., 1045. The son of a noble family, he was a cousin of St. Stephen, the King of Hungary, and is numbered among the ancestors of the princely house of Schwarzburg. He passed the earlier of his life at court in the midst of worldly pleasures and ambitious intrigues. He was converted in 1005 at the age of fifty by St. Gotthard, Abbot of Hersfeld, later Bishop of Hildesheim, and resolved to embrace the monastic life in order to do penance for his past faults. With the consent of his heirs, he bequeathed all his goods to the Abbey of Hersfeld, reserving the right to richly endow and maintain the monastery of Göllingen, the ownership of which he persisted in retaining despite all the efforts of St. Gotthard to prevent him. In 1006, the novice made a pilgrimage to Rome, and in the following year rnade his vows as lay brother in the monastery of Niederaltaich before the holy Abbot Gotthard. Soon afterwards, Gunther urgently entreated to be allowed to govern his monastery of Göllingen, and St. Gotthard's remonstrances could not turn him aside from his purpose. Shortly after his elevation to the abbacy, the former lay brother fell ill, and as he could not agree with his monks, the affairs of the monastery were soon in a perilous condition. By his charitable counsels mingled with severe reprimands, St. Gotthard succeeded in dispelling the ambitious delusions of Gunther, who returned once more to his humble condition at Niederaltaich, and led a edifying life.

In 1008, he withdrew to a wild, steep place near Lalling, to live as a hermit. In 1001 he penetrated farther north in the forest with several companions and settled at Rinchnach, where he built cells and a church of St. John Baptist. Here he lived for thirty-four years a life of the greatest poverty and mortification. The very water was measured out to the brothers, guests alone being free to use at as they wound. Although he had never learned more than the psalter, Gunther received from God, in reward for his excessive auserities, profound knowledge of the Holy Scripture and edified by his teaching all who came to visit him. Wolferus, his biographer, relates that he knew him intimately, and often heard his admirable sermons on his patron, St John the Baptist—sermons which drew tears from all who heard them. The holy hermit paid many visits to his relative the King of Hungary, obtained from him large alms for the poor, and urged him to build a number of churches and monasteries. Mabillon has reproduced the deed of donation made by King Stephen, 6 June, 1009. In 1029 Conrad II richly endowed the monastery of Rinchnach, and in 1040 Henry III affiliated it with the Abbey of Niederaltaich. Gunther died in the arms of Duke Brzetislaw of Poland, and of the Archbishop of Prague. He was buried in the church of Brzevnow but his remains were destroyed by the Hussites in 1420.

CANISIUS, Lectiones antiquae (2nd ed., Antwerp, 1725), III, 1, l83-189; MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B. (Venice) saec. VI, pt. I, 356-58 (Life of St. Gotthard); also 419- 428; Acta SS. (ed. Palme 1866), Oct., IV, 1054-1084; ROENICKIUS, Dissertatio de Gunthero eremita, reformationis sacr. XI suasore (Gottingen, 1759); BONAVENTUEA PITER, Thesaurus absconditus in agro seu monasterio Brzewnoviensi prope Pragam O.S.B. seu Guntherus confessor et eremita, clarus vita et miraculis (Brunn, 1762); WATTENBACH in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Scr., 1894, XI, 276-279; Deutschlands Geschichisquellen, 1874, 20; 1866, 24-29; 1894, 26; AIGNER in Kirchenlez., s.v.

J.M. BESSE

Anton Günther

Philosopher; b. 17 Nov., 1783, at Lindenau, near Leitmeritz, Bohemia; d. at Vienna, 24 February, 1863. From 1796 to 1800 he attended the monastic school of the Piarists at Haide, and from 1800 to 1803 the gymnasium of Leitmeritz. Subsequently he studied at Prague philosophy and jurisprudence. After completing these studies he became a tutor in the household of Prince Bretzenheim. The religious views of the young man, the son of devout Catholic parents, had been sadly shaken during the years of his student life by his study of the modern systems of philosophy (Kant, Fichte, Jacob, Schelling); but his removal in 1811 to Brunn near Vienna with the princely family mentioned above brought him under the influence of the parish priest of this place, named Korn, and particularly of Saint Clement Mary Hofbauer, and restored him to firm Christian convictions. He then took up the study of theology, first at Vienna and afterwards at Raab, Hungary, where in 1820 he was ordained to the priesthood. In 1822 he entered the Jesuit novitiate at Starawicz, Galicia, but left it in 1824. For the rest of his life he resided at Vienna as a private ecclesiastic, and until 1848 occupied a position in that city as member of the State Board of book Censorship.

From 1818 Günther was active in the world of letters as contributor to the "Viennese Literary Chronicle" (Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur). In 1828 began to appear the series of works in which he expounded his peculiar system of philosophy and speculative theology: "Vorschule zur speculativen Theologie des positiven Christenthums" (Introduction to the Speculative Theology of Positive Christianity), in letter form; part I: "Die Creationstheorie" (The Theory of Creation); part II "Die Incarnationstheorie" (The Theory of the Incarnation) (1st ed., Vienna, 1828-9; 2nd ed., 1846-8); "Peregrins Gastmahl. Eine Idylle in elf Octaven aus dem deutschen wissenschaftlichen Volksleben, mit Beiträgen zur Charakteristik europäischer Philosophie in älterer und neuerer Zeit" (Vienna, 1830; new ed., 1850); "Süd- und Nordlichter am Horizont speculativer Theologie, Fragment eines evangelischen Briefwechsels" (Vienna, 1832; new ed., 1850); "Janusköpfe für Philosophie und Theologie" (in collaboration with J. H. Pabst; Vienna, 1833); "Der letzte Symboliker. Eine durch die symbolischen Werke Dr. J. A. Möhlers und Dr. F. C. Baurs veranlasste Schrift in Briefen" (Vienna, 1834); "Thomas a Scrupulis. Zur Transfiguration der Persönlichkeits-Pantheismen neuester Zeit" (Vienna, 1835); "Die Juste-Milieus in der deutschen Philosophie gegenwärtiger Zeit" (Vienna, 1838); "Eurystheus und Herakles. Metalogische Kritiken und Meditationen" (Vienna, 1843). A new edition of these eight works, collected into nine volumes, appeared at Vienna in 1882 under the title of Günther's "Gesammelte Schriften". In addition to these, Günther produced in conjunction with J. E. Veith: "Lydia, Philosophisches Jahrbuch" (5 volumes, Vienna, 1849-54). A work, "Lentigos und Peregrins Briefwechsel", was printed in 1857, but was issued only for private circulation. Finally, long after Günther's death, Knoodt published from his posthumous papers "Anti-Savarese" (Vienna, 1883).

In all his scientific work, Günther aimed at the intellectual confutation of the Pantheism of modern philosophy, especially in its most seductive form, the Hegelian, by originating such a system of Christian philosophy as would better serve this purpose than the Scholastic system which he rejected, and would demonstrate clearly, even from the standpoint of natural reason, the truth of positive Christianity. As against this Pantheism, he seeks a speculative basis for Christian "Creationism" in the twofold dualism of God and the world, and, within the world, of spirit and nature; he furthermore strives to demonstrate scientifically that the fundamental teachings of the Christian Faith, and even the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, at least in their raison d'être if not in their form, are necessary truths in the mere light of reason. He would thus change faith into knowledge. A systematic and complete development of his ideas is not given in any of his works, not even in his "Introduction to Speculative Theology", in which one would most naturally look for it. Abounding in polemic against widely divergent schools of philosophy, of a style aphoristic, often quaintly humorous, and sparkling with flashes of genius, but frequently such in form and tenor as to prove little palatable to the reader, Günther's writings contain only sporadic fragments of his thought.

The starting-point of Günther's speculation is his theory of knowledge. Man is endowed with a twofold faculty of thought, the one a logical or conceptual function, which deals with appearances, and the other ontological, ideal, self-conscious, which penetrates through appearances to being; hence it is inferred that there are in man two essentially different thinking subjects. This "dualism of thought" establishes the dualism of spirit (Geist) and nature in man, who thus exhibits their synthesis. The subject of the conceptual function is the "mind" (Seele), which belongs to the nature-principle (Naturprincip). From the "mind" must be distinguished the "soul" (Geist), which differs from the former essentially as the subject of ideal thought. The first result of this ideal thought-process is self-consciousness, the knowledge which man acquires of himself as a real being. The immediate object of inner perception is the conditions or states of the Ego, which make their appearance as the expressions of the two primary functions, "receptivity" and "spontaneity", when these are called into activity by influences from without. Inasmuch as the soul refers the manifestations of these two forces to the one principle and contradistinguishes itself as a real being from whatever appears before it, it arrives at the idea of the Ego. By this speculative process, which Günther calls a "metalogical" or ideal (ideell) inference, as distinct from a logical or conceptual conclusion, the idea of its own being becomes for the soul the most certain of all truths (the Cartesian cogito ergo sum). Then from the certainty of its own existence the thinking soul arrives at the knowledge of an existence outside itself, since it is confronted by phenomena which it cannot refer to itself as cause, and for which, in line with the ontological inference, it must assign a cause in some real being external to itself.

Thus regarding man as a compound of two qualitatively different principles, spirit and nature, he arrives at the knowledge of the real existence of nature. The fact of self-consciousness leads him also to the knowledge of God; and Günther believes that the following proof of the existence of God is the only one that is possible and conclusive: when the soul, once self-conscious, has become certain of the reality of its own existence, it immediately recognizes that existence as afflicted with the negative characteristics of dependency and limitedness; it is therefore compelled to postulate another being as its own condition precedent or its own creator, which being it must recognize, in contradistinction to itself and its own inherent negative characteristics, as absolute and infinite. Wherefore this being cannot be the Absolute Being of Pantheism, which only arrives at a realization of itself with the development of the universe; it must be One Who dominates that universe and, differing substantially from it, is the personal Creator thereof. This is the point at which Günther's speculative theology takes up the thread. Proceeding along purely philosophical lines, and prescinding entirely from historical Divine Revelation, the absolute necessity of which Günther contests, it seeks to make evident the fundamental tenets of positive Christianity by the mere light of reason. Thus, to begin with, the threefold personality of God is, according to him, the consequence of that process which must be supposed to take place in God as well as in the created soul, whereby the differentiation or transition is made from indeterminateness to determinateness, with the difference that this process in God must be thought of as consummated from all eternity. God, according to this theory, first sets up for His own contemplation a complete substantial emanation (Wesensemanation) of His own Being (Thesis and Antithesis: Father and Son); a further total substantial emanation, which issues from both simultaneously, constitutes the third personal Subject (the Holy Ghost), or the Synthesis, in which the opposition of thesis and antithesis disappears and their perfect parity is made manifest.

On his views concerning the Trinity, Günther builds up his theory of the Creation. Inseparably united with the self-consciousness of God in the three Divine Persons is His idea of the Non-Ego, that is, the idea of the Universe. This idea, in formal analogy to the threefold Divine Being and Life, has likewise a threefold scheme of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. God's love for this world-idea is His motive for realizing it as His own counterpart (Contraposition), and as necessarily entailing all three of its factors, two of which (spirit and nature) are in antithesis to each other, while the third (man) exists as the synthesis of both. This world-reality, which God, by the mere act of His will, has through creation called from nothingness into being, does indeed exist as really as God Himself; its reality, however, is not drawn from the essence of God, but endures as a thing essentially different from Him, since it is indeed the realized idea of non-Divine Being and Life (Dualism of God and Universe). Thus the two antithetical factors of spirit and nature in the created world differ substantially from each other and stand in mutual opposition. The antithetical relation of spirit and nature shows itself in this, that the realm of the purely spiritual is formed of a plurality of substances, of unitary and integral real principles, each of which must ever retain its unity and its integrity; while nature, which was created a single substance, a single real principle, has in its process of differentiation lost its unity for ever, and has brought forth, and still brings forth, a multiplicity of forms or individuals. For this very reason nature, in her organic individual manifestations, each of which is only a fragment of the universal nature-substance, can only attain to thought without self-consciousness. Self-conscious thought, on the other hand, is peculiar to the spirit, since self-consciousness, the thought of the Ego, presupposes the substantial unity and integrity of a free personality. The synthesis of spirit and nature is man. From man's character as a generic being, the result of his participation in the life of nature, Günther deduces the rational basis of the dogmas of the Incarnation and Redemption. And, as this explains why the guilt of the first parent extends to the entire race, so also does it show how God could with perfect consistency bring about the redemption of the race which had fallen in Adam through the God-Man's union with that race as its second Head, Whose free compliance with the Divine will laid the basis of the fund of hereditary merit which serves to cancel the inherited guilt.

Günther was a faithful Catholic and a devout priest. His philosophical labours were at any rate a sincere and honest endeavour to promote the triumph of positive Christianity over those systems of philosophy which were inimical to it. But it is questionable whether he pursued the right course in disregarding the fruitful labours of Scholastic theology and philosophy–of which, like all who scorn them, he had but scanty knowledge–and permitting his thought, particularly in his natural philosophy, and his speculative method to be unduly influenced by those very systems (of Hegel and Schelling) which he combated. The fact is that the desired result was in no wise attained. The schools of philosophy which he thought he could compel, by turning their own weapons against them, to recognize the truth of Christianity, took practically no notice of his ardent contentions, while the Church not only was unable to accept his system as the true Christian philosophy and to supplant with it the Scholastic system, but was finally obliged to reject it as unsound.

Among Catholic scholars Günther's speculative system occasioned a far-reaching movement. Though he never held a position as professor, he gathered about him through his writings a school of enthusiastic, and in some instances distinguished, followers, who, on the other hand, were opposed by eminent philosophers and theologians. At its zenith the school was powerful enough to secure the appointment of some of its members to academic professorships in Catholic philosophy. Günther himself was offered professorships at Munich, Bonn, Breslau, and Tübingen; he refused these because he hoped for a like offer from Vienna, but his expectation was never realized. In 1833 he received from Munich an honorary degree of Doctor of Theology, and a similar degree in philosophy and theology was conferred on him by the University of Prague in 1848. His earliest friends and collaborators were: the physician, Johann Heinrich Pabst (d. 1838, author of "Der Mensch und seine Geschichte", Vienna, 1830; 2nd ed., 1847; "Gibt es eine Philosophie des positiven Christenthums?" Cologne, 1832; "Adam und Christus. Zur Theorie der Ehe", Vienna, 1835; in collaboration with Günther, the "Janusköpfe"); the celebrated homilist Johann Emmanual Veith, a convert (d. 1876, co-editor of the publication "Lydia"); and Karl Franz von Hock (d. 1869; wrote "Cartesius und seine Gegner, ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der philosophischen Bestrebungen unserer Zeit", Vienna, 1835, and other works; later took an active part in the discussion of political and economical questions). Other prominent adherents of Günther were: Johann Heinrich Löwe (professor of philosophy at Salzburg, 1839-51; at Prague, 1851); Johann Nepomuk Ehrlich (d. 1864; from 1836 taught philosophy in Krems; in 1850 became professor of moral theology at Graz, in 1852 at Prague, where in 1856 he became professor of fundamental theology); Jakob Zukrigl (d. 1876; professor of apologetics and philosophy at Tübingen, 1848); Xaver Schmid (d. 1883; in 1856 he became a Protestant); Jakob Merten (d. 1872); professor of philosophy in the seminary of Trier, 1845-68); Karl Werner (d. 1888; professor at St. Pölten, 1847; at Vienna, 1870); Theodor Gangauf, O.S.B. (d. 1875; professor of philosophy at the college of Augsburg, 1841-75, and simultaneously, 1851-59, Abbot of the Benedictine convent of St. Stephen's at the same place); Johann Spörlein (d. 1873; from 1849 professor at the college of Bamberg); Georg Karl Mayer (d. 1868; from 1842 professor at the college of Bamberg); Peter Knoodt (d. 1889; from 1845 professor of philosophy at Bonn); Peter Joseph Elvenich (d. 1886; from 1829 professor of philosophy at Breslau, at first a Hermesian and later a disciple of Günther); Johann Baptist Baltzer (d. 1871; from 1830 professor of dogmatic theology at Breslau, originally a Hermesian); Joseph Hubert Reinkens (d. 1896; from 1853 professor of church history at Breslau; from 1873 Old Catholic bishop at Bonn). Finally, in a younger generation, the most distinguished advocates of the system were pupils of Knoodt, Theodor Weber (d. 1906; professor of philosophy at Breslau, 1872-90; from 1890 vicar-general under Reinkens at Bonn, and from 1896 Old Catholic bishop in that city), whose "Metaphysik" (2 vols., Gotha, 1888-91), containing an independent reconstruction of Günther's speculation, is on the whole the most important work of the Güntherian School, and Ernst Melzer (d. in 1899 at Bonn).

Among the literary opponents of Günther's philosophy the following deserve mention: Johann Hast, Wenzeslaus Mattes, P. Volkmuth, P. Ildephons Sorg, O.S.B., Johann Nepomuk Oischinger, Franz Xaver Dieringer, Franz Jakob Clemens, Friedrich Michelis, Johann Adam Hitzfelder, Joseph Kleutgen, Johannes Katshthaler.

The Congregation of the Index in Rome began in 1852 an investigation of Günther's doctrines and writings, Günther being invited to appear personally or to send some of his disciples to represent him. This mission was entrusted to Baltzer and Gangauf who arrived at Rome in November, 1853. Gangauf was replaced by Knoodt in the summer of 1854. The latter and Baltzer laboured together until the end of November in that year, when they submitted their written defence to the Congregation of the Index and returned to Germany. These efforts, however, and the favourable intervention of friends in high station failed to avert the final blow, though they served to defer it for a time. Cardinals Schwarzenberg and Diepenbrock, and Bishop Arnoldi of Trier, were friendly to Günther and assisted him at Rome. Even the head of the Congregation of the Index, Cardinal d'Andrea, was well-disposed towards him. On the other hand, Cardinals von Geissel, Rauscher, and Reisach urged his condemnation. The Congregation, by decree of 8 January, 1857, placed the works of Günther on the Index. The special grounds of this condemnation were set forth by Pius IX in the Brief addressed by him to Cardinal von Geissel, Archbishop of Cologne, on 15 June, 1857, which declares that Günther's teachings on the Trinity, the Person of Christ, the nature of man, the Creation, and particularly his views on the relation of faith to knowledge, as well as the fundamental rationalism, which is the controlling factor of his philosophy even in the handling of Christian dogmas, are not consistent with the doctrine of the Church.

Before the publication of the Index decree, Günther had been summoned to submit thereto, and in fact had declared his acquiescence, but for him internal submission and rejection of his errors was out of the question. He felt keenly the blow, which he looked upon as an injustice and which embittered him; but subsequently he published nothing. Some of his followers, like Merten, now turned away from Güntherianism, but the greater number held to it obstinately, and for many years it found academic support at Bonn (through Knoodt) and at Breslau (through Elvenich and Weber). After the Vatican Council most of the Güntherians named above who were still living at the time (with the exception of Veith) joined the Old Catholic movement, in which some of them assumed leading parts. Their hopes of thus imparting new vigour to Güntherianism were not realized, whereas, by their separation from the Church, they brought about the final elimination of Güntherian influence from Catholic thought.

Knoodt, Anton Günther, Eine Biographie (2 vols., Vienna, 1881); Idem in Allgem. Deutsche Biog., X (1879), 146-67; Weber in Ersch and Gruber, Allgem. Encykl. der Wissenschaften und Künste, Sect. i, pt. xcvii (Leipzig, 1878), 313-33; KÜpper in Kirchenlex., V (1888), s. v.; Hurter, Nomenclator, III (Innsbruck, 1895), col. 936-9; Schindele in Kirchliches Handlex., I (1907), 1816-8. Other works bearing on Günther's philosophy are: Merten, Haputfragen der Metaphysik in Verbindung mit der Speculation, Versuch über die Güntherische Philosophie (Trier, 1840); da SchÜtz, Hegel und Günther (Leipzig, 1842); Zukrigl, Wissenschaftliche Rechtfertigung der christlichen Trinitätslehre (Vienna, 1846); Idem, Kritische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der vernünftigen Geistseels und der psychischen Leiblichkeit des Menschen (Ratisbon, 1854); Trebisch, Die christliche Weltanschauung in ihrer Bedeutung für Wissenschaft und Leben (Vienna, 1852); GÄrtner, Die Welt, angeschaut in ihren Gegensätzen: Geist und Natur (Vienna, 1852); Mayer, Der Mensch nach der Glaubenslehre der allgem. Kirche und im speculativen System Günthers (Bamberg, 1854-6); Kastner, Die philosophischen Systeme Anton Günthers und Martin Deutingers in Programm des Lyceums zu Regensburg (1873); Flegel, Günthers Dualismus von Geist und Natur, aus den Quellen dargestellt (Breslau, 1880); Schmid, Wissenschaftliche Richtungen auf dem Gebiete des Katholicismus (Munich, 1862), 7-12; Werner, Gesch. der katholischen Theologie (Munich, 1866), 452-64, 624-8; Ueberweg, Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie, IV (9th ed., Berlin, 1902), 182-4. The following works in refutation may be noted: Hast, Ueber das historische Auffassen und wissenschaftliche Erfassen des Christenthums; zur Würdigung der Speculation der Günther'schen Schule (Münster, 1834); Mattes, Günther und sein Verhältniss zur neuen theologischen Schule in Theologische Quartalschrift (1844), 347-416; Volkmuth, Kritik der Günther'schen Glaubenstheorie in Katholische Vierteljahresschrift für Wissenschaft und Kunst (1847-8); Oischinger, Die Günther'sche Philosophie mit Rücksicht auf die Gesch. und das System der Philosophie, sowie auf die christliche Religion dargestellt und gewüudigt (Sdchaffhausen, 1852); Dieringer, Dogmatische Erörterungen mit einem Güntherianer (Mainz, 1852); Sorg, Die Unhaltbarkeit des speculativen Systems der Güntherianer nachgewiesen von kirchlich-dogmatischen Standpunkte (Graz, 1851); Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit (4 vols., Münster, 1853; 2nd ed., 1867); Clemens, Die speculative Theologie A. Günthers und die katholische Kirchenlehre (Cologne, 1853); Idem, Die Abweichung der Günther'schen Speculation von der katholischen Kirchenlehre (Cologne, 1853; against Baltzer); Idem, Offene Darlegung des Walterspruchens der Günther'schen Speculation mit der katholischen Kirchenlehre durch Herrn Prof. Dr. Knoodt in seiner Schrift: Günther und Clemens (Cologne, 1853); Michelis, Kritik der Günther'schen Philosophie (Paderborn, 1854); Hitzfeldner, Die neuesten Verhandlungen über die speculative Theologie Günthers und seiner Schule in Theolog. Quartalschrift (1854), 3 sqq.; Idem, Die Theologie und Polemik der Güntherianer in Theol. Quartalschrift (1854), 589 sqq.; Vraetz, Speculative Begründung der Lehre der katholischen Kirche über die Wesen der menschlichen Seele und ihr Verhältniss zum Körper (Cologne, 1865); Katschthaler, Zwei Thesen für das allgemeine Concil von Dr. G. K. Mayer (2 parts, Ratisbon, 1868-70; Mayer's publication, Bamberg, 1867). In defence of Güntherianism: Baltzer and Knoodt (replies to Volkmuth) in Katholische Vierteljahresschrift für Wissenschaft und Kunst (1848); Baltzer, Neue theologische Briefe am Dr. A. Günther; ein Gericht für seine Ankläger (2nd series; Breslau, 1853); Knoodt, Günther und Clemens, I-III (Vienna, 1853-4).

Friedrich Lauchert.

Günther of Cologne

(also GUNTHAR)

An archbishop of that city, died 8 July, 873. He belonged to a noble Frankish family and, if we may believe the poet Sedulius Scottus (Carm. 68 sqq. in "Mon. Germ. Hist.", Poetæ Lat., III, 221 sqq.), was a man of great ability. He was consecrated Archbishop of Cologne on 22 April, 850 (Annal. Col., ad an. 850). For a long time he refused to cede his suffragan Diocese of Bremen to St. Ansgar who, in order to facilitate his missionary labours, desired to unite it with his Archdiocese of Hamburg. The affair was finally settled (c. 860) by Nicholas I in favour of St. Ansgar, and Günther reluctantly consented. Günther, who had become arch-chaplain of King Lothair II, received an unenviable notoriety through his unjustifiable conduct in the divorce of this licentious king from his lawful wife Thietberga. At a synod held at Aachen in January, and another in February, 860, a few bishops and abbots, under the leadership of Günther, compelled Thietberga to declare that before her marriage with the king she had been violated by her brother. Upon her compulsory confession the king was allowed to discard her and she was condemned to a convent. At a third synod held at Aachen in April, 862, Günther and a few other Lorrainese bishops allowed the king to marry his concubine Waldrada. Nicholas I sent two legates to investigate the case, but the king bribed them, and at a synod which they held in Metz, in June, 863, the divorce was approved. Günther and his tool Thietgaud, Archbishop of Trier, were bold enough to bring the acts of the synod to the pope and ask for his approval. The pope convened a synod in the Lateran in October, 863, at which the decision of the Synod of Mets was rejected, and Günther and Thietgaud, who refused to submit, were excommunicated and deposed. The two archbishops drew up a calumnious document of seven chapters (reprinted in P. L., CXXI, 377-380) in which they accused the pope of having unjustly excommunicated them. They sent copies of the document to the pope, the rebellious Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, and to the bishops of Lorraine. The pope, however, did not waver even when Emperor Louis II appeared before Rome with an army for the purpose of forcing him to withdraw the ban of excommunication from the archbishops. Though excommunicated and deposed, Günther returned to Cologne and performed ecclesiastical functions on Maundy Thursday, 864. When, however, the other bishops of Lorraine and King Lothair submitted to the pope, Günther and Thietgaud appeared before the synod which the pope convened at Rome in November, 864, asking to be released from excommunication and restored to their sees, but they were unsuccessful. After the accession of Adrian II, Günther and Thietgaud returned to Rome in 867. Thietgaud was now freed from the ban, but Günther remained excommunicated until the summer of 869, when, after a public retraction (P. L., CXXI, 381), he was admitted by the pope to lay communion at Monte Cassino. The See of Cologne had in 864 been given by Lothair to the subdeacon Hugo, a nephew of Charles the Bald. He was deposed in 866 and Günther regained his see. Being under the ban, Günther engaged his brother Hilduin of Cambrai to perform ecclesiastical functions in his place. After the death of Günther's protector, Lothair II, Willibert was elected Archbishop of Cologne (7 January, 870). Seeing that all efforts to regain his see would be useless, Günther acknowledged the new archbishop and left Cologne for good.

MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London and St. Louis, 1906), III, passim; DÜMMLER, Gesch. des ostfränkischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1887), I, II; FLOSS in Kirchenlex.; CARDAUNS in Allgemeine Deutsche Biog.; HEFELE, Conciliengesch., IV; ENNEN, Gesch. der Stadt Cöln (Cologne, 1862), I, 202 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT.

Diocese of Gurk

(GURCENSIS)

A prince-bishopric of Carinthia, suffragan to Salzburg, erected by Archbishop Gebhard of Salzburg, with the authorization of Pope Alexander II (21 March, 1070) and Emperor Henry IV (4 Feb., 1072). The first bishop installed was Günther von Krapffeld (1072-90). The right of appointment, consecration, and investiture of the Bishop of Gurk was reserved to the Archbishop of Salzburg. The episcopal residence was not at Gurk, but in the neighbouring castle at Strasburg. The boundaries of the diocese were only defined in 1131, by Archbishop Konrad I of Salzburg. Originally the territory embraced was small, but the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Gurk extended beyond the limits of his diocese, inasmuch as he was also vicar-general of that part of Carinthia under the Archbishop of Salzburg. Under Bishop Roman I (1132-67) the cathedral chapter obtained the right of electing the bishop, and it was only after a contest of a hundred years that the metropolitan regained the right of appointment. Dissensions did not cease, however, for at a later date the sovereign claimed the right of investiture. Finally, on 25 October, 1535, the Archbishop of Salzburg, Matthäus Lang, concluded with the House of Austria an agreement which is still in force, according to which the nomination of the Bishop of Gurk is to rest twice in succession with the sovereign and every third time with the Archbishop of Salzburg; under all circumstances the archbishop was to retain the right of confirmation, consecration, and investiture. The diocese received an accession of territory under Emperor Joseph II in 1775, and again in 1786. The present extent of the diocese, embracing the whole of Carinthia, dates only from the reconstitution of the diocese in 1859. The episcopal residence was, in 1787, transferred to the capital of Carinthia, Klagenfurt. Prominent among the prince-bishops of modern times was Valentin Wiery (1858-80). Dr. Joseph Kahn has been prince-bishop since 1887.

According to the census of 1906, the Catholic population of the diocese is 369,000, of whom three-fourths are German and the rest Slovenes. The 24 deaneries embrace 345 parishes. The cathedral chapter at Klagenfurt consists of three mitred dignitaries; five honorary and five stipendiary canons. Among the institutions of religious orders the Benedictine Abbey of St. Paul (founded in 1091; suppressed in 1782; restored in 1807) holds first place. There are also Jesuits at Klagenfurt and St. Andrä; Dominicans at Friesach; Capuchins at Klagenfurt and Wolfsberg; Franciscans at Villach; Olivetans at Tanzenberg; Servites at Kötsehach; Brothers of Mercy at St. Veit on the Glan (in charge of an immense hospital founded in 1877); and a number of religious communities of women for the care of the sick and the instruction of youth. The clergy are trained in the episcopal seminary at Klagenfurt, which has been, since 1887, under the direction of the Jesuits. The professors are Benedictines from the Abbey of St. Paul and Jesuits. The education of aspirants to the priesthood is provided for at Klagenfurt, in a preparatory seminary established by Bishop Wiery in 1860 and enlarged by Bishop Kahn. At St. Paul's the Benedictines conduct a private gymnasium with the privileges of a government school. At Klagenfurt there is also a Catholic teachers' seminary under ecclesiastical supervision. Chief among the examples of ecclesiastical architecture, both in point of age and artistic interest, is the cathedral at Gurk, which dates back to the beginnings of the diocese, having been completed about 1220. Also worthy of note are the Gothic cloister of the church at Milstadt and, as monuments of Gothic architecture, the parish churches at St. Leonard in the Lavant-Thal, Heiligenblut, Villach, Völkermarkt, Grades (St. Wolfgang), and Waitschach. One of the largest and most beautiful churches of Carinthia is the recently renovated (1884-90) Dominican church at Friesach. The present cathedral at Klagenfurt was built in 1591 by the Protestants; in 1604 it was acquired by the Jesuits, and consecrated in honour of the Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul. Prominent among the places of pilgrimage in the diocese is Maria Saal, visited annually by from 15,000 to 20,000 pilgrims. Among Catholic associations special mention should be made of those for the advancement of the Catholic Press and for the diffusion of good books: for the German population, the St. Joseph's Verein founded at Klagenfurt in 1893, and the St. Joseph's Book Confraternity; for the Slovenes, the St. Hermagoras Verein, established in 1852 (1860), with its headquarters at Klagenfurt, and widely established among Slovenes in other dioceses.

VON JAKSCH, Monumenta historica ducatus Carinthiœ, I-III (Klagenfurt, 1896-1904), I and II: Die Gurker Geschichtsquellen; Mon. Germ. Hist., Script., XXIII, 8-10: Chronicon Gurcense; ibid., Necrologia, II, 448-54: Necrologium Gurcense; GREINZ in Die Katholische Kirche unserer Zeit und ihre Diener im Wort und Bild, II (Munich, 1900), 447-53; II (2nd ed., Munich, 1907), 293-98; NEHER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; GREINZ in Kirchliches Handlex., s. v.; SCHROLL, Series episc. Gurcensium in Archiv für vaterländische Gesch. und Topographie, ed. Historical Society for Carinthia (Klagenfurt 1885), XV, 1-43; HIRN, Kirchen- und reichsgeschichtliche Verhältnisse des Salzburgischen Suffraganbisthums Gurk (Innsbruck, 1872); CIGOI, Das sociale Wirken der katholischen Kirche in der Diöcese Gurk (Herzogthum Kärnten) (Vienna, 1896) in Das sociale Wirken der katholischen Kirche in Oesterreich, I; MÜLLER, Das Diöcesanseminar und die theologische Lehranstalt in Klaqenfurt in ZSCHOKKE, Die theologischen Studien und Anstalten der katholischen Kirche in Oesterreich (Vienna, 1894), 725-43. Many special contributions to diocesan history are contained in the periodicals Archiv für vaterländische Geschichte und Topographie and Carinthia.

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT.

Jean-Pierre Gury

Moral theologian; b. at Mailleroncourt, Haute-Saône, 23 January, 1801; d. at Merc ur, Haute Loire, 18 April, 1866; entered the Society of Jesus at Montrouge, 22 August, 1824; he taught moral theology for thirty-five years at the seminary of Vals, France, 1834-47 and 1848-66, and for one year at Rome, 1847-48. It was in 1850, after his return from Rome necessitated by the events of 1848, that the first edition of his "Compendium theologiæ moralis" appeared, which at the time of the author's death had reached the seventeenth edition, to mention neither the German translation of Wesselack (Ratisbon, 1858), not the imitations and adaptations published in Belgium, Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany. In the last-named country the annotated edition of Professor Seitz itself already reached the fifth edition in 1874 (Ratisbon). Deserving of note is the specially annotated edition of A. Ballerini and D. Palmieri (Prato, 15th ed., 1907); the edition of Dumas (5thed., Lyons, 1890); the abridged edition of Sabetti-Barret (New York and Cincinnati, 1902, 16th ed.); the edition adapted to Spain and Latin America by Ferreres (Barcelona, 4th ed., 1909); finally the "Compendium ad mentis P. Gury" by Bulot (Tournay and Paris, 1908). In 1862, Gury published his "Casus conscientiæ in præcipuas quæstiones theologiæ moralis". Of this work the following editions have appeared: Dumas, 8th ed., Lyons, 1891; Ferreres, for the second time in 1908 (Barcelona); and a German edition at Ratisbon (7th ed., 1886).

The brevity of the compendium led inevitably to a lack of scientific solidarity. For the uses of his classes at Vals, Gury lithographed a more scientific manual which was unhappily never published. His mind was essentially practical, orderly and clear. His method was to proceed by question and answer, taking in the exposition of principles and their conclusions, and finally adding the discussion of more special points. He also knew how to blend happily in his lessons solidity and variety, a quality that gained for him the appointment to the chair of moral theology at the Roman College from Father General Roothaan. Opportunity for actual contact with souls was afforded him by numerous confessions, which he heard during retreats and missions conducted by him in vacations. An ardent follower of Busenbaum and of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, he contributed largely towards the extirpation of Jansenism, and is accounted besides one of the restorers of the old casuistic method, a fact that made him worthy of personifying the "Jesuit Moral" in the eyes of some, who, especially in Germany, attacked his doctrine.

De Backer-Sommervogel, Bibl. Des écrivains de la Comp. De Jésus; Duhr, Jesuiten-Fabeln, 3rd ed., 446 sqq.; Hurter, Nomenclator; Noldin in Kirchenlex.; Etudes religieuses (Paris, 1867); Kirchliches Handlexikon; Literarischer Handweiser (1867), c. 244; (1875), c. 74-8, 107-11, 207-13; Desjardins, Vie du R.P. J.P. Gury (Paris, 1867).

J. SALSMANS

Bartholomeu Lourenço de Gusmão

Naturalist, and the first aeronaut; b. in 1685 at Santos in the province of São Paulo, Brazil; d. 18 November, 1724, in Toledo, Spain. He began his novitiate in the Society of Jesus at Bahia when he was about fifteen years old, but left the same in 1701. He went to Portugal and found a patron at Lisbon in the person of the Marquess d'Abrantes. He completed his course of study at Coimbra, devoting his attention principally to philology and mathematics, but received the title of Doctor of Canon Law. Heis said to have had a remarkable memory and a great command of languages. In 1709 he presented a petition to King John V of Portugal, begging a privilege for his invention of an airship, in which he expressed the greatest confidence. The contents of this petition have been preserved, as well as a picture and description of his airship. Following after Francesco Lana, S.J., Gusmão wanted to spread a huge sail over a bark like the cover of a transport wagon; the bark itself was to contain tubes through which, when there was no wind, air would be blown into the sail by means of bellows. The vessel was to be propelled by the agency of magnets which, apparently, were to be encased in two hollow metal balls. The public test of the machine, which was set for 24 June, 1709, did not take place. According to contemporary reports, however, Gusmão appears to have made several less ambitious experiments with this machine, descending from eminences. His contrivance in the main represented the principle of the kite (aeroplane). In all probability he did not have magnets in the aforementioned metal shells, but gases and hot air generated by the combustion of various materials. It is certain that Gusmão was working on this principle at the public exhibition he gave before the Court on 8 August, 1709, in the hall of the Casa da India in Lisbon, when he propelled a ball to the roof by combustion. The king rewarded the inventor by appointing him to a professorship at Coimbra and made him a canon. He was also one of the fifty chosen members of the Academia Real da Historia, founded in 1720; and in 1722 he was made chaplain to the Court. He busied himself with other inventions also, but in the meantime continued his work on his airship schemes, the first idea for which he is said to have conceived while a novice at Bahia. His experiments with the aeroplane and the hot-air balloon led him to conceive a project for an actual airship, or rather a ship to sail in the air, consisting of a cleverly designed triangular pyramid filled with gas, but he died before he was able to carry out this idea. The fable about the Inquisition having forbidden him to continue his aeronautic investigations and having persecuted him because of them, is probably a later invention. The only fact really established by contemporary documents is that information was laid against him before the Inquisition, but on quite another charge. He fled to Spain and fell ill of a fever, of which he died in Toledo. He wrote: "Manifesto summario para os que ignoram poderse navegar pelo elemento do ar" (1709): "Varios modos de esgotar sem gente as naus que fazem agua" (1710); some of his sermons also have been printed.

Biographie Universelle, XIX (Paris, 1817), 218-220; CARVALHO, Memoria que tem por objecto revindicar para a nação portugueza a gloria da invenção das machinas aerostaticas (Lisbon, 1843); SIMÕES, A invenção dos aerostatos reivindicada (Evora, 1868); MOEDEBECK, Zeitschrift für Luftschiffahrt (1893), 1-10; JOÃO JALLES, Os balões (Lisbon, 1887); WILHELM, An der Wiege der Luftschiffahrt, Pt. II (Hamm, Westphalia, 1909).

B. WILHELM

Johann Gutenberg

(Henne Gänsfleisch zur Laden, commonly called Gutenberg).

Inventor of printing; born about 1400; died 1467 or 1468 at Mainz. Gutenberg was the son of Friele (Friedrich) Gänsfleisch and Else Wyrich. His cognomen was derived from the house inhabited by his father and his paternal ancestors "zu Laden, zu Gutenberg". The house of Gänsfleisch was one of the patrician families of the town, tracing its lineage back to the thirteenth century. From the middle of the fourteenth century there were two branches, the line to which the inventor belongs and the line of Sorgenloch. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it scions claimed an hereditary position as so-called Hausgenossen, or retainers of the household, of the master of the archiepiscopal mint. In this capacity they doubtless acquired considerable knowledge and technical skill in metal working. They supplied the mint with the metal to be coined, changed the various species of coins, and had a seat at the assizes in forgery cases. Of Johann Gutenberg's father, Friele Gänsfleisch, we know only that he was married in 1386 to Else Wyrich, daughter of a burgher of Mainz, Werner Wyrich zum steinern Krame (at the sign of the pottery shop), and that he died in 1419, his wife dying in 1433. Of their three children — Friele (d. 1447), Else, and Johann — the last-named (the inventory of typography) was born some time in the last decade of the fourteenth century, presumably between 1394 and 1399, at Mainz in the Hof zum Gutenberg, known today as Christophstrasse, 2.

All that is known of his youth is that he was not in Mainz in 1430. It is presumed that he migrated for political reasons to Strasburg, where the family probably had connections. The first record of Gutenberg's sojourn in Strasburg dates from 14 March, 1434. He took a place befitting his rank in the patrician class of the city, but he also at the same time joined the goldsmiths' guild — quite an exceptional proceeding, yet characteristic of his untiring technical activity. The trades which Gutenberg taught his pupils and associates, Andreas Dritzehn, Hans Riffe, and Andreas Heilmann, included gem-polishing, the manufacture of looking-glasses and the art of printing, as we learn from the records of a lawsuit between Gutenberg and the brothers Georg and Klaus Dritzehn. In these records, Gutenberg appears distinctly as technical originator and manager of the business. Concerning the "new art", one witness states that, in his capacity of goldsmith, he had supplied in 1436 "printing requisites" to the value of 100 gulden; mention is also made of a press constructed by Konrad Saspach, a turner, with peculiar appliances (screws). The suit was therefore obviously concerned with experiments in typography, but no printed matter that can be traced to these experiments has so far come to light.

The appearance at Avignon of the silversmith Waldvogel, who taught "artificial writing" there in 1444, and possessed steel alphabets, a press with iron screws and other contrivances, seems to have had some connection with the experiments of Gutenberg. As of Gutenberg's, so of Waldvogel's early experiments, no sample has been preserved. In the year 1437 Gutenberg was sued for "breach of promise of marriage" by a young patrician girl of Strasburg, Ennel zur eisernen Tür. There is nothing to show whether this action led to a marriage or not, but Gutenberg left Strasburg, presumably about 1444. He seems to have perfected at enormous expense his invention shortly afterwards, as is shown by the oldest specimens of printing that have come down to us ("Weltgerichtsgedicht", i.e. the poem on the last judgment, and the "Calendar for 1448"). The fact that Arnolt Gelthuss, a relative of Gutenberg, lent him 150 gulden in the year 1448 at Mainz points to the same conclusion. In 1450 Gutenberg formed a partnership with the wealthy burgher, Johann Fust of Mainz, for the purpose of completing his contrivance and of printing the so-called "42-line Bible", a task which was finished in the years 1453-1455 at the Hof zum Humbrecht (today Schustergasse, 18, 20). Fust brought suit in 1455 to recover the 2000 gulden he had advanced and obtained judgment for a portion of the amount with interest. As a result of Gutenberg's insolvency, the machinery and type which he had made and pledged to Fust became the property of the latter. In addition to the types for the 42-line Bible, the mortgage covered the copious stock of type which had evidently been already prepared for the edition of the Psalter, which was printed by Fust and Schäffer in August, 1457. This included new type in two sizes, as well as the world-famous initial letters with their ingenious contrivance for two-color printing. About 1457 Gutenberg also parted with his earliest-constructed founts of type, which he had made for the 36-line Bible, and which were in existence as early as the fourth decade of the century. Long before this Bible was printed the type had been used in an edition of the "Weltgerichtsgedicht", in the "Calendar for 1448", in editions of Donatus, and various other printed works. Most of this type fell into the possession of Albrecht Pfister in Bamberg. Gutenberg next manufactured a new printer's outfit with the assistance he received from Conrad Humery, a distinguished and wealthy doctor of law, leader of the popular party, and chancellor of the council. This outfit comprised a set of small types fashioned after the round cursive handwriting used in books at that time and ornamented with an extraordinary number of ligatures. The type was used in the so-called "Catholicon" (grammar and alphabetic lexicon) in the year 1460, and also in several small books printed in Eltville down to the year 1472 by the brothers Echtermünze, relatives of Gutenberg.

Little more is known of Gutenberg. We are aware that his declining years were spent in the court of Archbishop Adolf of Nassau, to whose suite he was appointed on 18 January, 1465. The distinction thus conferred on him carried with it allowances of clothing and other necessities which saved him from actual want. In all likelihood he died at Mainz towards the end of 1467 or the beginning of 1468, and was buried probably as a tertiary in the Franciscan church, no longer in existence.

A cloud of deep obscurity thus conceals for the most part the life of the inventor, his personality, the time and place of his invention, and particularly the part he personally took in the production of the printed works that have come down to us from this period. On the other hand, expert research has thrown much light on the printed works connected with the name of Gutenberg, and has established more definitely the nature of his invention. Mainly from the technical examination of the impressions of the earliest Gutenberg productions, the "Poem of the Last Judgment" and the "Calendar for 1448", it has been shown that he effected substantial improvements in methods of printing and in its technical auxiliaries, especially in the printer's ink and in the building of printing presses. Of course he had to invent neither letter-cutting, nor the die, nor the mode of obtaining impressions from the die. All these had been long known, and were in common use in Gutenberg's time, as is shown by the steel dies of the goldsmiths and bookbinders, as well as the punches used for stamping letters and ornamental designs in the striking of coins and seals. The mechanical manifolding of handwriting also had been known for a long time. The prints of the so-called Formschneider (that is, engravers on wood), especially the playing-cards, pictures of the saints, ad block books, prove beyond question that writing had been reproduced in manifold by means of woodcuts as early as the beginning of the fifteenth century. But with woodcutting and its technic Gutenberg's invention had nothing to do; Gutenberg was a goldsmith, a worker in metals, and a lapidary, and his invention both in conception and execution shows the worker in metals. Gutenberg multiplied the separate types in metal moulds. The types thus produced he built in such a way that they might be aligned like the manuscript he was copying.

His aim, technically and æsthetically so extremely difficult, was the mechanical reproduction of the characters used in the manuscripts, i.e. the books of the time. The works printed by Gutenberg plainly prove that the types used in them were made by a casting process fundamentally the same as the method of casting by hand in vogue today. The letter-patterns were cut on small steel rods termed patrices, and the dies thus made were impressed on some soft metal, such as copper, producing the matrices, which were cast in the mould in such a manner as to form the "face" and "body" of the type at one operation. The printing type represents therefore a multiplicity of cast reproductions of the original die, or patrix. In addition to this technical process of type-founding, Gutenberg found himself confronted with a problem hardly less difficult, namely, the copying of the beautiful calligraphy found in the books of the fifteenth century, constantly bearing in mind that it must be possible to engrave and to cast the individual forms, since the types, when set, must be substantially replicas of the model. The genius of Gutenberg found a brilliant solution to this problem in all its complicated details. Even in the earliest types he made (e.g. in the Calendar for 1448), we can recognize not only the splendid reproduction of the actual forms of the original handwriting, but also the extremely artistic remodeling of individual letters necessitated by technical requirements. In other words, we see the work of a calligraphic artist of the highest order. He applied the well-tested rules of the calligraphist's art to the casting of types, observing in particular the rudimentary principle of always leaving the same space between the vertical columns of the text. Consequently Gutenberg prepared two markedly different forms of each letter, the normal separate form, and the compound or linked form which, being joined closely to the type next to it, avoids gaps. It is significant that this unique kind of letter is to be found in only four types, and these four are associated with Gutenberg. No typographer in the fifteenth century was able to follow the ideal of the inventor, and consequently research attributes to Gutenberg types of this character, namely, the two Bible and the two Psalter types. Especially in the magnificent design and in the technical preparation of the Psalter of 1457 do we recognize the pure, ever-soaring inventive genius of Gutenberg which achieved so marked a technical improvement in the two-coloured Psalter initials. The precision and richness that had now become possible in colour-printing effected a substantial advance over the standard displayed in other editions.

Gutenberg's invention spread rapidly after the political catastrophe of 1462 (the conquest of the city of Mainz by Adolf of Nassau). It met in general with a ready, any an enthusiastic reception in the centres of culture. The names of more than 1000 printers, mostly of German origin, have come down to us from the fifteenth century. In Italy we find well over 100 German printers, in France 30, in Spain 26. Many of the earliest printers outside of Germany had learned their art in Mainz, where they were known as "goldsmiths". Among those who were undeniably pupils of Gutenberg, and who probably were also assistants in the Gutenberg-Fust printing house were (besides Schäffer), Numeister, Keffer, and Ruppel; Mentel in Strasburg (before 1460), Pfister in Bamberg (1461), Sweynheim in Subiaco and Rome (1464), and Johann von Speyer in Venice (1469).

The invention of Gutenberg should be classed with the greatest events in the history of the world. It caused a revolution in the development of culture, equalled by hardly any other incident in the Christian Era. Facility in disseminating the treasure of the intellect was a necessary condition for the rapid development of the sciences in modern times. Happening as it did just at the time when science was becoming more secularized and its cultivation no longer resigned almost entirely to the monks, it may be said that the age was pregnant with this invention. Thus not only is Gutenberg's art inseparable from the progress of modern science, but it has also been an indispensable factor in the education of the people at large. Culture and knowledge, until then considered aristocratic privileges peculiar to certain classes, were popularized by typography, although in the process it unfortunately brought about an internal revolution in the intellectual world in the direction of what is profane and free from restraint.

FALKENSTEIN, Gesch. der Buchdruckerkunst (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1856); DE VINNE, Invention of Printing (London, 1877); VAN DER LINDE, Gesch. der Erfind. der Buchdruckkunst (Berlin, 1886); HARTWIG (etc., etc.), Festschrift zum 500 jähr. Geburstage v. J. Gutenberg (Mainz, 1900); also publications of the GUTENBERG SOCIETY (Mainz, 1902-).

HEINRICH WILHELM WALLAU

St. Guthlac

Hermit; born about 673; died at Croyland, England, 11 April, 714. Our authority for the life of St. Guthlac is the monk Felix (of what monastery is not known), who in his dedication of the "Life" to King Æthelbald, Guthlac's friend, assures him that whatever he has written, he had derived immediately from old and intimate companions of the saint. Guthlac was born of noble stock, in the land of the Middle Angles. In his boyhood he showed extraordinary signs of piety; after eight or nine years spent in warfare, during which he never quite forgot his early training, he became filled with remorse and determined to enter a monastery. This he did at Repton (in what is now Derbyshire). Here after two years of great penance and earnest application to all the duties of the monastic life, he became fired with enthusiasm to emulate the wonderful penance of the Fathers of the Desert. For this purpose he retired with two companions to Croyland, a lonely island in the dismal fen- lands of modern Lincolnshire. In this solitude he spent fifteen years of the most rigid penance, fasting daily until sundown and then taking only coarse bread and water. Like St. Anthony he was frequently attacked and severely maltreated by the Evil One, and on the other hand was the recipient of extraordinary graces and powers. The birds and the fishes became his familiar friends, while the fame of his sanctity brought throngs of pilgrims to his cell. One of them, Bishop Hedda (or Dorchester or of Lichfield), raised him to the priesthood and consecrated his humble chapel. Æthelbald, nephew of the terrible Penda, spent part of his exile with the saint.

Guthlac, after his death, in a vision to Æthelbald, revealed to him that he should one day become king. The prophecy was verified in 716. During Holy Week of 714, Guthlac sickened and announced that he should die on the seventh day, which he did joyfully. The anniversary (11 April) has always been kept as his feast. Many miracles were wrought at his tomb, which soon became a centre of pilgrimage. His old friend, Æthelbald, on becoming king, proved himself a generous benefactor. Soon a large monastery arose, and through the industry of the monks, the fens of Croyland became one of the richest spots in england. The later history of his shrine may be found in Ordericus Vitalis (Historia Ecclesiastica) and in the "History of Croyland" by the Pseudo-Ingulph. Felix's Latin "Life" was turned into Anglo-Saxon prose by some unknown hand. This version was first published by Goodwin in 1848. There is also a metrical version attributed to Cynewulf contained in the celebrated Exeter Book (Codex Exoniensis).

Acta SS., XI, 37, contains FELIX'S chronicle and extracts from ORDERICUS and the PSEUDO-INGULPH; FULMAN, ed. Historia Croylandensis in R. S.; GOODWIN, Anglo-Saxon Version of the Life of Guthlac (London, 1848); THORPE, Codex Exoniensis (London, 1842); GOLLANCZ, The Exeter Book (London, 1895); GALE, edition of INGULPH, though old (1684), is still valuable.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

Jeanne-Marie Bouvier de la Motte-Guyon

A celebrated French mystic of the seventeenth century; born at Montargis, in the Orléanais, 13 April, 1648; died at Blois, 9 June, 1717. Her father was Claude Bouvier, a procurator of the tribunal of Montargis. Of a sensitive and delicate constitution, she was sickly in her childhood and her education was much neglected. Incessantly going and coming between her home and the convent, and passing from one school to another, she changed her place of abode nine times in ten years. Her parents, who were very religious people, gave her an especially pious training; while she received and retained profound impressions from her reading of the works of St. Francis de Sales, and her intercourse with certain nuns, her teachers. At one period she desired to become a nun, as one of her elder sisters had, but this desire did not last long. When scarcely sixteen years of age, she accepted the hand of a wealthy gentleman of Montargis, Jacques Guyon, twenty-two years older than herself. After twelve years of a union in which she gave more devotion than it yielded her happiness, Madame Guyon lost in succession two of her children and her husband. Thus, at twenty-eight she was left a widow with three young children.

Her Experiences and Theories

In the meantime Madame Guyon had been initiated into the secrets of the mystical life by Père Lacombe, a Barnabite who very soon acquired a great influence over her. Under his direction she passed through a series of interior experiences which are described in the "Vie de Madame Guyon" written by herself. First she attained a lively sentiment of the presence of God, perceived as a tangible reality. Prayer becomes easy to her; in it she is vouchsafed a savour of God which detaches her from creatures. This is what she calls "the union of the powers". She remains in this state for eight years; it is succeeded by another state in which she loses the sense of God's graces and favours, she has no taste for anything spiritual, is powerless to act, and afraid of her own baseness. This was the state of "mystical death" in which she remained for seven years; from this crisis she passes, as it were re-awakened and transformed, into the state of resurrection and new life. Whereas in the first of the three states she possessed God, in this last state she is possessed by Him; then God was united to the powers of her soul, but now He is united to its substance; it is He who acts in her; she becomes like an automaton in His hands; she writes remarkable things without preparation and without reflection. Her own activity disappears, to be replaced by the action of God which moves her, and she now enters into the "apostolic state". This apostolate she is to exercise not in preaching the Gospel, but in spreading the mystical life, the theory of which she presents in the "Moyen court et facile de faire oraison" (Short and Easy Method of Prayer), a work inspired mostly by her own experiences. In this work she distinguishes three kinds of prayer. The first is meditation properly so-called, the second is "the prayer of simplicity", which consists in keeping oneself in a state of recollection and silence in the presence of God; in the third, which is active contemplation, the soul, conscious that God is taking possession of it, leaves Him to act and remains in repose, abandoning itself to the Divine effluence which fills it -- powerless to ask anything for itself, since it has renounced all its own interests. This last state is pure love. In the "Torrents spirituels", and the commentaries on Holy Scripture, the same theory is presented under very slightly different images and forms.

Proselytism and Trials

Having attained what she called the "apostolic state", Madame Guyon felt herself drawn to Geneva. She left her children and repaired to Annecy, to Thonon, where she was to find Père Lacombe (July, 1681) and again place herself under his direction. She began to disseminate her mystical ideas, but, in consequence of the effects they produced, the Bishop of Geneva, M. D'Aranthon d'Alex, who had at first viewed her coming with satisfaction, asked her to leave his diocese, and at the same time expelled Père Lacombe, who betook himself to the Bishop of Vercelli. Madame Guyon followed her director to Turin, then returned to France and stayed at Grenoble, where she published the "Moyen court" (January, 1685) and spread her doctrine. But here, too, the Bishop of Grenoble, Cardinal Le Camus, was perturbed by the opposition which she aroused. At his request she left the city; she rejoined Père Lacombe at Vercelli and a year later they went back to Paris (July, 1686). Forthwith Madame Guyon set about to gain adherents for her mystical theories. But the moment was ill-chosen. Louis XIV, who had recently been exerting himself to have the Quietism of Molinos condemned at Rome, was by no means pleased to see gaining ground, even in his own capital, a form of mysticism, which, to him, resembled that of Molinos in many of its aspects. By his order Père Lacombe was shut up in the Bastille, and afterwards in the castles of Oloron and of Lourdes. The arrest of Madame Guyon, delayed by illness, followed shortly (9 January, 1688); brought about, she alleged, by her own brother, Père de La Motte, a Barnabite.

She was not set at liberty until seven months later, after she had placed in the hands of the theologians, who had examined her book, a retraction of the propositions which it contained. Some days later (October, 1688) she met, at Beyne, in the Duchess de Béthune-Charrost's country house, the Abbé de Fénelon, who was to be the most famous of her disciples. She won him by her piety and her understanding of the paths of spirituality. Between them there was established a union of piety and of friendship into which no element ever insinuated itself that could possibly be taken to resemble carnal love, even unconscious. Through Fénelon the influence of Madame Guyon penetrated, or was increased in, religious circles powerful at court--among the Beauvilliers, the Chevreuses, the Montemarts--who were under his spiritual direction. Madame de Maintenon, and through her, the young ladies of Saint-Cyr, were soon gained over to the new mysticism. This was the apogee of Madame Guyon's fortune, most of all when Fénelon was appointed (18 August, 1688) tutor to the Duke of Burgundy, the king's grandson. Before long, however, the Bishop of Chartres, in whose diocese Saint-Cyr happened to be, took alarm at the spiritual ideas which were spreading there. Warned by him, Madame de Maintenon sought the advice of persons whose piety and prudence recommended them to her, and these advisers were unanimous in their reprobation of Madame Guyon's ideas. Madame Guyon then asked for an examination of her conduct and her writings by civil and ecclesiastical judges. The king consented that her writings should be submitted to the judgment of Bossuet, of the Bishop of Chblons (afterwards Archbishop of Paris and Cardinal de Noailles), and of M. Tronson, superior of the Society of Saint-Sulpice.

After a certain number of secret conferences held at Issy, where Tronson was detained by a sickness, the commissioners presented in thirty-four articles the principles of Catholic teaching as to spirituality and the interior life (four of these articles were suggested by Fénelon, who in February had been nominated to the Archbishopric of Cambrai). But the Archbishop of Paris, who had been excluded from the conferences at Issy, anticipated their results by condemning the published works of Madame Guyon (10 October, 1694). She, fearing another arrest, took refuge for some months at Meaux, with the permission of Bossuet, then bishop of that see. After placing in his hands her signed submission to the thrity-four articles of Issy, she returned secretly to Paris, where the police, however, arrested her (24 December, 1695) and imprisoned her, first at Vincennes, then in a convent at Vaugirard, and then in the Bastille, where she again signed (23 August, 1696) a retraction of her theories and an undertaking to refrain from further spreading them. From that time she took no part, personally, in public discussions, but the controversy about her ideas only grew all the more heated between Bossuet and Fénelon. The course of that controversy we have traced elsewhere (see FÉNELON). Madame Guyon remained imprisoned in the Bastille until 21 March, 1703, when she went, after more than seven years of captivity, to live with her son in a village in the Diocese of Blois. There she passed some fifteen years in silence and isolation, spending her time in the composition of religious verses, which she wrote with much facility. She was still venerated by the Beauvilliers, the Chevreuses, and Fénelon, who never failed to communicate with her whenever safe and dscreet intermediaries were to be found.

Posthumous Success

Her writings began to be published in Holland in 1704, and brought her new admirers. Englishmen and Germans--among them Wettstein and Lord Forbes--visited her at Blois. Through them Madame Guyon's doctrines became known among Protestants and in that soil took vigorous root. But she did not live to see this unlooked-for diffusion of her writings. She passed away at Blois, at the age of sixty-eight, protesting in her will that she died submissive to the Catholic Church, from which she had never had any intention of separating herself. Her doctrines, like her life, have nevertheless given rise to the widest divergences of opinion. Her published works (the "Moyen court" and the "Règles des assocées à l'Enfance de Jésus") having been placed on the Index in 1688, and Fénelon's "Maximes des saints" branded with the condemnation of both the pope and the bishops of France, the Church has thus plainly reprobated Madame Guyon's doctrines, a reprobation which the extravagance of her language would in itself sufficiently justify. Her strange conduct brought upon her severe censures, in which she could see only manifestations of spite. Evidently, she too often fell short of due reserve and prudence; but after all that can be said in this sense, it must be acknowledged that her morality appears to have given no grounds for serious reproach. Bossuet, who was never indulgent in her regard, could say before the full assembly of the French clergy: "As to the abominations which have been held to be the result of her principles, there was never any question of the horror she testified for them." It is remarkable, too, that her disciples at the Court of Louis XIV were always persons of great piety and of exemplary life.

On the other hand, Madame Guyon's warmest partisans after her death were to be found among the Protestants. It was a Dutch Protestant, the pastor Poiret, who began the publication of her works; a Vaudois pietist pastor, Duthoit-Mambrini, continued it. Her "Life" was translated into English and German, and her ideas, long since forgotten in France, have for generations been in favour in Germany, Switzerland, England, and among Methodists in America.

Œuvres complètes de Madame Guyon (Paris, 1790), this work was really published at Lausanne; COOPER, Poems translated from French of Madame de la Motte Guyon (Newport, 1801); FÉNELON, Œuvres (Versailles, 1820), IV, iv; IDEM, Correspondance (Paris, 1828), VII-XI; BOSSUET, Œuvres (Paris, 1885); PHILIPPEAUX, Relation de l'origine, du progrhs, et de la condamnation du Quiitisme (s. l., 1732); IRONSON, Correspondance (Paris, 1904), III; Vie de Madame Guyon, written by herself (Cologne, 1720); Ger. tr., Frankfort, 1727; tr. BROOKE, London, 1806; UPHAM, Life and religious opinions and experience of Madame de la Motte-Guyone (New York, 1848); GUILLON, Histoire ginirale de l'Eglise pendant le XVIIIe sihcle (Besancon, 1823); GUERRIER, Madame Guyon, sa vie, sa doctrine, et son influence (Orléans, 1881); CROUSLÉ, Fénelon et Madame Guyon (Paris, 1895); MASSON, Fénelon et Madame Guyon (Paris, 1907); DELACROIX, Etudes d'histoire et de psychologic du mysticisme (Paris, 1908).

ANTOINE DEGERT

Fernando Pérez de Guzmán

Señor de Batres; Spanish historian and poet (1376-1458). He belonged to a family distinguished both for its patrician standing and its literary connections, for his uncle was López de Ayala, Grand Chancellor of Castile, historian and poet, and his nephew was the Marquis of Santillana, one of the most important authors of the time of Juan II. Part of his verse, such as the "Proverbios" and the "Diversas virtudes", is purely moral and didactic. The more important part is represented by the panegyrical "Loores de los claros varones de España", which in 409 octaves gives a rather full account of the leading figures in Spanish history from Roman times down to that of Benedict XIII. The most notable of his prose historical compositions is the "Generaciones é Semblanzas", a collection of biographies which constitutes the third part of a large compilation, "La mar de historias". The first two parts of this work, suggested doubtless by the Mare historicum" (or Mare historiarum) of Johannes de Columna, are devoted to a perfunctory and uninteresting account of the reigns of the sovereigns of pre-Arabic times. The third part, the "Generaciones", contains thirty-six portraits of contemporary personages, especially of members of the courts of Enrique III and Juan II, and furnishes one of ther best examples of character painting in Spanish literature.

No detail, even the most trivial physical trait, escapes the observation of Pérez de Guzmán. On grounds still regarded as uncertain there has been attributed to him the "Cronica de Juan II". His prose works may be found in the "Biblioteca de autores españoles" LXVIII; a separate edition of the of the "Generaciones " appeared at Madrid in 1775. His verse is given in the "Cancionero de Baena", and in the "Cancionero general".

RENNERT, Some Unpublished Poems of Ferran Pérez de Guzmán (Baltimore, 1897).

J.D.M. FORD

Györ

(German RAAB; Latin JAURINENSIS).

A Hungarian see, suffragan to the Archdiocese of Gran. After the county of Vas and parts of the county of Veszprém had been taken in 1777 to form the Diocese of Szombathely, the Diocese of Györ assumed its present proportions; it comprises the Counties of Moson and Sopron, the greater portion of the County of Györ, and a part of the County of Komárom. There are two cathedral chapters, the chapter of Györ with 14 canonicates, and that of Sopron with 5; there are also 8 titular abbacies, 6 provostships, and 4 titular provostships. The diocese is divided into 7 archdeaconries and 22 vice-archdeaconries, and contains 239 parishes. The clergy number 379, of whom 315 are engaged in parish work; 52 patrons exercise the right of presentation to 224 benefices. The diocese has two seminaries attended (1908) by 102 students, and 48 monasteries with 630 religious. The total population is 563,093, the Catholics slumbering 451,150. The diocese was founded by King St. Stephen, the date being, as believed, 1001. Modestus (1019-37) is said to have been the first bishop. Arduin or Hartvik (1097-1103) wrote the life of St. Stephen. Thomas Bakocz of Erdod, later primate of Hungary and cardinal, occupied the See of Györ from 1489 to 1494. Georg Draskovich (d. 1587), together with the chapter, fled before the Turks, who seized part of the diocese but held it only for a short time. After the reconquest of Györ Martinus Pethe (1598-1605), who restored the cathedral, was appointed bishop. In 1608 Demetrius Náprágyi (1607-19) acquired the reliquary, which up to that time had been preserved at Grosswardein containing the skull of King St. Ladislaus. Georg Draskovich (1635-50) was one of the most zealous champions of the Counter-Reformation. Among the more recent bishops of Györ Johann Simor (1857-67) later Archbishop of Gran, was the most illustrious. The present bishop is Count Nikolaus Szechenyi.

KABOLYI, Speculum ecclesias Jaurinensis (1797); PRAY, Specimen Hierarchiae Hungaricae (1776-79); Das katholische Urgarn (Budapest, 1902); Die Komitate und Stadte Ungarns: Komitat Györ (Budapest, 1908); the last two works are is Hungarian.

A. ALDÁSY

Haarlem

DIOCESE OF HAARLEM (HARLEMENSIS).

One of the suffragan sees of the Archdiocese of Utrecht in the Netherlands. The city of Haarlem is the capital of the Province of North Holland and is about nine miles distant from Amsterdam. The medieval Diocese of Utrecht being ill-adapted on account of its great extent to oppose successfully the nascent heresies, Paul IV divided it by the Bull "Super universas orbis" (12 May, 1559) into an archdiocese and five suffragan sees. The principal of these five was the Diocese of Haarlem. At that time it only comprehended the present Province of North Holland with a small portion of South Holland. The right of nomination was bestowed on King Philip of Spain and his successors. On 10 March, 1561, Pius IV, Paul's successor, incorporated the Abbey of Egmond in the diocese in perpetuity as the episcopal mensa (or chief means of revenue) by his Bull "Sacrosancta Romana" (10 March, 1561). One day later (11 March, 1561), Pius issued the Bull "Ex injuncto nobis", in which the new diocese was defined, 11 towns and 151 villages being mentioned in the papal document. The parish-church of Haarlem, dedicated to St. Bavo, was made into a cathedral.

The first bishop was Nicolas van Nieuwland, formerly assistant Bishop of Utrecht. He was appointed by a Brief dated 26 May, 1561. In April, 1564, he held a synod, the proceedings of which are still in print. When after the iconoclastic outbreak of 1566, then fortunately prevented in Haarlem, the Duke of Alva was sent to punish the Netherlands, the bishop wrote him a letter trying to move him to deal leniently with the guilty persons of his diocese. In 1569, on account of his sluggishness, caused in part by the gout from which he was suffering, he was obliged by Alva to send in his resignation to Brussels and to Rome.

The second bishop was Godfried van Mierlo, formerly Provincial of the Dominicans for the Province of Lower Germany, a man conspicuous for virtue, zeal, and eloquence. At first appointed to act as vicar-general (sede vacante), Pope Pius V created him Bishop of Haarlem and Prelate of Egmond on 11 December, 1570. He established the episcopal chapter in 1571, and convened a synod in the same year. His efforts to make the clergy and laity conform to the regulations of the Council of Trent were soon interrupted by the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain. On 30 April, 1572, Haarlem joined the side of the Prince of Orange, the leader of the revolt, but, when in the following July a mob of foreign and ribald soldiery came to garrison the town, the bishop fled and sought refuge in the Cistercian convent Ter Kamere near Brussels. A year later, when the Spaniards had recaptured the town, he returned to his episcopal see, and on 15 August, 1573, consecrated anew the desecrated and pillaged cathedral. For the next three years Haarlem remained in the power of the Spaniards; the bishop did everything he could for the spiritual and temporal welfare of his flock, which, already thinned and impoverished by the siege, was now sorely afflicted by the Spanish garrison. Negotiations were opened with the Prince of Orange at Veere, and in January, 1577, the bishop personally took part in the transaction resulting in a sworn compromise, which conceded equal rights of religious worship to Catholics and Protestants and delivered one of the churches within the town-walls, the Onzelieve Vrouwekerk on the Bakenessergracht, to the latter sect. This condition of affairs lasted only for a year and a half, as on Corpus Christi (29 May), 1578, the so-called Nona Harlemiana took place. With the connivance of the authorities the sworn compact was scandalously broken. At ten o'clock in the morning, when the procession of the Blessed Sacrament was just starting inside the cathedral, soldiers with drawn swords entered the sacred edifice, assaulted the defenceless people, plundered the faithful, wounded the priests, and committed sacrileges of all sorts. The bishop escaped, fled from the town disguised as a cattle-driver, came to Münster, where he acted as auxiliary bishop, and lived in the greatest poverty till his death at Deventer in 1587.

In 1592 all Catholics of the Netherlands under Calvinistic civil government were placed under the jurisdiction of a vicar Apostolic, the entire diocese of Haarlem thus becoming a portion of the Missio Batava. The Catholics remained for a long time in the majority in the former diocese, but they were excluded from all public offices, and the exercise of their religion was forbidden by law under penalty of fines and exile. Nevertheless the old worship was continued in secret, either with the connivance of the magistrates in consideration of large bribes, or even at the risk of imprisonment and exile. At first there were scarcely any but secular priests, but in 1592, at the express wish of Clement VIII, the first two Jesuits came to assist the seculars, being followed in the seventeenth century by members of various other orders.

From the second half of the seventeenth century the persecution began to abate; it became more and more apparent that the Catholic Faith could not be exterminated, and the exigencies of trade were decidedly opposed to extreme measures. The Catholic barn and house-chapels were connived at, and the priests were tolerated on payment of a pecuniary fine. In this manner the number of Catholics remained very considerable in most towns, and even predominated in many villages. In the beginning of the eighteenth century occurred the Jansenist schism, long since prepared for by the jealousy and quarrels between the secular and regular clergy. In the old Haarlem Diocese the principal secular priests, the so-called Chapter of Haarlem, shrank from excommunication and schism, and the great majority of clergy and laity remained faithful to Rome. In consequence of the disturbances, the mission was, in 1721, placed directly under the papal nuncio at Brussels, who exercised his functions under the title of vice-superior, until the nunciature was abolished in 1794. On the whole the Catholics were for the greater part of the eighteenth century allowed to exercise their religion without much hindrance, provided they obtained the consent of the government and worshipped in churches not outwardly recognizable as such; however, their exclusion from all public offices was rigorously maintained. The Netherlands revolution of 1795 was to bring some change in this inequality between Catholic and non-Catholic citizens. In 1796 the supreme authority of the Batavian Republic, the National Assembly, declared the Calvinistic State Church abolished, decreed equal rights in the exercise of religious worship to all creeds, and granted equality before the law to all citizens of the State. These articles were subsequently embodied in the fundamental law of 1798.

Nevertheless, a great many years were still to elapse before Catholics could obtain in fact the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them. At that time the mission was governed, with authorization of the Propaganda, by Luigi Ciamberlani (1794-1828), who was at first obliged to reside in Münster. In 1799, this vice-superior, making use of the legal rights conferred, founded a seminary in Warmond near Leyden, which still flourishes as the grand seminary of the present Diocese of Haarlem. King Louis Bonaparte (1806-1810) did much for the Catholics of Holland. In his residential city -- first The Hague, afterwards Amsterdam -- he had his own chapel, to which he admitted the public, and faithfully assisted at the religious services of his two chaplains, both excellent men and prêtres non assermentés (priests who had refused to take the oath required by the French government). He contributed large funds to enable the Catholics to build and restore their churches; he requested the vice-superior to take up his permanent abode in the royal residence of Amsterdam, and admitted some Catholics to the higher government offices. He even intended to have Amsterdam selected as an archiepiscopal see, but the constant opposition of his brother, Emperor Napoleon, obliged him to abdicate in 1810. Under the direct reign of Napoleon from 1810-1813 the Catholics of the old diocese shared to a great extent in the financial losses caused by his commercial policy (Continental blockade) and his financial operations (tierçage), but with regard to religion they were left in peace. The Archpriest of Holland and Zeeland, who under the vice-superior in Amsterdam directed the affairs of the mission in these provinces, repeatedly obtained from the minister of worship exemption from military service for the theological students of Warmond.

The reign of King William I (1815-1840) was not favourable to the Catholics. Although the constitution of 1815 granted them equal rights with the Protestants, the king listened too much to counsellors who grudged the Catholics the enjoyment of this liberty. In 1817 a preparatory seminary, called Hageveld and destined for the education of the future aspirants to the priesthood in Holland and Zeeland, was opened near Velsen. In 1847 it was transferred to Voorhout near Leyden, and though, of course, much enlarged, still serves for the same purpose. Though much admired as a seat of virtue and learning, William ordered it to be closed, in 1825, because he wished to force on the future priests the unclerical education of his Philosophical College at Louvain. He also continued to exclude the Catholics completely from official positions. In 1827 he concluded a concordat with Leo XII, by which Amsterdam was again selected as one of the two episcopal sees of Northern Netherlands, but this was never put into execution, mainly in consequence of the subsequent revolt of Belgium. His successor, the generous William II (1840-1849), was much more favourably inclined towards the Catholics; yet intolerance was too powerful to allow even this liberal-minded monarch to put the concordat into execution. However, in 1848 a revision of the constitution in a liberal sense was taken in hand, and this was destined to advance rapidly the influence of the Catholics, as was proved in the same year by the arrival of the newly-appointed vice-superior, Monsignor Belgrado, at The Hague as the first permanent papal legate to William II. In the following years several addresses were sent to Rome, requesting the pope to restore to the Catholics of the Netherlands episcopal government, as necessary for their spiritual and social development and not opposed by any laws of the State.

The New Diocese

On 4 March, 1853, Pius IX acceded to the fervent wishes of the numerous Dutch Catholics, and by his Brief "Ex qua die arcano" restored the ecclesiastical hierarchy to the Netherlands. For the sake of tradition Utrecht was again made an archdiocese, but the Diocese of Haarlem was now made much larger than in 1559, the whole of South Holland and the islands of the Province of Zeeland being added to it. It numbered then 199 churches and chapels, served by 317 priests, secular and regular, whilst the laity were reckoned at 259,577 souls. The following bishops have since occupied the See of Haarlem: (1) F. J. van Vree (1853-1861), a man of exceptional organizing talents. In the seven years of his episcopate he erected a chapter, circumscribed the boundaries of the parishes, some of which were assigned to regulars, drew up regulations for vestry-men and guardians of the Catholic poor, took special care of neglected children and fallen women, and prepared a catechism for use in his diocese. (2) G. P. Wilmer (1861-1877). In 1867 he called together a diocesan synod, the first after three centuries, in which the provisional settlement of the diocese as arranged by his predecessor was finally concluded and declared permanent. Zealous for the veneration of the saints of his diocese, he purchased the locality near Brielle, where, according to the decisive arguments of Professor Smit of Warmond, four secular and fifteen regular priests had been cruelly put to death for the faith in 1572, and where their bodies had been interred. He also began at Rome a canonical process to obtain approval of the "immemorial" veneration of the Blessed Lidwina of Schiedam. He regulated the contributions to the Peter's-pence for the whole of his diocese. Pursuant to the "Mandamus" of the collective bishops of the Netherlands (1868), he was unwearied in his efforts for the preservation, the success, and the increase of Catholic denominational schools in his diocese. To further this end he nominated a committee of clergymen and prominent laymen (Union for the promotion of Catholic education in the Diocese of Haarlem), and united all the Catholic school-teachers into a separate body. The preparatory seminary of Hageveld was considerably enlarged during his episcopate. Finally he strongly encouraged the diocesan secretary, J. J. Graaf, in establishing the episcopal museum at Haarlem, and in starting with his colleague, I. F. Vregt, the publication of a periodical, "Contributions to the History of the Diocese of Haarlem". (3) P. M. Snickers (1877-1883). On account of the great concourse of pilgrims on the field of the martyrs near Brielle, this bishop caused a large chapel and covered galleries to be built there. For the housing of the rich collections of books and precious manuscripts he erected a separate building near the seminary of Warmond. He approved for his diocese the statues of the Gregorius Vereeniging (Society of Saint Gregory) for the promotion of the liturgical plain chant and sacred music, founded by M. J. A. Lans, professor at Hageveld. In 1883 the bishop was transferred to the Archiepiscopal See of Utrecht. (4) C. J. M. Bottemanne (1883-1903). Although sixty years of age when he was made bishop, this energetic man did much for the development of the diocese. The schools increased during his episcopate to over 200, so that even in the villages a parish without a Catholic school became the exception, while in the towns many schools were opened. From his clergy he selected able men to act as inspectors of Catholic education; at Hoorn he opened a Catholic training college. He showed no less diligence in dealing with the social question. In 1888, three years before the promulgation of the Papal Encyclical "Rerum Novarum", a Roman Catholic Workman's League (De R.K. Volksbond) was founded under his auspices. This league or union is meant to embrace all the Catholic workmen of the diocese, and in 1903 numbered 16,000 members. Soon afterwards the master-workmen were also brought together in a special league, De R.K. Gildenbond (The League of Roman Catholic Guilds). Bishop Bottemanne favoured greatly public meetings, which he addressed on many occasions. In 1897 he laid the foundation stone of an important addition to the seminary at Warmond, which was solemnly dedicated two years later on the occasion of the centenary of the institution. During this episcopate twenty-five new parishes were established and seventy churches consecrated. At the celebration of the golden jubilee of his priesthood (1896), Bishop Bottemanne instituted the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in such a way that day and night throughout the year the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly exposed for adoration in some church or chapel of the diocese. The new cathedral of St. Bavo is another evidence of the flourishing condition of the diocese. This noble edifice -- new, though not startling in conception -- was designed by the Dutch architect, Joseph Cuypers. It is situated in a new quarter of Haarlem, mainly inhabited by workmen, who use it as their parish church. At first only the choir and transept were built, taking three years to complete, and on 2 May, 1898, the aged bishop had the happiness of consecrating this part of the great work. (5) A. J. Callier (1903--). For eleven years he had been vicar-general of the diocese, when he was appointed successor to Monsignor Bottemanne. The plans laid down and partly executed by his predecessor were now further developed. The educational question was the object of his special care. In 1904 a boys' school was opened near the new cathedral; in 1906 the training college was transferred from Hoorn to a new and commodious building at Beverwyk. With regard to higher education the Catholics are still suffering under the old system of partiality and exclusion; but, as the new educational laws permit them to have professors of their own attached to the state-universities, provided they pay for them, the Saint Radbout's Fund (St. Radbouts stichting) was set on foot by the Catholics to secure co-religionists as professors, with the additional intention of preparing the way for a Catholic university. To promote still further the solution of the social question, the bishop laid the foundation of a society for the assistance and development of citizens of the middle-class engaged in trade, a very large number of whom belong to his diocese. Wherever possible Catholic clubs for youths are instituted to safeguard young men against the special dangers of their age and to promote their intellectual and religious development. When vicar-general to his predecessor, the present bishop was the moving spirit in the building of the new cathedral, and he personally devised the highly significant scheme of symbolism for this sacred edifice. In 1903 the work was resumed, and three years later the exterior of the great cathedral was finished, except the two towers and the decoration of the west façade. As to the interior decoration, this remains the object of the bishops' special care, and is being effected (1909) with the greatest deliberation. Both decoration and furniture must be in keeping with the artistic value of the building itself, and great artists of original mind, as Brom, Toorop, and Mengelberg, have ample opportunity given to them to display their exceptional talent. The diocese counts (1909) 234 parishes, served by 650 priests, seculars and regulars; the laity are reckoned at about 510,000 souls.

MIRÆUS-FOPPENS, Diplomatum Belgicorum nova collectio (Antwerp, 1734), III; VAN HEUSSEN, Batavia sacra (Brussels, 1714); IDEM, Historia episcopatuum Foederati Belgii (Antwerp, 1755), II; WENSING, Kerkelyk Nederland ('S Hertogenbosch, 1854); Verzameling van herderlyke brieven van Mgr. van Vree (Haarlem, 1862); Acta et statuta synodi diocesanæ Harlemensis (Haarlem, 1867); SMIT, De ware ligging der voormalige kloosterschuur van St. Elisabeth te Rugge ('S Hertogenbosch, 1869); NUYENS, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Volk (Amsterdam, 1883); IDEM, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche beroerten in de XVI eeuw (Amsterdam, 1904); Neerlandia catholica (Utrecht, 1888); THOMPSON, St. Bavo, de nieuwe kathedrale kerk van Haarlem (Haarlem, 1898); HENSEN, Het eeuwfeest van het seminarie te Warmond ('S Hertogenbosch, 1899); GRAAF, Gids van het bisschoppelyk museum te Haarlem (Leyden, 1900); FRUIN, Verspreide geschriften (The Hague, 1900), I, III; COPPENS, Kerkgeschiedenis van Noord Nederland (Utrecht, 1903); ALBERS, Geschiedenis van het herstel der hierarchie in de Nederlanden (Nimwegen, 1903); IDEM, Handboek der algemeene kerkgeschiedenis (Nimwegen, 1908), II; KALF, De Katholieke kerken in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1908); BROM, Archivalia in Italie (The Hague, 1908), I; De Katholiek (Leyden), CXV, CXII, CXIII; Bydragen voor de geschiedenis van het bisdom van Haarlem (Leyden), XXIII, XXVI; Archief van het aartsbisdom van Utrecht (Utrecht), IX, XI; Sint Bavo, Godsdienstig weekblad van het bisdom van Haarlem (Amsterdam); Sint Gregorius blad (Haarlem).

A.H.L. HENSEN

Habacuc (Habakkuk)

The eighth of the Minor Prophets, who probably flourished towards the end of the seventh century b.c.

I. NAME AND PERSONAL LIFE

In the Hebrew text (i,1; iii, 1), the prophet's name presents a doubly intensive form Hàbhàqqûq, which has not been preserved either in the Septuagint: Ambakoum, or in the Vulgate: Habacuc. Its resemblance with the Assyrian hambakûku, which is the name of a plant, is obvious. Its exact meaning cannot be ascertained: it is usually taken to signify "embrace" and is at times explained as "ardent embrace", on account of its intensive form. Of this prophet's birth-place, parentage, and life we have no reliable information. The fact that in his book he is twice called "the prophet" (i, 1; iii, 1) leads indeed one to surmise that Habacuc held a recognized position as prophet, but it manifestly affords no distinct knowledge of his person. Again, some musical particulars connected with the Hebrew text of his Prayer (ch. iii) may possibly suggest that he was a member of the Temple choir, and consequently a Levite: but most scholars regard this twofold inference as questionable. Hardly less questionable is the view sometimes put forth, which identifies Habacuc with the Judean prophet of that name, who is described in the deuterocanonical fragment of Bel and the Dragon (Dan., xiv, 32 sqq.), as miraculously carrying a meal to Daniel in the lion's den.

In this absence of authentic tradition, legend, not only Jewish but also Christian, has been singularly busy about the prophet Habacuc. It has represented him as belonging to the tribe of Levi and as the son of a certain Jesus; as the child of the Sunamite woman, whom Eliseus restored to life (cf. IV Kings, iv, 16 sqq.); as the sentinel set by Isaias (cf. Is. xxi, 6; and Hab., ii, 1) to watch for the fall of Babylon. According to the "Lives" of the prophets, one of which is ascribed to St. Epiphanius, and the other to Dorotheus, Habacuc was of the tribe of Simeon, and a native of Bethsocher, a town apparently in the tribe of Juda. In the same works it is stated that when Nabuchodonosor came to besiege Jerusalem, the prophet fled to Ostrakine (now Straki, on the Egyptian coast), whence he returned only after the Chaldeans had withdrawn; that he then lived as a husbandman in his native place, and died there two years before Cyrus's edict of Restoration (538 b.c.). Different sites are also mentioned as his burial-place. The exact amount of positive information embodied in these conflicting legends cannot be determined at the present day. The Greek and Latin Churches celebrate the feast of the prophet Habacuc on 15 January.

II. CONTENTS OF PROPHECY

Apart from its short title (i, 1) the Book of Habacuc is commonly divided into two parts: the one (i,2-ii, 20) reads like a dramatic dialogue between God and His prophet; the other (chap. iii) is a lyric ode, with the usual characteristics of a psalm. The first part opens with Habacuc's lament to God over the protracted iniquity of the land, and the persistent oppression of the just by the wicked, so that there is neither law nor justice in Juda: How long is the wicked thus destined to prosper? (i, 2-4). Yahweh replies (i, 5-11) that a new and startling display of His justice is about to take place: already the Chaldeans -- that swift, rapacious, terrible, race -- are being raised up, and they shall put an end to the wrongs of which the prophet has complained. Then Habacuc remonstrates with Yahweh, the eternal and righteous Ruler of the world, over the cruelties in which He allows the Chaldeans to indulge (i, 12-17), and he confidently waits for a response to his pleading (ii, 1). God's answer (ii, 2-4) is in the form of a short oracle (verse 4), which the prophet is bidden to write down on a tablet that all may read it, and which foretells the ultimate doom of the Chaldean invader. Content with this message, Habacuc utters a taunting song, triumphantly made up of five "woes" which he places with dramatic vividness on the lips of the nations whom the Chaldean has conquered and desolated (ii, 5-20). The second part of the book (chap. iii) bears the title: "A prayer of Habacuc, the prophet, to the music of Shigionot." Strictly speaking, only the second verse of this chapter has the form of a prayer. The verses following (3-16) describe a theophany in which Yahweh appears for no other purpose than the salvation of His people and the ruin of His enemies. The ode concludes with the declaration that even though the blessings of nature should fail in the day of dearth, the singer will rejoice in Yahweh (17-19). Appended to chap. iii is the statement: "For the chief musician, on my stringed instruments."

III. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

Owing chiefly to the lack of reliable external evidence, there has been in the past, and there is even now, a great diversity of opinions concerning the date to which the prophecy of Habacuc should be ascribed. Ancient rabbis, whose view is embodied in the Jewish chronicle entitled Seder olam Rabbah, and is still accepted by many Catholic scholars (Kaulen, Zschokke, Knabenbauer, Schenz, Cornely, etc.), refer the composition of the book to the last years of Manasses's reign. Clement of Alexandria says that "Habacuc still prophesied in the time of Sedecias" (599-588 b.c.), and St. Jerome ascribes the prophecy to the time of the Babylonian Exile. Some recent scholars (Delitzsch and Keil among Protestants, Danko, Rheinke, Holzammer, and practically also Vigouroux, among Catholics, place it under Josias (641-610 b.c.). Others refer it to the time of Joakim (610-599 b.c.), either before Nabuchodonosor's victory at Carchemish in 605 b.c. (Catholic: Schegg, Haneberg; Protestant: Schrader, S. Davidson, König, Strack, Driver, etc.); while others, mostly out-and-out rationalists, ascribe it to the time after the ruin of the Holy City by the Chaldeans. As might be expected, these various views do not enjoy the same amount of probability, when they are tested by the actual contents of the Book of Habacuc. Of them all, the one adopted by St. Jerome, and which is now that propounded by many rationalists, is decidedly the least probable: to ascribe, as that view does, the book to the Exile, is, on the one hand, to admit for the text of Habacuc an historical background to which there is no real reference in the prophecy, and, on the other., to ignore the prophet's distinct references to events connected with the period before the Bablyonian Captivity (cf. i, 2-4, 6, etc.). All the other opinions have their respective degrees of probability, so that it is no easy matter to choose among them. It seems, however, that the view which ascribes the book to 605-600 b.c. "is best in harmony with the historical circumstances under which the Chaldeans are presented in the prophecy of Habacuc, viz. as a scourge which is imminent for Juda, and as oppressors whom all know have already entered upon the inheritance of their predecessors" (Van Hoonacker).

During the nineteenth century, objections have oftentimes been made against the genuineness of certain portions of the Book of Habacuc. In the first part of the work, the objections have been especially directed against i, 5-11. But, however formidable they may appear at first sight, the difficulties turn out to be really weak, on a closer inspection; and in point of fact, the great majority of critics look upon them as not decisive. The arguments urged against the genuineness of chapter ii, 9-20, are of less weight still. Only in reference to chapter iii, which forms the second part of the book, can there be a serious controversy as to its authorship by Habacuc. Many critics treat the whole chapter as a late and independent poem, with no allusions to the circumstances of Habacuc's time, and still bearing in its liturgical heading and musical directions (vv. 3, 9, 13, 19) distinct marks of the collection of sacred songs from which it was taken. According to them, it was appended to the Book of Habacuc because it had already been ascribed to him in the title, just as certain psalms are still referred in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate to some prophets. Others, indeed in smaller number, but also with greater probability, regard only the last part of the chapter iii, 17-19 as a later addition to Habacuc's work: in reference to this last part only does it appear true to say that it has no definite allusions to the circumstances of Habacuc's time. All things considered, it seems that the question whether chapter iii be an original portion of the prophecy of Habacuc, or an independent poem appended to it at a later date, cannot be answered with certainty: too little is known in a positive manner concerning the actual circumstances in the midst of which Habacuc composed his work, to enable one to feel confident that this portion of it must or must not be ascribed to the same author as the rest of the book.

IV. LITERARY AND TEXTUAL FEATURES

In the composition of his book, Habacuc displays a literary power which has often been admired. His diction is rich and classical, and his imagery is striking and appropriate. The dialogue between God and him is highly oratorical, and exhibits to a larger extent than is commonly supposed, the parallelism of thought and expression which is the distinctive feature of Hebrew poetry. The Mashal or taunting song of five "woes" which follows the dialogue, is placed with powerful dramatic effect on the lips of the nations whom the Chaldeans have cruelly oppressed. The lyric ode with which the book concludes, compares favourably in respect to imagery and rhythm with the best productions of Hebrew poetry. These literary beauties enable us to realize that Habacuc was a writer of high order. They also cause us to regret that the original text of his prophecy should not have come down to us in all its primitive perfection. As a matter of fact, recent interpreters of the book have noticed and pointed out numerous alterations, especially in the line of additions, which have crept in the Hebrew text of the prophecy of Habacuc, and render it at times very obscure. Only a fair number of those alterations can be corrected by a close study of the context; by a careful comparison of the text with the ancient versions, especially the Septuagint; by an application of the rules of Hebrew parallelism, etc. In the other places, the primitive reading has disappeared and cannot be recovered, except conjecturally, by the means which Biblical criticism affords in the present day.

V. PROPHETICAL TEACHING

Most of the religious and moral truths that can be noticed in this short prophecy are not peculiar to it. They form part of the common message which the prophets of old were charged to convey to God's chosen people. Like the other prophets, Habacuc is the champion of ethical monotheism. For him, as for them, Yahweh alone is the living God (ii, 18-20); He is the Eternal and Holy One (i, 12), the Supreme Ruler of the Universe (i, 6, 17; ii, 5 sqq.; iii, 2-16), Whose word cannot fail to obtain its effect (ii, 3), and Whose glory will be acknowledged by all nations (ii, 14). In his eyes, as in those of the other prophets, Israel is God's chosen people whose unrighteousness He is bound to visit with a signal punishment (i, 2-4). The special people, whom it was Habacuc's own mission to announce to his contemporaries as the instruments of Yahweh's judgment, were the Chaldeans, who will overthrow everything, even Juda and Jerusalem, in their victorious march (i, 6 sqq.). This was indeed at the time an incredible prediction (i, 5), for was not Juda God's kingdom and the Chaldean a world-power characterized by overweening pride and tyranny? Was not therefore Juda the "just" to be saved, and the Chaldean really the "wicked" to be destroyed? The answer to this difficulty is found in the distich (ii, 4) which contains the central and distinctive teaching of the book. Its oracular form bespeaks a principle of wider import than the actual circumstances in the midst of which it was revealed to the prophet, a general law, as we would say, of God's providence in the government of the world: the wicked carries in himself the germs of his own destruction; the believer, on the contrary, those of eternal life. It is because of this, that Habacuc applies the oracle not only to the Chaldeans of his time who are threatening the existence of God's kingdom on earth, but also to all the nations opposed to that kingdom who will likewise be reduced to naught (ii, 5-13), and solemnly declares that "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea" (ii, 15). It is because of this truly Messianic import that the second part of Habacuc's oracle (ii, 4b) is repeatedly treated in the New Testament writings (Rom., i, 17; Gal., iii, 11; Hebr., x, 38) as being verified in the inner condition of the believers of the New Law.

COMMENTARIES: CATHOLIC:--SHEGG (2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1862); RHEINKE (Brixen, 1870); TROCHON (Paris, 1883); KNABENBAUER (Paris, 1886); NON-CATHOLIC:--DELITZSCH (Leipzig, 1843); VON ORELLI (Eng. tr. Edinburgh, 1893); KLEINERT (Leipzig, 1893); WELLHAUSEN (3rd ed., Berlin, 1898); DAVIDSON (Cambridge, 1899); MARTI (Freiburg im Br., 1904); NOWACK (2nd ed., Göttingen, 1904); DUHM (Tübingen, 1906); VAN HOONACKER (Paris, 1908).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

William Habington

Poet and historian; born at Hindlip, Worcestershire, 1605; died 1654; son of Thomas Habington the antiquarian. He was educated at Saint-Omer and Paris. The information given by Anthony à Wood in his "Athenae" that Habington returned to England "to escape the importunity of the Jesuits to join their order" rests only on a vague statement made by the ex-Jesuit Wadsworth in his "English Spanish Pilgrim". Habington married Lucy, daughter of William Herbert, Baron Powis, and a year or two after his marriage, in 1634, issued his well-known "Castara" (see Arber's English Reprints, 1870), a series of poems addressed mainly to his wife. In 1635 and 1640 second and third enlarged editions of the book respectively appeared. The poems are mostly short, many of them sonnets, and interspersed are several prose "characters such as it was the fashion then to write. A few verses are addressed to friends, one of whom is Ben Jonson. All the poetry of "Castara" shows a peculiarly refined and pure imagination. It is always skilful and melodious and contains some passages of real beauty. It is marked, though not excessively, by the "metaphysical" qualities which pervaded mostof the Caroline verse. In 1640 Habington also published a romantic tragedy, the "Queen of Arragon", of less interest for its dramatic quality, which is small, than for special passages in it which illustrate the poet'sindependence of mind upon certain social and political questions. It was acted at Court, and after the Restoration was revived. Habington produced in the same year, 1640, a prose "History of Edward IV", reprinted in Kennet's "Complete History of England" (London, 1706), stated by Wood to have been written and published at the desire of King Charles I. In 1641 followed "Observations upon History", a series of reflective sketches in prose of great events in Europe, "such as" (he says) "impressed me in the reading and make the imagination stand amazed at the vicissitude of time and fortune". Professor Saintsbury remarks of Habington that "he is creditably distinguished from his contemporaries by a very strict and remarkable decency of thought and language".

K.M. WARREN

Habit

Habit is an effect of repeated acts and an aptitude to reproduce them, and may be defined as "a quality difficult to change, whereby an agent whose nature it is to work one way or another indeterminately, is disposed easily and readily at will to follow this or that particular line of action" (Rickaby, Moral Philosophy). Daily experience shows that the repetition of actions or reactions produces, if not always an inclination, at least an aptitude to act or react in the same manner. To say that a man is accustomed to a certain diet, climate, or exercise, that he is an habitual smoker or early-riser, that he can dance, fence, or play the piano, that he is used to certain points of view, modes of thinking, feeling, and willing, etc., signifies that owing to past experience he can do now that which formerly was impossible, do easily that which was difficult, or dispense with the effort and attention which were at first necessary. Like any faculty or power, habit cannot be known directly in itself, but only indirectly--retrospectively from the actual processes which have given rise to it, and prospectively from those which proceed from it. Habit will be considered:

I. HABIT IN GENERAL

If an attitude, action, or series of actions resulting from a well-formed and deep-rooted habit is compared with the corresponding attitude, action, or series before the habit was contracted, the following differences are generally observed:

1. Uniformity and regularity have succeeded diversity and variety; under the same circumstances and conditions the same action recurs invariably and in the same manner, unless a special effort is made to inhibit it;
2. Selection has taken the place of diffusion; after a number of attempts in which the energy was scattered in several directions, the proper movements and adaptations have been singled out; the energy now follows a straight line and goes forth directly toward the expected result;
3. Less stimulus is required to start the process, and, where perhaps resistance had to be overcome, the slightest cue now suffices to give rise to a complex action;
4. Difficulty and effort have disappeared; the elements of the action, every one of which used to require distinct attention, succeed one another automatically;
5. Where there was merely desire, often difficult to satisfy, or indifference, perhaps even repugnance, there is now tendency, inclination, or need, and the unwonted interruption of an habitual action or mode of thinking generally results in a painful feeling of uneasiness;
6. Instead of the clear and distinct perception of the action in its details, there is only a vague consciousness of the process in its totality, together with a feeling of familiarity and naturalness. In a word, habit is selective, produces quickness of response, causes the processes to be more regular, more perfect, more rapid and tends to automatism.

From these effects of habit, together with the wideness of the field which it covers, its importance is easily inferred. Progress requires flexibility, power to change and to conquer, fixity of useful modifications and the power to retain conquests. Adaptability to new surroundings, and facility of processes presuppose the power of acquiring habits. Without them, not only mental functions like reflecting, reasoning, counting, but even the most ordinary actions like dressing, eating, walking, would necessitate a distinct effort for every detail, consume a great deal of time, and withal remain very imperfect. Hence habit has been called a second nature, and man termed a bundle of habits; and, although such expressions, like all aphorisms, may be open to criticism if taken too literally, yet they contain much truth. Nature is the common groundwork of all activities and essentially the same in all men, but its special direction and manifestations, the special emphasis of certain forms of activity together with their manifold individual features, are, for the most part, the results of habits. Speech, writing, skill in its varied applications, in fact every complex action of organism and mind, which are matters of course for the adult or the adept, appear simple only because they are habitual; the child or the beginner knows how complex they are in reality. Even in merely physiological functions the influence of habit is felt: the stomach becomes accustomed to certain foods; the blood to certain stimulants and poisons; the whole organism to certain hours for resting and awaking, to the climate and surroundings. All mental functions in the adult are the results of habits, or are modified by them. Habits of thought, speculative and practical, habits of feelings and will, religious and moral attitudes, etc., are constantly shaping man's views of things, persons, and events, and determine his behaviour toward those who agree with or differ from him. Observation and reflection show that the empire of habit is wellnigh unlimited, and that there is no form of human activity to which it does not extend. It is hardly possible to exaggerate its importance; the danger is rather that one may under-estimate, or at least fail to fully appreciate it.

Habit is acquired by exercise; in this it differs from the instincts and other natural predispositions and aptitudes which are innate. In a series of actions, it begins with the first act, for, if this left no trace whatsoever, there would be no more reason why it should begin with the second or any subsequent act. Yet at this early stage the trace or disposition is too weak to be called a habit; it must grow and be strengthened by repetition. The growth of habit is twofold, intensive and extensive, and may be compared to that of a tree which extends its branches and roots farther and farther, and at the same time acquires a stronger vitality, can resist more effectively obstacles to life, and becomes more difficult to uproot. A habit also ramifies; its influence, restricted at first to one line of action, gradually extends, making itself felt in a number of other processes. Meanwhile it takes deeper root, and its intensity increases so that to remove or change it becomes a more and more arduous task.

The main factors in the growth of habit are:

• The number of repetitions, as every repetition strengthens the disposition left by previous exercise;
• their frequency: too long an interval of time allows the disposition to weaken, whereas too short an interval fails to give sufficient rest, and results in organic and mental fatigue;
• their uniformity: at least change must be slow and gradual, new elements being added little by little;
• the interest taken in the actions, the desire to succeed, and the attention given;
• the resulting pleasure or feeling of success which becomes associated with the idea of the action.

No general rules, however, can be given for a strict determination of these factors. For instance, how frequently the actions should be repeated, or how rapidly the complexity may be increased, will depend not only on actual psychological factors of interest, attention, and application, but also on the nature of the actions to be performed and on natural aptitudes and tendencies. Habits decrease or disappear negatively by abstaining from exercising them, and positively by acting in an opposite direction, antagonistic to the existing habits.

II. PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS

All organic functions are due to, facilitated or modified by, habit. Some habits, like those referring to climate, temperature, certain foods, etc., are purely physiological, the mind contributing little or nothing. For instance, the same dose of alcohol or stimulants might be fatal for some organisms, while it is necessary for those which have been used to it. Or again, a bird, confined in an enclosed place in which the air gradually becomes foul, grows so far accustomed to the fetid condition of the atmosphere that it may continue to live for several hours after the air has been so poisoned with carbonic acid as to kill almost immediately another bird suddenly placed therein. In the acquisition of other physiological habits, especially those of skill and dexterity, psychological factors have a great importance, above all the antecedent idea of the end, which directs the selection of the appropriate movements, and the subsequent idea of success associated with them. Moreover a number of such habits are made use of under the guidance of the mind. Thus the acquired facility for writing is adapted to the ideas to be expressed; fencing consists in the adaptation of certain movements facilitated by habit to the perceived or foreseen movements of the adversary. They are therefore mixed habits of organism and mind.

Physiological habit supposes that an action, after being performed, leaves some trace in the organism, especially in the nervous system. In the present stage of physiological science, the nature of these traces cannot be determined with certainty. By some they are described as persisting movements and vibrations; by others, as fixed impressions and structural modifications; by others finally, as tendencies and dispositions to certain functions. These views are not exclusive, but may be combined, for the disposition, which has a more direct reference to future processes, may result from permanent impressions and movements, which have special reference to past processes. Somewhat metaphorically, physiological habit has also been explained as a canalization, or the creation of paths of least resistance which the nervous energy tends to follow.

III. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Psychologically habit signifies the acquired facility of conscious processes. The education of the senses, association of ideas, memory, mental attitudes derived from experience and from studies general or special, the powers of attention, reflection, reasoning, insight, etc., and all these complex factors which form man's frame of mind and character, such as strength of will, weakness or obstinacy, irascibility or calmness, likes and dislikes, prejudices, and so on, are due largely to habits intentionally or unintentionally contracted. Owing to the great variety of conscious processes and the complexity of their determinants, it is difficult to reduce the psychological effects of habit to universal laws. The statement frequently made that habit lessens consciousness cannot be accepted without qualification; for sometimes the being accustomed to a stimulus means ceasing to have a clear consciousness of it, as in the case of the ticking of a clock which little by little ceases to be perceived distinctly, while sometimes on the contrary it means an increase of consciousness, as in the case of the developed keenness of the musician's ear in discriminating sounds of slightly different pitch. Here a few distinctions must be kept in mind. First, between prolonged sensation, producing fatigue and consequently dullness of the sense-organ, and repeated sensation allowing sufficient rest. A second, between mental processes in which the mind is chiefly passive, and those in which it is chiefly active, as habit lessens passive and augments active sensitiveness. Finally one must see whether conscious processes are ends or simply means. Compared to the quality of the sounds to be produced, the special activity of the pianist's fingers or the singer's vocal organs is but a means to an end. Hence the musician becomes less conscious of this activity but more conscious of its result. In any case, since the energy flows naturally in the wonted direction, effort and attention are in inverse ratio to habit.

To pleasures as a rule applies the proverb "Assueta vilescunt" (Familiarity breeds contempt). By being repeated the same experience loses its novelty, which is one of the elements of pleasure and interest. But the rapidity of the decrease depends, not only on the frequency of the repetitions, but also on the wealth and variety contained in the experiences; hence it is that some musical compositions become tiresome much sooner than others in which the mind continues to discover some new pleasurable element. Pleasures resulting from the satisfaction of periodical wants, like resting or eating, undergo no change from the mere fact of repetition. Inclinations (i. e. desire and aversion) decrease; desires frequently change into needs of, or unconscious cravings after, experiences which formerly were pleasurable, but have now become tasteless or are even known to be injurious. Persons or things habitually met with, even if they are the source of no pleasure, are missed if they happen to disappear. Painful impressions become less keen unless they are increased in reality or exaggerated by the imagination. By exercise mental activity is strengthened in proportion to natural dispositions and to the quantity and quality of the energy employed. Hence habit is a force which impels to act, diminishes the strength of the will, and may become so strong as to be almost irresistible.

IV. ETHICAL ASPECTS

From the point of view of ethics, the main division of habits is into good and bad, i. e. into virtues and vices, according as they lead to actions in conformity with or against the rules of morality. It is needless to insist on the importance of habit in moral conduct; the majority of actions are performed under its influence, frequently without reflection, and in accordance with principles or prejudices to which the mind has become accustomed. The actual dictates of an upright conscience are dependent on intellectual habits, especially those of rectitude and honesty without which it happens too often that reason is used, not to find out what is right or wrong, but to justify a course of action one has taken or wishes to take. Custom also is an important factor, as that which is of frequent occurrence, even if known at first to be wrong, little by little becomes familiar, and its commission no longer produces in us feelings of shame or remorse. The voice of conscience is stifled; it ceases to give its warning, or at least no attention is paid to it.

By lessening freedom, habit also lessens the actual responsibility of the agent, for actions are less perfectly attended to, and in varying degrees escape the control of the will. But it is important to note the distinction between habits acquired and retained knowingly, voluntarily, and with some foresight of the consequences likely to result, and habits acquired unconsciously, without our noticing them, and therefore without our thinking of the possible consequences. In the former case, actions good or bad, though actually not quite free, are nevertheless imputable to the agent, since they are voluntary in their cause, that is, in the implied consent given them at the beginning of the habit. If on the contrary the will had no part at all in acquiring or retaining the habit, actions proceeding from it are not voluntary, but, as soon as the existence and dangers of a bad habit are noticed, efforts to uproot it become obligatory.

V. PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS

Between the child and the adult there is not merely a difference in the quantity of energy, bodily and mental, which they command, but especially a difference of adaptability, co-ordination or habit, thanks to which such energy is made more available for a definite purpose. Growth or increase and development or organization must proceed together. The main end of education is to direct the harmonious development of all the child's faculties according to their relative importance, and thus to do for the child that which it is not yet able to do for itself, namely to fit its various energies for future use, and to select from among the tendencies deposited in its nature those which are to be cultivated and those which are to be destroyed. While the work must proceed gradually according to the increasing capacities of the child, the fact must always be kept in view that in early years both organism and mind are plastic and more easily influenced. Later their power of adaptability is much less, and frequently the learning of a new habit implies the difficult task of breaking off an old one.

As the complexity of functions increases, it becomes imperative, as far as possible, that the new elements find at once their proper place and associations, and take root there, since otherwise it would be necessary later on to eradicate them and perhaps transplant them somewhere else. Hence all habits necessary to human perfection must be cultivated so as to be grooved into one another. Hence also the principle of negative education advocated by Rousseau is inadmissible. In early years, according to him, "the only habit which the child should be allowed to form is that of contracting no habit whatsoever", not even that of using one hand rather than the other, or that of eating, sleeping, acting at the same regular hours. Up to twelve, the child should not be able to distinguish its right from its left hand. With regard to intelligence and will, "the first education must be purely negative. It consists not in teaching virtue or truth, but in guarding the heart against vice and the mind against error". To judge this principle, it must be remembered that there are three periods in the development of activity: one of diffusion during which actions take place largely at random, and the energy is dispersed in many channels; the second of effort at co-ordination during which the proper modes of functioning are selected and practised; the third of habit which removes everything superfluous, and greatly facilitates correct modes of functioning. To prolong the first of these periods, since the last is the most perfect, would be an injustice against the child, who has a right not only to the necessaries of life, but also to the help required for its development. Moreover, it may be asked, how can the heart be guarded against vice, and the mind against error, without showing what vice and error are, and without teaching virtue and truth? How in general can a bad habit be avoided or combated more effectively than by the acquisition of the contrary habit? Experience shows that many good habits, if not cultivated in childhood, are never acquired at all, or not so perfectly, and defects in the adult may often be traced back to early education.

To obtain the best results, it is important for the teacher to know the natural aptitudes of every pupil, for the effort which is possible for one might be, if required of another, a source of discouragement, or exercise even a still more deleterious influence on the mind of the child. The use of rewards and punishments must always be made in a manner suited to the child's dispositions and directed by the general effects of habit upon pleasurable and painful impressions and emotions. At the same time that habits grow, attention has to be paid to their dangers, and the child must not be allowed to become a mere automaton. Habits of reflection and attention, together with determination and strength of will, will enable the child to control, direct, and govern other habits.

VI. PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS

In Aristotelean and Scholastic metaphysics habit comes under the category called quality. To be the subject of habits a being must be in potentia (see ACTUS ET POTENTIA), i. e. capable of determination and perfection; and this potentia must not be restricted to only one mode of activity or receptivity, for, where there is absolute fixity, where one and the same line is invariably followed, there is no room for habit, which implies adaptation and specification. On the strength of this condition, Saint Thomas holds that habit properly so-called cannot be found in the material world, but only in the spiritual faculties of intellect and will. In man, however, we may speak of organic habits for such functions as are under the dependence of these spiritual faculties. Matter, even in plants and animals, is the subject merely of dispositions, and the difference between habit and disposition is that the former is more stable, the latter more easily changed. Against this position several objections have been urged. In the first place, the proposed distinction of habit and disposition is not based on anything essential, but on a difference of degree, which seems insufficient to draw a strict line between beings that are the subjects of habits and those that are the subjects of dispositions only. If it is clear that moral habits of will differ from merely organic habits, it is impossible to say why, e. g. the habit of a horse of stopping at certain places, or the habits of trained animals differ radically from human habits of skill and dexterity and why to the latter alone the name of habits can be given. Furthermore it is true, as Aristotle remarks, that, by being thrown in the air, a stone will never acquire any facility for taking the same direction, but will always tend to fall toward the centre of attraction according to a vertical line; and that after any number of revolutions in the same direction a mill-stone acquires no facility for that special movement, unless it be an extrinsic one due to the adaptation of the mechanism. Nevertheless, in proportion as the elements of a material system are more varied, there is room for different arrangements, and consequently for new permanent aptitudes. In the sheet of paper which, after being folded, is more easily folded again; in the clothes or shoes which fit better after being worn for some time; in the mechanism which gives the best results after some functioning; in the violin which good use improves and bad use deteriorates, in domestic or trained animals, etc., there is something at least analogical to habit, and which cannot be distinguished from it on the mere ground of greater changeableness.

Hence if habit is considered exclusively from the point of view of retentiveness, there is no reason to deny its existence in the material world. It has been even said that, being simply an application of the law of inertia, it finds its maximum of application in inorganic matter, which, unless acted on by some contrary force, keeps indefinitely its modifications and conditions of rest or movement. Hence James writes that "the philosophy of habit is thus, in the first instance, a chapter in physics rather than in physiology or psychology" (Principles of Psychology I, 105). However, since habit means essentially specificizing of that which was indetermined, and the fixating of that which was indifferent, from this point of view of plasticity, adaptability, indetermination, selectiveness, it applies more strictly to organic than to inorganic matter, and more strictly still to the will which is capable even of such contrary determinations as temperance and intemperance, speaking the truth and lying, and, in general, of acting in one or another way and of abstaining entirely from action.

VII. THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS

In theology, the question of habits has several important applications. In fundamental morals, its discussion is necessary for the determination of the degree of responsibility in human actions, and the treatise de paenitentia deals with the attitude to be taken by the confessor toward penitents who habitually fall into the same sins, with the rules for granting or denying absolution, and with the advice to be given such persons in order to help them out of their habits. The scholastics, using a terminology. which is little in accordance with the modern meaning of habit and somewhat confusing to the lay reader, make a distinction between natural and supernatural, and between acquired and infused habits. Of the natural habits some are acquired by practice, others are innate like the habitus primorum principiorum, that is, the innate aptitude of the human mind to grasp at once the truth of self-evident principles as soon as their meaning is understood. Supernatural habits cannot be acquired, since they direct man to his supernatural end, and, therefore, are above the exigencies and the forces of nature. They suppose a higher principle, given by God, which is sanctifying or "habitual" grace. With habitual grace the three theological virtues, which are also habitus supernaturales, and, according to the more common opinion, the four cardinal virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, are infused in the soul. Of themselves, such "habitus" give no facility to act, but only the power, the mere potentia. The facility--habit proper, or virtue in the strict sense--is acquired by the co-operation of man with Divine grace and the repetition of acts. By sin, on the contrary, these habitus are lessened or lost.

C.A. DUBRAY

Habor

[Heb. habhor; Sept. 'A Bwr: IV Kings (II), xvii, 6, 'A Biwr: IV Kings, xviii, 11; X aBwr: I Chronicles 5:26].

A river of Mesopotamia in Asiatic Turkey, an important eastern affluent of the Euphrates. It still bears the name of Habur. It rises in Mt. Masius (the present Karaja Dagh), some fifty miles north of Resaina (Ras el-'Ain, "the head of the spring"), flows south/southwest, imparting great fertility to its banks in its winding way through the midst of the desert, and falls into the Euphrates at Karkisiya (the ancient Carchemish) after a course, to a great extent navigable, of about two hundred miles. The most important tributary of the Habor is the Jeruyer, or ancient Mygdonius, which flows into it after passing Nisibis and Thubida. In IV Kings, xvii, 6; xviii, 11, the Habor is called "the river of Gozan" (the modern Kaushan), on account of the district of that name which it waters and which is now covered with mounds, the actual remains of Assyrian towns. The river Habor is distinctly named in the cuneiform inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I (about 1120-1110 B.C.), and, of Asshurnasir-pal (885-860 B.C.), and it seems from the expressions used by the last-named monarch that the river then emptied itself into the Euphrates through several mouths. In I Chronicles v, 26, it is stated that Phul, also called Thelgathphalnasar (Tiglathpileser III), carried away the exiles of the Transjordanic tribes of Israel into the district of the Habor. It is in the same land that according to IV Kings, xvii, 3-6; xviii, 9-11, Salmanasar IV--and perhaps Sargon, his immediate successor--settled the captives--of Northern Israel.

The Habor of IV Kings and I Chronicles must not be identified with the Chobar (Heb. Kebhar) which is repeatedly mentioned by the prophet Ezechiel (i, 1, 3; iii, 15, 23, etc.), and which was a large navigable canal, east of the Tigris, near Nippur. The Greek historian Procopius (6th cent. after Christ) says that the Chaboras (the classical name of the Habor) formed the limit of the Roman Empire. When the Spanish rabbi Benjamin of Tudela visited (A.D. 1163) the mouth of the Habor, he found near by some two hundred Jews who may have in part been the descendants of the ancient captives of the Assyrian kings. At the present day, the plain of the Habor is a favourite camping ground for wandering Bedouins.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Haceldama

Haceldama is the name given by the people to the potter's field, purchased with the price of the treason of Judas.

In Aramaic hagel dema, signifies "field of blood". The name is written in Greek ’Akeldamá, and very often ’Akeldamách, to render by the letter ch the guttural sound of the final aleph. St. Peter said in his discourse (Acts, i, 18-19): "He [Judas] indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."

Judas seeing that Jesus was condemned, relates St. Matthew (xxvii, 3-8), threw down the thirty pieces of silver in the temple and went and hanged himself. "But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: "It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it is the price of blood. And after they had consulted together they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for stangers. For this cause, that field was called [Haceldama, that is,] The field of blood, even to this day" (the bracketed words are added by the Vulgate). According to the Acts this blood was that of Judas, according to St. Matthew it was that of Christ. It is not impossible that the people should have so designated the potter's field, for both reasons. In saying that Judas acquired a field with the reward of his crime, St. Peter undoubtedly did not intend to say that the traitor purchased a field in order to commit suicide therein. Since there was question of replacing the fallen Apostle, St. Peter by an oratorical motion recalled his tragic death and the acquisition of the field where he perished, which was the sole reward of his treason. St. Matthew, on the contrary, writes as an historian, and relates the manner in which the prophecies were fulfilled (Zach., xi, 12-13; Jer., xxxii, 2, 15, 43; vii, 32).

It is permissible to conjecture from these two accounts, that after the potter's field was polluted by the suicide of the traitor, the proprietor hastened to rid himself of it, at any cost. In this manner the chief priests were enabled to buy it for thirty pieces of silver or thirty shekels, equivalent to about twenty dollars. It seems to correspond to "the potter's house" of Jeremias (xviii, 2-3), which further on (xix, 1-2) is spoken of as being in the valley of the Son of Ennom, south of Jerusalem. The same prophet declares (vii, 32) that in this valley, "they shall bury in Topheth, because there is no other place" owing to the Moloch worship being practised there. In his "Onomasticon" (ed. Klostermann, p. 102, 16) Eusebius makes the "field of Haceldama" lie nearer to "Thafeth of the valley of Ennom". But under the word "Haceldama" (p. 38, 20) he says that this field was pointed out as being "north of Mount Sion", but this was evidently through inadvertence. St. Jerome corrects the mistake and writes "south of Mount Sion" (p. 39, 27).

Tradition with regard to this place has remained the same throughout the centuries. In fact, the Pilgrim of Piacenza who was known by the name of Antoninus (c. 570) went from the pool of Silo "to the field of Akeldemac", which then served as a burial-place for pilgrims. Arculf (c. 670) visited it to the south of Mount Sion and makes mention also of the pilgrims' sepulchre. In the twelfth century, the crusaders erected beyond the field, on the south side of the valley of Ennom, a large building now in a ruined condition, measuring seventy-eight feet in length from east to west, fifty-eight feet in width, and thirty in height on the north. It is roofed and, towards the southern end, covers several natural grottoes, which were once used as sepulchres of the Jewish type, and a ditch is hollowed out at the northern end which is sixty-eight feet long, twenty-one feet wide, and thirty feet deep. It is estimated that the bones and rubbish which have accumulated here form a bed from ten to fifteen feet thick. They continued to bury pilgrims here up to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Haceldama (Hagg ed Dumm), has been the property of the non-United Armenians since the sixteenth century.

Schick, Palestine Expl. Fund, Quarterly Statement (1892), 283-9; Conder and Warren, The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem (London, 1884), 380.

Barnabas Meistermann

Bl. Hadewych

(HADEWIG, HEDWIG).

Prioress of the Premonstratensian convent of Mehre (Meer), near Büderich, in Rhenish Prussia; b. about 1150; d. 14 April, about the year 1200. She was a daughter of Hildegundis, with whom she founded the convent of Meer about 1165, and whom she succeeded as prioress at the convent in 1183. Her brother Herman was provost of the Premonstratensian monastery of Kappenberg, in the Diocese of Münster, from 1171-1210. She, as well as her mother and her brother, are counted among the Blessed.

MICHAEL OTT

Publius Ælius Hadrian

Emperor of the Romans; born 24 January, a.d. 76 at Rome; died 10 July, 138. He married his cousin and ward, Julia Sabina, grand-niece of Trajan. He reigned from 118 to 138, devoted himself to art and science, and possessed notable qualifications as a statesman and soldier. He abandoned Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, countries that his predecessor had hoped to acquire permanently by the conquest of the Parthians, and confined his efforts to developing the Province of Arabia. He strengthened his amicable relations with the Senate by various favours; he remitted arrears of taxes that had been owing to the treasury for fifteen years. The absolute power of the emperor reached limits never attained before. A conspiracy formed against Hadrian's life by distinguished officers during one of his campaigns in Mœsia was suppressed by the senators, and the four ringleaders were executed without the emperor's knowledge. In pursuance of his political, scientific, and military interests he travelled over the Roman provinces during his reign, first through those in the North and the North-West, then Spain and Mauretania, and finally the Orient and Greece, thereby assuring the loyalty of thirty legions and raising the discipline and warlike efficiency of the Roman army to a high standard, though his policy was far-sighted and peaceful. He was commemorated on the coinage as the restorer of the provinces. By protecting the boundaries in the valley of the Lower Danube, and by building many fortified places he encouraged the settlement of the province of Dacia by Roman colonists. In Germany he completed the palisaded ditch between the Rhine and the Danube (limes Hadriani). In Britain the legions constructed a fortified wall extending from the mouth of the River Tyne to the Solway Firth (vallum Hadriani) to protect the Roman boundaries from the inroads of the Picts. This has been partially preserved. He desisted from any attempt to subjugate the northern part of the island. Numerous fortresses and military roads were built in Africa and on the Black Sea. He built up the old Thracian colony Uscudama into the flourishing city of Adrianople. A description of the Pontic coasts was written at Hadrian's request by his legate, the historian Flavius Arrianus of Nicomedia, in his "Periplus". Although on his return he had lost some of his popularity at Rome, he made a second tour abroad for several years in 129, and conferred such an abundance of benefits and gifts, particularly on Greece and Athens, that, according to his biographer Spartianus, this city, where a new section called Hadrian's quarter was built at the south-east of the old town, again became the centre of Hellenic culture. He completed the Olympieum that Pisistratus had begun, the largest temple in the Græco-Roman world.

The Greeks set up Hadrian's statue in the temple at Olympia and built the Panhellenium in the new town in honour of Zeus Panhellenius. In the provinces of Asia Hadrian encouraged and aided the construction of aqueducts, bridges, roads, and temples, and the restoration of ruined cities. By this means he sought to relieve economic distress and at the same time to promote his domestic policy. During an inundation of the Nile, while he was travelling through Egypt, his favourite, the beautiful young Antinous, a native of Bithynia, was drowned, in the year 130. The emperor caused him to be deified. In order to prevent the recurrence of insurrections by the Jews, who in their religious schools were cherishing hopes of reviving a Jewish kingdom under the Messias, the emperor ordered the Roman troops in Jerusalem to raze the ruins left standing in that ancient city and to set up a military colony, Ælia Capitolina. It was his wish to eradicate Judaism as such. The Jews revolted in 132 under Simon, whom they called Bar-Cocheba. (Son of the Stars). Inside of three years Sextus Julius Severus put down the rising amid terrible destruction and bloodshed. The Jews were forbidden to set foot within the old city. In the year 134 Hadrian returned to Italy. He built a temple to Trajan in Rome, a colossal double temple to Venus and Roma, and the gigantic mausoleum on the right bank of the Tiber, which constitutes the kernel of the castle of Sant' Angelo. At his villa near Tivoli he copied the monuments and landscapes that had made the strongest impressions on him during his travels. In order to unify jurisprudence throughout the entire empire, he ordered the prætor Salvius Julianus to revise and codify systematically the prætorian edicts and the annual supplementary edicts. In the year 131 this "perpetual edict" (edictum perpetuum) obtained force of law by virtue of a decree of the senate; the same force was given to the opinions of the jurisconsults in all points wherein they were agreed among themselves, in order, that the system of the law might continue to develop. He bestowed the highest administrative offices on men of knightly rank, instead of on freedmen as heretofore, and regulated the succession of these officers. During his absence from Rome he had created an efficient, salaried council, clothed with statutory authority, which was confirmed by the senate, and which had the decision of all current important affairs in the administration of the empire. According to Hadrian's wishes, the Christians were to be punished only for such offences as came under the common law. Although there was no outspoken statutory toleration of them, they were not persecuted on account of their religion. With the sanction of the senate, he adopted L. Ceionius Commodus Verus and designated him as his successor by having the title of Cæsar conferred on him in 136. Because his brother-in-law, L. Julius Ursus Servianus, cherished hopes of the succession for his own youthful grandson, Fuscus Salinator, Hadrian had them both put to death. After the death of Verus (1 January, 138) he adopted the admirable Aurelius Antoninus, who was fifty-two years old, appointed him co-ruler with himself, and prevailed upon him to adopt L. Verus, the son of his own first adopted son. Hadrian died of dropsy on 16 July, 138.

GREGOROVIUS, Der Kaiser Hadrian, Gemälde der röm.-hellen. Welt (3 vols. Stuttgart, 1884); DÜRR, Die Reisen Kaiser Hadrians (Vienna, 1881); HILZIG, Die Stellung Kaiser Hadrians in der röm. Rechtsgeschichte (Zurich, 1892); SCHILLER, Römische Kaiserzeit, (2 vols. Gotha, 1883).

KARL HOEBER

Hadrian

Martyr, died about the year 306. The Christians of Constantinople venerated the grave of this victim of Diocletian's persecution. We are told by legendary and unverified records, which have been preserved in Greek and Latin, that Hadrian was an officer in the bodyguard of Emperor Galerius. In this capacity he was present one day, with the emperor, at the trial and torture of twenty-two Christians in Nicomedia. He was so impressed that he forthwith declared himself a Christian, and with the others was thrown into prison. His wife, Natalia, who had secretly become one herself, cheered and ministered to her husband and his fellow-prisoners. The account given in the Acts of the martyrs is embellished with a number of legendary and, in part, very poetical details. Hadrian and his companions in martyrdom were finally put to death. Their members were first broken, after which they were delivered up to the flames. Natalia is supposed to have brought to Constantinople the mortal remains of her martyred husband. Another legend speaks of a martyr, Hadrian of Nicomedia, who figures in the Roman Martyrology and in the Greek Menaion under 26 August. Though different in detail, the story deals with the same person. The remains of St. Hadrian were later laid in the church erected under his name and patronage on the Roman forum, which church (S. Adriano al Foro) is standing at the present day. The feast of the translation, which, in the Roman Church is the principal feast of this martyr and of his companions, is celebrated on 8 September. The Roman Martyrology, however, mentions them also on 4 March, while the Greek calendar places their feast on 26 August. On this last date the Roman Martyrology likewise makes mention of a Hadrian.

J.P. KIRSCH

Hadrumetum

(ADRUMETUM, also ADRUMETUS).

A titular see of Byzacena. Hadrumetum was a Phoenician colony earlier than Carthage, and was already an important town when the latter rose to greatness. Hannibal made use of it as a military base in his campaign against Scipio at the close of the Second Punic War. Under the Roman Empire it became very prosperous; Trajan gave it the rank of a colonia. At the end of the third century it became the capital of the newly-made province of Byzacena. After suffering greatly from the Vandal invasion, it was restored by Justinian, who called it Justinianopolis. It was again afflicted by the Arabs (to whom it is known as Susa) and restored by the Aglabites in the eleventh century. In the twelfth century Norman of Sicily held it fora time; the French captured it in 1881.

Susa has today 25,000 inhabitants, of whom 1100 are French, and 5000 are other Europeans, mainly Italians and Maltese. It is a government centre in the Province of Tunis. It has a few antiquities and some curious Christian catacombs. The native portion of the town has hardly altered. It has a museum, a garrison, an important harbour, and there are many oil wells in the neighbourhood.

Between 255 and 551 we know of nine bishops of Hadrumteum, the last of whom was Primasius, whose works are to be found in P.L., LXVIII, 467.

S. PETRIDES

Benedict van Haeften

(Haeftenus).

Benedictine writer, provost of the Monastery of Afflighem, Belgium; born at Utrecht, 1588; died 31 July 1648, at Spa, Belgium, whither he had gone to recover his health. After studying philosophy and theology at Louvain, he entered the Benedictine Abbey of Afflighem in 1609, took solemn vows on 14 May, 1611, and was ordained priest in 1613. Hereupon he returned to Louvain to continue his theological studies, but has recalled to his monastery when he was about to receive the licentiate in theology. In 1616 he became prior, and in 1618 Matthias Hovius, Archbishop of Mechlin, who wasat the same time Abbot of Afflighem, appointed him provost of his monastery. Afflighem at the time belonged to the Bursfeld Union, and under the prudent direction of the pious van Haeften was in a flourishing spiritualand temporal condition. Jacob Boonen, who had succeeded Hovious as archbishop and abbot in 1620, desired to join the monastery to the new Congregation of St. Vannes, in Lorraine, which had a stricter constitution than Bursfeld. After some prudent hesitation, van Haeften agreed to the change, and on 18 October, 1627, began his novitiate under the direction under the direction of a monk of the Congregation of Lorraine. Together with eight of his monks, he made confession according to the new reform on 25 October, 1628, and founded the Belgian Congregation of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin. The new reform enjoined perpetual abstinence, daily rising at two o'clock in the morning, and manual labour joined with study.Unhappily the new congregation was of short duration. The intrusion uponthe rights of the monks by the Archbishop of Mechlin brought about its dissolution in 1654.

Van Haeften is the author of a learned and painstaking work of monastic researches n the life and rule of St. Benedict, entitled: "S. Benedictus illustratus, sive Disquisitionsum monasticarum libri XII, quibus S.P. Benedicti Regula et religiosorum rituum antiquitates varie dilucidantur" (Antwerp, 1644). The other six works of van Haeften that found their way intoprint are of an ascetical character.

MICHAEL OTT

Gottfried Hagen

Gottfried Hagen, town clerk of Cologne, and author of the Cologne "Reimchronik" (rhymed chronicle); died 1299. He filled many influential positions, and took an active part in the public life of his native city. Subsequently to the year 1268, he is mentioned repeatedly in documents as "Magister Godefridus clericus Coloniensis", "Notarius civitatis Coloniensis" pastor (plebanus) of St. Martin the Lesser at Cologne, and dean of the chapter of St. George. He gives his name with the title town-clerk (der stede schriver) at the end of his "Book of the City of Cologne" (Dit is dat boich van der stede Colne). This "Reimchronik" is a very remarkable work of some 3000 couplets; as a chronicle it is almost complete, if based at times on unreliable traditions. At earliest, it was written in 1270 with a supplement in 1271; it cannot have appeared later than the period between 1277 and 1287. After a legendary introduction, permeated with the idea of municipal liberty, it recounts the conflicts between the city of Cologne and the Archbishops Conrad and Engelbert II, and the feuds between the patrician party and the guilds in the years 1252-71. Its arrangement is simple, its style negligent, and its artistic merit slight, although it does not lack some lively descriptions. The importance of the chronicle lies in its contents. No other German city has records so complete and so full of life for this early period. For historical purposes, however, it should be used with great caution. It is true that the strictures formerly passed upon its reliability have proved to be very exaggerated. In rehearsing facts the work is fairly accurate, but Hagen is a thorough partisan, and an enthusiastic patriot. He was an adherent of the group of patricians led by his relatives, the "Overstolzen", and he opposed bitterly both the party of the "Weisen", the despised guilds, and also the archbishops of Cologne, who, as lords of the city, were the natural enemies of the development of Cologne into a free imperial city. Nevertheless, the bishops and still more the Holy See are always treated with respect. It cannot be said that Hagen forged facts, but he modified them, and his judgment is coloured to a high degree by party spirit. His curious book is not so much a chronicle as a pamphlet written for a purpose. It was highly esteemed in Cologne as a plea for municipal liberty. Several medieval chroniclers have drawn largely upon its contents. For a critical edition of the "Reimchronik", see Cardauns and Schröder in "Chroniken der niederrheinischen Städte: Köln", I, 1-236, in "Chroniken der deutschen Städte", XII (Leipzig, 1875); cf. III, 963.

See MERLO in Jahrbucher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande, LIX, 114, and especially KELLETER, Gottfried Hagen (Trier, 1894).

HERMANN CARDAUNS.

Haggith

This is the ordinary form of the name in the English Bible; it corresponds better to the Hebrew Haggith, "Festive", than Aggith, as the name is spelled in I Par., iii, 2. Haggith was one of David's wives (II Kings, iii,4). Whose daughter she was, we are not told. The Bible records only thatshe born to him Adonias, the fourth of his sons, in Hebron, before he was king over all Israel. That she was an uncommonly remarkable woman, seems to be suggested from the custom of Biblical writers to speak usually of Adonias as "the son of Haggith". Although harem intrigues have ever played a great part in the East, nothing indicates, however, that Haggith had anything to do either with the attempt of her son to secure for himself the crown of Israel (III Kings, I, 5-53), or with his fatal request, likely also prompted by political motives, to obtain his father's Sunamite concubine, Abisag, from Solomon (III Kings, ii, 13-25).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Hagiography

The name given to that branch of learning which has the saints and their worship for its object. Writings relating to the worship of the saints may be divided into two categories:

• (a) those which are the spontaneous product of circumstances or have been called into being by religious needs of one kind or another (and these belong to what may be called practical hagiography);
• (b) writings devoted to the scientific study of the former category (and these constitute critical hagiography).

(a) The worship of the saints has everywhere given rise, both in the East and in the West, to a very considerable number of documents, varying, in form and in tenor, with the object which the author in each case had in view. Such, in primitive times, are the lists of martyrs drawn up in particular Churches with a view to the celebration of anniversaries, which lists become the nucleus of the martyrologies. Documents of this kind merit a special study (see MARTYROLOGY), and we need only mention them here in passing (see "Analecta Bollandiana", XXVI, pp. 78-99). Side by side with the martyrologies and calendars there are also the narratives of martyrdoms and the biographies written by contemporaries in memory of the heroes whom the Church celebrates. Such are the "Passion of the Scilitan Martyrs", the "Life of St. Augustine by Possidius, and the "Life of St. Martin", by Sulpicius Severus. Sometimes, again, they are accounts composed by writers who lived at some distance of time from the events recorded, and whose object was to edify the faithful or satisfy a pious curiosity. These hagiographers write either in prose, like the author of the Acts of St. Cecilia, or in verse, like Prudentius and so many others. Then again there are texts composed or arranged, for liturgical use, from historical documents or from artificial compositions. These various classes of hagiographic works — historical memoirs, literary compositions, liturgical texts — existed at first as monographs; but soon the need was felt of gathering into a collection separate pieces of the same nature. The most ancient hagiographic collection of which mention is made is Eusebius's compilation ton archaion martyrion synagoge, containing the Passions of martyrs previous to the persecution of Diocletian. Eusebius himself wrote, all in one piece, the book of the martyrs of Palestine of the last persecution, as Theodoret afterwards compiled his philotheos Historia from a series of thirty biographies of which he himself was the author. Thus we have two types of collections to one or other of which we may attribute all those to be mentioned hereafter — the type which consists of a grouping of unlike pieces under one title and the type which is a series of narratives all from the same pen. Among the most famous collections of the Middle Ages we may cite those of Gregory of Tours, under the titles "In Gloriâ Martyrum" (P. L., LXXI, 705-80) and "In Gloriâ Confessorum" (loc. cit., 827-910), the dialogues of St. Gregory the Great, "De Vitâ et Miraculis Patrum Italicorum" (P. L., LXXVII, 147-429), the three books of Eulogius of Toledo (died 859) entitled "Memorialis Sanctorum" (P. L., CXV, 731-818).

In these collections the order is the historical order of the particular subjects — saints' Lives or Passions — which they include; later on there appear collections of a more artificial character in which the Passions and the biographies of the saints follow each other according to the dates of the calendar. In the West these collections are known as "Passionaries" or "Legendaries". In course of time every region came to have its own; the Roman Legendary constitutes the common foundation of all, and the special parts are determined by the local cultus. The legendaries are usually made up of biographies and Passions of relatively great length. Beginning with the thirteenth century, collections of a more convenient size begin to appear, containing the matter of the legendaries in a condensed form. Of these unquestionably the most famous is the "Legenda Aurea" of the Dominican Jacobus de Voragine, manuscripts of which were plentifully distributed until the time when copies began to be multiplied by printing. This work, moreover, was translated during the Middle Ages into several modern languages, and indeed it is to be remarked that a large number of saints' lives and hagiographic collections in the vulgar tongues, which are now of interest chiefly to students of philology, may be traced to Latin originals. The importance of this body of literature may be estimated by a perusal of, e. g., for French, M. Paul Meyer's memoirs, "Notice sur un légendier français classé selon l'ordre de l'année liturgique" (Paris, 1898), "Notice sur trois légendiers français attribués à Jean Belet" (Paris, 1889). and "Légendes hagiographiques en français" [in "Histoire littéraire de la France", XXXIII (1906), pp. 328-459]. For German we may mention F. Wilhelm, "Deutsche Legenden und Legendare" (Leipzig, 1907).

Other hagiographical compilations dating from the Middle Ages are worthy of mention, although they have not all enjoyed the same popularity. Such are the Sanctoral of Bernard Guy, Bishop of Lodève (died 1331), still unedited (see L. Delisle, "Notice sur les manuscrits de Bernard Guy" in" Notices et Extraits", XXVII, 2, 1879); the legendary of the Dominican Pierre Calo (died. 1348}, also unedited; the "Sanctilogium Angliæ" of John of Tynemouth (died 1366), which became the "Nova legenda Angliæ" of John Capgrave (1464), of which we now have a critical edition by C. Horstmann (Oxford, 1901, 2 vols., 8vo); the "Sanctuarium" of B. Mombritius, printed at Milan about the year 1480, in two folio volumes, and especially precious because it reproduces the lives and the Passions of the old Manuscripts without any reshaping or rehandling; the great compilations of Jean Gielemans, a Brabantine canon regular (died 1487) under the titles "Sanctilogium", "Hagiologium Brabantinorum", "Novale Sanctorum" (see "Analecta Bollandiana", XIV, pp. 5-88); Hilarion of Milan's supplement to Jacobus de Voragine (Legendarium . . . supplementum illius de Voragine, Milan, 1494). After the middle of the sixteenth century, the lives of the saints begun by Aloysius Lipomano, Bishop of Verona ("Sanctorum priscorum patrum vitæ", Venice, 1551-60), continued and completed by Surius ("De probatis sanctorum historiis", Cologne, 1570-75) which were offered as both edifying reading and at the same time a polemical arsenal against the Protestants, enjoyed a considerable reputation and were several times reprinted. Father Ribadeneyra's "Flos Sanctorum" (first edition Madrid, 1599) had a greater popular success and was translated into several languages; it was followed by a great number of lives of the saints for every day in the year. Among the most famous of these must be mentioned Alban Butler's, "The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints", which first appeared in 1756 and was often reprinted and translated, and Mgr Guérin's "Les petits Bollandistes" a collection which has nothing in common with the "Acta Sanctorum" or with the publications of the Bollandists. Most collections of lives of the saints, particularly those in modern languages, are inspired by the idea of edifying and interesting the reader, and without any great solicitude for historical truth. We shall not speak here of isolated biographies the number of which grew incessantly during the Middle Ages and in later times, and which as constantly served to swell the collections.

Among the Greeks the development of hagiography was — at least outwardly — the same as among the Latins. The Passions of the martyrs, biographies and panegyrics of the saints were gathered in just the same way into collections, arranged in the order of the Calendar, in the menologies mentioned as early as the ninth century (see "Analecta Bollandiana", XVI, pp. 396-494; XVI, pp. 311-29; XVII, pp. 448-52). The Greeks, too, have their shorter menologies, composed of abridged lives (bioi en syntomo, see "Analecta Bollandiana", XVI, p. 325), and their Synaxaries, the use of which is chiefly liturgical, are mainly compositions in which the more extended lives and Passions are reduced to the form of brief notices (see H. Delehaye, "Synaxarium ecclesiæ Constantinopolitanæ, Propylæum et Acta Sanctorum Novembris", p. lix). Neither is there any lack of collections in popular (modern) Greek, while the saints' lives of Margunios, Agapios Landos, and others, down to the Megas Synaxaristes of C. Dukakis (14 vols., 8vo, Athens, 1889-97), are widely read in Greek-speaking countries.

Closely connected with Greek hagiography is Slavonic hagiography. The reader is referred, for purposes of orientation, to Martinov, "Annus græcoslavicus" in "Acta SS." October, vol. XI, and the critical edition of the Menæa" of Macarius now in course of publication at St. Petersburg (Moscow) under the auspices of the Archæographic Commission. The Orient has been the scene of an analogous development. Passions of the martyrs, lives of the saints, collections, synaxaries are all found in the various Oriental languages; but, in spite of the very praise-worthy efforts of the specialists, we are still insufficiently informed as to details. Those desiring a summary account of the hagiography of the different peoples of those regions are referred, for the Armenian, to the "Vitæ et Passiones Sanctorum", published by the Mechitarists of Venice in 1874, the great Armenian Synaxary of Ter-Israel (Constantinople, 1834), and the "Acta Sanctorum pleniora" of Aucher (12 vols., Venice, 1810-35); for the Coptic, to H. Hyvernat, "Actes des martyrs de l'Egypte" (Pads, 1886), I. Balestri and H. Hyvernat "Acta martyrum" in "Corpus scriptorum Orientalium; Scriptores Coptici" (Paris, 1907), the Coptic Jacobite Synaxary, two editions of which are in course of publication, one by I. Forget in "Corpus script. christ. Or.: Scriptores Arabici", and the other by R. Basset in the "Patrologia Orientalis", I; for the Ethiopian, to the "Acta martyrum" by Esteves Pereira, and the "Vitæ Sanctorum indigenarum", by C. Conti Rossini and B. Turajev, in "Corpus script. christ. Or.: Scriptores Æthiopici", the "Monumenta Æthiopiæ hagiologica" of Turajev, and the Ethiopian Synaxary, by I. Guidi, in the "Patrologia Orientalis", vol. I; for the Syriac, to the "Acta martyrum Orientalium" of St. Ev. Assemani (2 vols, folio, Rome, 1748) and the "Acta martyrum et sanctorum" of Bedjan (7 vols., 8vo, Leipzig, 1890-97); for the Georgian, to the "Sakart'hvelos Samot'hkhe" of G. Sabmin (St. Petersburg, 1832). We must content ourselves here with a rapid glance; a complete bibliography of hagiographical materials would require several volumes. For fuller details we refer the reader to the three works published by the Bollandists: "Bibliotheca hagiographica latina" (2 vols, 1898-1901); "Bibliotheca hagiographica græca" (2nd ed., 1909); "Bibliotheca hagiographica orientalis" (1910).

(b) Scientific hagiography has for its object the criticism of documents belonging to all the categories which we have enumerated above. It involves two operations which are hardly separable: the study of written tradition for the purpose of establishing texts; and research into sources with the object of determining the historical value of those texts. The earliest attempts at a methodical hagiographic criticism date from the beginning of the seventeenth century. It is known that Rosweyde (died 1629) first conceived that project of forming a collection of the "Acta Sanctorum" which since 1643 has been put into execution by Bollandus and his collaborators (see BOLLANDISTS), and which has for its essential aim the critical sifting and the publication of all the hagiographic texts which have come down to us relating to the saints quotquot toto orbe coluntur. From the first volumes Bollandus and his colleagues have submitted their documents to a criticism as severe as the means of information and the state of historical science permitted. With the developments attained by all branches of science in the course of the last century, the importance of archæological discoveries in that period, the progress of philology and palæography, the possibility of using means of rapid communication to obviate the difficulty of scattered material, hagiography could not but take a new orientation. The Bollandists have been induced to undertake, side by side with the compilation of the "Acta Sanctorum", a course of labours which, without modifying the spirit of their work, assures for it a broader and firmer basis and a more rigorous application of the principles of historical criticism. But they have not been alone in their devotion to the science of hagiography as constituted since the inauguration of their work; Mabillon, "Acta SS. O.S.B.; Ruinart, "Acta martyrum sincera", and the Assemani, "Acta martyrum Orientalium", have furnished important supplements to the work.

Especially since the middle of the nineteenth century a host of solid works have made their appearance to push forward hagiographic science to a notable extent. We may recall here the fine editions of the lives of German saints in the collection of the "Monumenta Germaniæ historica", the numerous Greek texts brought to light by M. Papadopoulos-Kerameus and other learned Hellenists in various countries, the recent publications of Oriental writers mentioned above, and a mass of labours in minute details which have often opened new paths for the science of criticism. In passing, we may mention the researches of R. A. Lipsius on the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and the beautiful studies of M. P. Franchi de' Cavalieri on a selection of Acts of the martyrs. The" Bulletin des publications hagiographiques" of the "Analecta Bollandiana" may fill in for the reader the gaps left by this rapid review. Something should also be said as to the progress of hagiographical criticism as applied to martyrologies; but the subject is worthy of a special article. It would not be proper however, to pass over in silence the researches of J. B. De Rossi and of L. Duchesne on the Hieronymic Martyrologium and the critical edition to which these researches have led (Acta Sanctorum, November, II, at the beginning of the volume). The critical researches on historical martyrologies brilliantly inaugurated by Sollerius ("Martyrologium Usuardi" in "Acta Sanctorum", June, VI, VII) have been enlarged and brought into line with modern criticism by D. Quentin ("Les martyrologes historiques", Paris, 1908).

As will be readily understood, the distinction which we have established between practical and scientific hagiography is not always sharply defined. More than one attempt has been made to conciliate science with piety and to supply the latter with nourishment that has been passed through the sieve. The first collection of saints lives conceived in this spirit is that of A. Baillet, "Les Vies des saints composées sur ce qui nous est resté de plus authentique et de plus assuré dans leurs histoires" (Paris, 1701), the first volumes of which (January-August) were put upon the Index (cf. Reusch, "Der Index der verbotenen Bucher", II, 552). Again, the programme of a series of separate saints' lives, edited in France under the title "Les Saints", was inspired by a like idea of edifying the reader with biographies which should be irreproachable from the historical point of view. it is hardly necessary to add that more than one hagiographical publication of erudite and critical pretensions possesses no importance from a scientific point of view. Examples are as numerous as they appear superfluous.

HIPPOLYTE DELEHAYE.

The Hague

(Fr. LA HAYE; Dutch 's GRAVENHAGE, "the Count's Park"; Lat. HAGA COMITIS)

Capital and seat of Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well as of the (civil) Province of South Holland. It is situated two miles from the shores of the German Ocean, on a piece of low ground, which was at one time thickly wooded, between the mouths of the Mass and the Old Rhine. In 1908 it had 254,500 inhabitants, of whom 71,000 were Catholics. Among the most noteworthy edifices are the Gothic Groote Kerk (Great Church), originally a Catholic church, dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Nieuwe Kerk (New Church) built in 1649, with the monuments of the brothers de Witt and of Spinoza. Of the nine Catholic churches in the city the most famous are St. James's (built, in 1878, by Cuypers), St. Joseph's (1868), St. Anthony's (1835), and the Willibrordus (built, 1821; enlarged, 1865). The Binnenhof is historically the most important public edifice. It is an irregular pile of architecture of various dates, enclosing a square court and formerly surrounded by a moat. The nucleus of the whole is the Rittersaal (Hall of the Knights), which dates from the time of the city's foundation. In the Binnenhof are the council chambers of the old States-General, as well as the assembly halls of both houses of the actual Parliament of the Netherlands. Other structures worthy of mention are the royal palace, built in the first half of the seventeenth century and extended in 1816; the Mauritzhuis picture gallery, rich in masterpieces of Rembrandt, Potter, and Rubens, the City Hall (erected in 1565; enlarged and restored 1882-83), and the royal country residence, 't Huis ten Bosch (the House in the Wood), the meeting place of the famous first International Peace Conference.

Ecclesiastically, The Hague is a deanery of the Diocese of Haarlem, and has nine parishes, two of which are administered by Jesuits (eighteen fathers) and one by Franciscans (nine fathers). There are also houses of the Brothers of Mercy, the Brothers of the Congregation of Our Lady of Lourdes, the Sisters of Tilburg, the Sisters of Rosendaal, the Sisters of Delft, the Borromean Sisters (two convents), and the Ladies of the Sacred Heart (one school). There are numerous pious associations, of which the most important are the Dutch Society of St. Gregory, the League of St. Peter Claver, the Catholic Teachers' Union, the St. James's Association for the Instruction of the Catholic Youth of The Hague, the Societies of St. Boniface and St. Canisius, the Society of St. Vincent, and the Catholic People's Union.

HISTORY

In the eleventh century the Counts of Holland built themselves a hunting-lodge in the great forest which then covered the site of The Hague. William II, Count of Holland and King of Germany, replaced this earlier building with the castle which formed the nucleus of the Binnenhof mentioned above. This castle was enlarged by his son Floris V, who made it his residence after 1291. Although many of the Counts of Holland maintained a brilliant Court, affording hospitality to poets and painters (Jan van Eyck among the latter), the place nevertheless remained unimportant. During the war between Guelders and Germany, The Hague was captured and pillaged by bands of Guelders, freebooters under Martin of Rossum. The ideas of the German Reformers soon found entrance into the city, but were suppressed with sanguinary rigour. It was here that the first Dutch martyr for the new creed, the pastor Jan de Bakker of Worden, suffered death by fire in the Binnenhof in 1526. Again, in 1570, under the Duke of Alva's reign of terror, four preachers were burnt for heresy at The Hague. The Reformation, however, gained the upper band during the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain. The town suffered grievous pillage at the hands of the Spanish troops in the course of the Dutch War of Independence. But with the conclusion of peace commerce and industry rapidly recovered. In 1593 The Hague was the seat of the Dutch States-General, but, owing to the jealousy of the cities which had votes, it was deprived of representation in the States, and became "the largest village" in Europe, having, in 1622, as many as 17,430 inhabitants. With the rise of Holland to the position of the first maritime and colonial power of Europe, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, The Hague became the most important centre of European diplomacy. Many international treaties were concluded there: in 1666, the alliance between Denmark and Holland against England; in 1668, the Triple Alliance of England, Sweden, and Holland, which compelled Louis XIV to conclude the Peace of Aachen; in 1707, the great alliance of the maritime powers and the Emperor Leopold against France; in 1710, the "Concert of The Hague", consisting of the German emperor, England, and Holland, to maintain the neutrality of Northern Germany in the war of the Northern powers with Sweden; in 1718, the Quadruple Alliance between England, France, the emperor, and Holland, to enforce the conditions of the Treaty of Utrecht, and thereby check the aggressive policy of Spain.

During the bitter partisan strife within the Republic, The Hague was the scene of many memorable historical episodes. In the course of the religious feuds between the Arminians and the Gomarists, Prince Maurice of Orange caused the arrest of Jan van Olden-Barneveld, the septuagenarian grand pensionary, an Arminian, together with his learned companions Hugo Grotius and Hogerbeets, in the Binnenhof (1619). The grand pensionary, in spite of a brilliant defence, was condemned and executed (13 May, 1619). The death of the two brothers de Witt, in 1672, was even more tragic. Jan de Witt, as grand pensionary, had directed the policy of Holland for nearly two decades and, while at the height of his power, had, by the Perpetual Edict, debarred William III of Orange from enjoying the hereditary office of stadtholder. When, in spite of this, William was elected Stadtholder of Holland and Captain-General of the Netherlands, in 1672, Jan's brother, Cornelius de Witt, was falsely accused of an attempt to murder the prince, and was thrown into prison. A frenzied rabble of partisans of the Prince of Orange broke into the prison, into which Jan de Witt, also, had been inveigled by a pretended summons from his brother, seized both the de Witts, and tore them to pieces.

During the French Revolution, The Hague was the capital of the Batavian Republic. When Napoleon turned this republic into a kingdom for his brother Louis, The Hague obtained a city charter, but the seat of government was transferred to Amsterdam, until the Restoration (1815), when The Hague regained its political importance. It was the meeting-place of the International Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, and is the permanent seat of the International Court of Arbitration.

VAN STOCKUM, 's Gravenhage in den loop der tijden (2 vols., The Hague, 1889); Onze Pius Almanak (Amsterdam, 1909).

JOSEPH LINS

Ida Hahn-Hahn

Countess, convert and authoress, born 22 June, 1805; died 12 January, 1880. She was descended from a family that formerly was one of the wealthiest and most illustrious of the wealthiest and most illustrious of the Mecklenburg nobility. Her father, the tragic and famous "Theatergraf" (theatrical count), sqandered such huge sums on his one hobby, the drama, that he reduced the family to great straits and finally had to be placed under the supervision of a guardian. Fortunately he did not have much influence on Ida's education. On the other hand, the pious disposition of her mother also seems to have been antipathetic to her. Consequently the bringing up of the sixteen-year old girl, who ought to have been preparing for confirmation, seems to have been particularly superficial in all matters of religion, according to her own admission. Her mind was just as deficiently cultivated in other lines of study, so that the countess later in life had to fill out many a gap in her education by reading. When she was twenty-one years old she married her cousin, Count Friedrich von Hahn, Erbmarschall (hereditary marsha]) of Basedow: hence her double name Hahn-Hahn. It was a marriage of convenience, contracted without any affection on either side and culminating in a divorce at the end of three years. Her only child being mentally and bodily deformed, was for years the source of acute grief to the mother. She withdrew from society and lived for a long while in retirement with her mother in the Greifswald. But after a time she visited Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain and France. Later on she made a tour of the North and after that of the East.

The countess enjoyed absolute independence during this period (1829-1849), and led the life of an emancipated woman of the world. Much talk was caused by her association with Baron von Bistram, who used to accompany her on her travels, as also by her brief acquaintance with the famous lawyer, Henry Simond. One day, in 1849, opening the Bible at random she chanced on Isaias 60:1: "Arise, be enlightened, O Jerusalem: for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." She accepted the sign and, after wrestling with her soul for several months, wrote to Prince Bishop Diepenbrock, asking to be admitted to the Catholic Church. The Prelate subjected her to a severe test to make sure that her resolution was earnest, but she withstood this ordeal, and on 26 March, 1850, made profession of the Catholic Faith before Bishop von Ketteler in the Hedwigs-Mainz with the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, for whom she had founded a convent there, mostly out of her own means. The last thirty years of life were devoted entirely to works of piety and to serious writing with a definite and lofty purpose: she condemned her own earlier compositions before the whole literary world. She was afflicted with much bodily suffering during her last few years on earth, but she bore it with consummate heroism.

Poems

The small volumes, "Gedichte" (1835), "Neuere Gedichte" (1836), "Venezianische Nachte" (1836), "Lieder und Gedichte" (1837), and "Astralion" (1839), show depth of sentiment and a high standard of form and contents; but at the same time they betray the youthfulness of the author and the almost overwhelming influence of her favourite poet, Lord Byron. Two small volumes written after her conversion are: "Unsere Liebe Frau" (1851) and "Das Jahr der Kirche" (1854), their titles being significant of their contents.

Novels written before the conversion

The Countess's real literary talent was evinced in her novels. Her first two attempts were "Ilda Schonholm" or "Aus der Gesellschaft" (1838) and "Der Rechte" (1839). Even these books show promise of the sureness and self-confidence that were so characteristic of her later works, but they are marred by slovenly and inartistic construction. From the point of view of morality, the two first-fruits are the least worthy of all that countess ever wrote. Her next novels and tales are of a far higher order in both respects. "Gräfin Faustine" (1840) still shows the influence of her learning towards emancipation, but this, of course, was somewhat mitigated by the fact that at the end of the book the Gräfin enters a convent. Both artistically and morally, "Sigismund Forster" (1847) is the best of the many books which came from Ida's pen at that time, including "Ulrich" (1841), "Die Kinder auf dem Abendberg" (1843), "Cecil" (1844), "Zwei Frauen" (1845), "Clelia Conti" (1846), "Sibylle" (1846)—an autobiography—and "Levin" (1848).

Books of travel

These are among the most mature works that the countess produced in this period. They are not books of travels in the ordinary sense, but rather the personal impressions of their author. "Jenseits der Berge" (1840), dealing with Italy, was followed by "Erinnerungen aus und an Frankreich" (1842), " Ein Reiseversuch im Norden" (1843), and lastly "Orientalische Briefe" (1844).

Tales and novels written after her conversion

The story of her conversion is set forth in her famous book: "Von Babylon nach Jerusalem" (1851). This work could also reasonably be called a defence of the Catholic Church. The little book: "Aus Jerusalem" (1851) runs along the same trend of thought, and was followed by "Die Liebhaber des Kreuzes" (1852). Eight years later (1860) she reverted to the novel pure and simple in "Maria Regina", which achieved an immense circulation. In "Doralice" (1861) she displayed even more improvement and artistic refinement. This book was followed by "Die zwei Schwestern" (1863), "Peregrin" (1864), "Die Erbin von Cronenstein" (1869), "Geschichte einer armen Familie" (1869), "Die Erzählung des Hofrats" (1871), "Die Glocknerstochter" (1871), "Vergieb uns unsere Schuld" (1874), "Nirwana" (1875), "Der breite Weg und die enge Strasse" (1877), and "Wahl und Fuhrung" (1878).

Devotional works

"Die Martyrer" (1856), "Die Väter der Wüste" (1857), "Die Väter der orientalischen Kirche" (1859), "Vier Lebensbilder. Ein Papst, ein Bischof, ein Priester, ein Jesuit" (1861); "St. Augustinus" (1866), "Eudoxia" (1867), "Leben der hl. Theresia von Jesus" (1867), and many others written in a straightforward, simple style.

Her works, before her conversion, appeared at Leipzig and Berlin; after her conversion, at Mainz. The "Jubilee edition" appeared at Ratisbon in 1905, with a preface by Schaching.

HELENE (Lemaitre), Grafin Ida Hahn-Hahn (Leipsig, 1869); HAFFNER, Grafin Ida Hahn-Hahn (Frankfort, 1880), KEITER, Ida Grafin Hahn-Hahn, ein Lebens und Literaturbid (Wurzburg, s.d. STOCKMANN, Ida Grafin Hahn-Hahn, ein Lebensbild in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1905), 300-14, 424-39, 542-56.

N. SCHEID

Herenaus Haid

Catechist, born in the Diocese of Ratisbon, 16 February, 1784; died 7 January, 1873. His parents were quite destitute, and Raid, in his earliest youth, was deprived of all schooling. He was a shepherd's boy and had learned from his pious mother only how to say the rosary and to recite the little catechism of Canisius. Despite privation and obstacles, he finished his preparatory studies at Neuburg and his theological studies at Landshut. At Munich, which diocese he entered (1807) after his ordination, he obtained the degree of Doctor of Divinity, in 1808. But parochial work was not to be his field. His relations with Sailer (q. v.) inclined him to a literary life and among the first shorter productions of his pen was a treatise "Der Rosenkranz nach Meinung der kath. Kirche" (Landshut, 1810). It was through Sailer's intervention too that he was called to St. Gall as professor of exegesis. Here he taught from 1813 to 1818, and also acted as spiritual director in the seminary. His ability was soon recognized even at Munich, and he was called back and placed in charge of an important parish. The exasperation shown in anti-religious circles of Munich at his return is the best possible evidence of his apostolic zeal and energy. After much chicanery and government pressure he was relegated to a country parish (1824). But he ventured to return to the capital under Ludwig and was highly honoured by his bishop.

One of his most intimate friends, Dr. Ringseis, has paid in his "Erinnerungen" (I, p. 113) a glowing tribute to Haid's labours as a confessor. His life work was the establishment of the catechism course in his church of Unsere liebe Frau, whereby he has merited a place in the history of catechetics. The origin and growth of this foundation is described in his large catechetical work "Die gesamte christliche Lehre in ihrem Zusammenhang" (7 vols., Munich, 1837-45). In the preface to the seventh volume he explains the manner in which he was wont to conduct his catechizing. In his simple statements is to be found a complete theory or system of catechetics. He lays special stress on the Roman catechism and the catechism of Canisius. The deep veneration in which Raid, from his earliest youth, had held the latter found expression in his later writings, when he not only edited under different forms and translated the "Summa doctrinæ christianæ" of Blessed Peter Canisius, but also published some of the smaller works and a comprehensive biography of their author. During the closing years of his life he was afflicted with almost total blindness, but he bore his affliction with the greatest resignation. When death claimed him he had almost reached his ninetieth year. An account of a number of Haid's smaller works, not mentioned above, is to be found in the third volume of Kayser's "Bucherlexikon" (Leipzig, 1835), 16.

Münchener Pastoralblatt, 1873; RINGSEIS, Erinnerungen, especially I and IV (1886).

N. SCHEID.

Hail Mary

The Hail Mary (sometimes called the "Angelical salutation", sometimes, from the first words in its Latin form, the "Ave Maria") is the most familiar of all the prayers used by the Universal Church in honour of our Blessed Lady.

It is commonly described as consisting of three parts. The first, "Hail (Mary) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women", embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28). The second, "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)", is borrowed from the Divinely inspired greeting of St. Elizabeth (Luke, i, 42), which attaches itself the more naturally to the first part, because the words "benedicta tu in mulieribus" (I, 28) or "inter mulieres" (I, 42) are common to both salutations. Finally, the petition "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." is stated by the official "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to have been framed by the Church itself. "Most rightly", says the Catechism, "has the Holy Church of God added to this thanksgiving, petition also and the invocation of the most holy Mother of God, thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtainfor us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end."

ORIGIN

It was antecedently probable that the striking words of the Angel's salutation would be adopted by the faithful as soon as personal devotion to the Mother of God manifested itself in the Church. The Vulgate rendering, Ave gratia plena, "Hail full of grace", has often been criticized as too explicit a translation of the Greek chaire kecharitomene, but the words arein any case most striking, and the Anglican words are in any case most striking, and the Anglican Revised Version now supplements the "Hail, thouthat art highly favoured" of the original Authorized Version by the marginal alternative, "Hail thou, endued with grace". We are not surprised, then, to find these or analogous words employed in a Syriac ritual attributed to Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (c. 513), or by Andrew of Crete and St. John Damascene, or again the "Liber Antiphonarious" of St. Gregory the Great as the offertory of the Mass for the fourth Sunday of Advent. But such examples hardly warrant the conclusion that the Hail Mary was at that early period used in the Church as a separate formula of Catholic devotion. Similarly a story attributing the introduction of the Hail Mary to St. Ildephonsus of Toledo must probably be regarded as apocryphal. The legend narrates how St. Ildephonsus going to the church by night found our Blessed Lady seated in the apse in his own episcopal hair with a choir of virgins around her who were singing her praises. Then St. Ildephonsus approached "making a series of genuflections and repeating at each of them those words of the angel's greeting: `Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb'". Our Lady then showed her pleasure at this homage and rewarded the saint with the gift of a beautiful chasuble (Mabillon, Acta SS. O.S.B., saec V, pref., no. 119). The story, however, in this explicit form cannot be traced further back than Hermann of Laon at the beginning of the twelfth century.

In point of fact there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about from certain versicles and responsories occurring in the Little Office or Cursus of the Blessed Virgin which just at that time was coming into favour among the monastic orders. Two Anglo-Saxon manuscripts at the British Museum, one of which may be as old as the year 1030, show that the words "Ave Maria" etc. and "benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui" occurred in almost every part of the Cursus, and though we cannot be sure that these clauses were at first joined together so as to make one prayer, there is conclusive evidence that this had come to pass only a very little later. (See "The Month", Nov., 1901, pp. 486-8.) The great collections of Mary-legends which began to be formed in the early years of the twelfth century (see Mussafia, "Marien-legenden") show us that this salutation of our Lady was fast becoming widely prevalent as a form of private devotion, though it is not quite certain how far it was customary to include the clause "and blessedis the fruit of thy womb". But Abbot Baldwin, a Cistercian who was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1184, wrote before this date a sort of paraphrase of the Ave Maria in which he says:

To this salutation of the Angel, by which we daily greet the most Blessed Virgin, with such devotion as we may, we are accustomed to add the words, "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb," by which clause Elizabeth at a later time, on hearing the Virgin's salutation to her, caught up and completed, as it were, the Angel's words, saying: "Blessed are thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

Not long after this (c. 1196) we meet a synodal decree of Eudes de Sully, Bishop of Paris, enjoining upon the clergy the see that the "Salutation of the Blessed Virgin" was familiarly known to their flocks as well as the Creed and the Lord's Prayer; and after this date similar enactments become frequent in every part of the world, beginning in England with the Synod of Durham in 1217.

THE HAIL MARY A SALUTATION

To understand the early developments of this devotion it is important to grasp the fact that those who first used this formula fully recognized that the Ave Maria was merely a form of greeting. It was therefore long customary to accompany the words with some external gesture of homage, a genuflection, or least an inclination of the head. Of St. Aybert, in the twelfth century, it is recorded that he recited 150 Hail Marys daily, 100 with genfluctions and 50 with prostrations. So Thierry tells us of St. Louis of France that "without counting his other prayers the holy King knelt down every evening fifty times and each time he stood upright then knelt again and repeated slowly an Ave Maria." Kneeling at the Ave Maria was enjoined in several of the religious orders. So in the Ancren Riwle (q.v.), a treatise which an examination of the Corpus Christi manuscript 402 shows to be of older date than the year 1200, the sisters are instructed that, at the recitation both of the Gloria Patri and the Ave Maria in the Office, they are either to genuflect or to incline profoundly according to the ecclesiastical season. In this way, owing to the fatigue of these repeated prostrations and genufletions, the recitation of a number of Hail Marys wasoften regarded as a penitential exercise, and it is recorded of certain canonized saints, e.g. the Dominican nun St. Margaret (d. 1292), daughterof the King of Hungary, that on certain days she recited the Ave a thousand times with a thousand prostrations. This concept of the Hail Mary as a form of salutation explains in some measure the practice, which is certainly older than the epoch of St. Dominic, of repeating the greeting as many as 150 times in succession. The idea is akin to that of the "Holy, Holy, Holy", which we are taught to think goes up continually before the throne of the Most High.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE HAIL MARY

In the time of St. Louis the Ave Maria ended with the words of St. Elizabeth: "benedictus fructus ventris tui"; it has since been extended by the introduction both of the Holy Name and of a clause of petition. As regards the addition of the word "Jesus," or, as it usually ran in the fifteenth century, "Jesus Chrustus, Amen", it is commonly said that this was due to the initiative of Pope Urban IV (1261) and to the confirmation and indulgence of John XXII. The evidence does not seem sufficiently clear to warrant positive statement on the point. Still, there, can be no doubt that this was the widespread belief of the later Middle Ages. A popular German religious manual of the fifteenth century ("Der Selen Troïst", 1474) even divides the Hail Mary into four portions, and declares that the first part was composed by the Angel Gabriel, the second by St. Elizabeth, the third, consisting only of the Sacred Name. Jesus Christus, by the popes, and the last, i.e. the word Amen, by the Church.

THE HAIL MARY AS A PRAYER

It was often made a subject of reproach against the Catholics by the Reformers that the Hail Mary which they so constantly repeated was not properly a prayer. It was a greeting which contained no petition (see. e.g. Latimer, Works, II, 229-230). This objection would seem to have long been felt, and as a consequence it was uncommon during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries for those who recited their Aves privately to add some clause at the end, after the words "ventris tui Jesus". Traces of this practice meet us particularly in the verse paraphrases of the Ave which date from this period. The most famous of these is that attributed, though incorrectly, to Dante, and belonging in any case to the first half of the fourteenth century. In this paraphrase the Hail Mary ends with the following words:

Comparing the versions of the Ave existing in various languages, e.g. Italian, Spanish, German, Provençal, we find that there is a general tendency to conclude with an appeal for sinners and especially for help at the hour of death. Still a good deal of variety prevailed in these forms of petition. At the close of the fifteenth century there was not any officially approved conclusion, though a form closely resembling our present one was sometimes designated as "the prayer of Pope Alexander VI" (see "Der Katholik", April, 1903, p. 334), and was engraved separately on bells (Beisesel, "Verehrung Maria", p. 460). But for liturgical purposes the Ave down to the year 1568 ended with "Jesus, Amen", and an observation in the "Myroure of our Ldy" written for the Bridgettine nuns of Syon, clearly indicates the generally feeling. "Some saye at the begynnyng of this salutacyon Ave benigne Jesu and some saye after `Maria mater Dei', with other addycyons at the ende also. And such thinges may be saide when folke saye their Aves of theyr own devocyon. But in the servyce of the chyrche, I trowe it to be moste sewer and moste medeful (i.e. meritorious) to obey the comon use of saying, as the chyrche hath set, without all such addicions."

We meet the Ave as we know it now, printed in the breviary of the Camaldolese monks, and in that of the Order de Mercede c. 1514. Probably this, the current form of Ave, came from Italy, and Esser asserts that it is to be found written exactly as we say it now in the handwriting of St. Antoninus of Florence who died in 1459. This, however, is doubtful. What is certain is that an Ave Maria identical with our own, except for the omission of the single word nostrae, stands printed at the head of the little work of Savonarola's issued in 1495, of which there is a copy in the British Museum. Even earlier than this, in a French edition of the "Calendar of Shepherds" which appeared in is repeated in Pynson's English translation a few years later in the form: "Holy Mary moder of God praye for us synners. Amen.". In an illustration which appears in the same book, the pope and the whole Church are depicted kneeling before our Lady and greeting her with this third part of the Ave. The official recognition of the Ave Maria in its complete form, though foreshadowed in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as quoted at the beginning of this article, was finally given in the Roman Breviary of 1568.

One or two other points connected with the Hail Mary can only be briefly touched upon. It would seem that in the Middle Ages the Ave often become so closely connected with the Pater noster, that it was treated as a sort of farsura, or insertion, before the words et ne nos inducas in tentationem when the Pater noster was said secreto (see several examples quoted in "The Month", Nov., 1901, p. 490). The practice of preachers interrupting their sermons near the beginning to say the Ave Maria seems to have been introduced in the Middle Ages and to be of Franciscan origin (Beissel, p. 254). A curious illustration of its retention among English Catholics in the reign of James II may be found in the "Diary" of Mr. John Thoresby (I, 182). It may also be noticed that although modern Catholic usage is agreed in favouring the form "the Lord is with thee", this is a comparatively recent development. The more general custom a century ago was to say "our Lord is with thee", and Cardinal Wiseman in one of his essays strongly reprobates change (Essays on Various Subjects, I, 76), characterizing it as "stiff, cantish and destructive of the unction which the prayer breathes". Finally it may be noticed that in some places, and notably in Ireland, the feeling still survives that the Hail Mary is complete with the word Jesus. Indeed the writer is informed that within living memory it was not uncommon for Irish peasant, when bidden to say Hail Marys for a penance, to ask whether they were required to say the Holy Marys too. Upon the Ave Maria in the sense of Angelus, see ANGELUS. On account of its connection with the Angelus, the Ave Maria was often inscribed on bells. One such bell at Eskild in Denmark, dating from about the year 1200, bears the Ave Maria engraved upon it in runic characters. (See Uldall, "Danmarks Middelalderlige Kirkeklokker", Copenhagen, 1906, p. 22.)

HERBERT THURSTON

Karl von Haimhausen

(Corrupt form of Aymausen.)

German missionary; b. at Munich, of a noble Bavarian family, 28 May, 1692; d. in Chile, 7 April, 1767. On 20 October, 1702, he entered the Society of Jesus, and, in 1724, went as a missionary to Chile. He was a professor of theology and for many years rector of the Collegium Maximum at Santiago. Chile having been constituted an independence province of the order in 1624, Father Haimhausen was made provincial procurator, master of novices, and instructor. In these capacities he won such high esteem that even the Spanish bishops and the viceroy chose him for their confessor in spite of the fact of his being a foreigner.

Haimhausen completed the magnificent college church in Santiago, built a novitiate establishment and two houses for spiritual retreats, with churches attached to them, and rendered most valuable service in promoting the economic and industrial development of the colony. The abundance of gold and silver that poured out of the mines of the newly acquired countries has ruined the industries of the mother country, since it was easier and more convenient for Spain to import manufactured articles from abroad and pay for them in specie (R. Capps, "Estudios criticos acerca de la dominación española en América", XIII, 169, and passim). As a result, art and industries in the colonies decayed. Their regeneration was due especially to the German and Dutch missionaries who went thither at the end of the seventeenth century. Haimhausen founded an arts-and-crafts school at Calera, near Santiago, himself procuring the proper assistance from Germany. Here the ateliers of the bell-founder, the watchmaker and the goldsmith, the organ-builder and the furniture maker, and the studios of the painter and sculptor turned out monuments of arts and crafts such as Chile had hitherto never seen.

Huonder, Jesuitenmissionäre des 17ten und 18ten Jahrhunderts (Freiberg im Br., 1899), 65-75 sqq. 92, 132; Cappa, Estudios críticos acerca de la dominación española en America, VIII, Industrias mecánicas, 193 sqq.; XIII, 170; Enrich, Historia de la Campañía de Jesús en Chile, I (Barcelona, 1891), 103 sqq., 129 sqq., 243, 294; Carayon, Documents inédits, XVI (Poitiers, 1867-68), 331 sqq. Two letters of Haimhausen are published in the Welt-Bott, nos. 203 and 776. The manuscript of an apologia for the Society of Jesus, written in 1755, is contained in the archives of the Foreign Office at Santiago.

A. HUONDER

Hair (in Christian Antiquity)

The subject of this article is so extensive that there can be no attempt to describe the types of head-dress successively or simultaneously in use in the Catholic Church. An idea can be formed only from the texts and monuments quoted, and here we shall simply indicate the principal characteristics of head-dress at different times and among different classes.

The paintings in the catacombs permit the belief that the early Christians simply followed the fashion of their time. The short hair of the men and the waved tresses of the women were, towards the end of the second century, curled, frizzed with irons, and arranged in tiers, while for women the hair twined about the head forming a high diadem over the brow. Particular locks were reserved to fall over the forehead and upon the temples. Religious iconography proceeds even now in accordance with types created in the beginning of Christianity. Images of Christ retain the long hair parted in the middle and flowing to the shoulders. Those of the Blessed Virgin still wear the veil which conceals a portion of the brow and confines the neck. The Orantes, which represent the generality of the faithful, have the hair covered by a full veil which falls to the shoulders. Byzantine iconography differs little as to head-dress from that of the catacombs. Mosaics and ivories portray emperors, bishops, priests and the faithful wearing the hair of a medium length, cut squarely across the forehead. Women then wore a round head-dress which encircled the face. Emperors and empresses wore a large, low crown, wide at the top, ornamented with precious stones cut en cabochon, and jeweled pendants falling down to the shoulders, such as may be seen in the mosaics of S. Vitalis at Ravenna and a large number of diptychs. The hair of patriarchs and bishops was of medium length and was surmounted by a closed crown or a double tiara.

The barbarians allowed their hair to grow freely, and to fall unrestrained on the shoulders. After the fall of the Merovingians, and while the barbarian invaders were conforming more and more to the prevailing Byzantine taste or fashion, they did not immediately take up the fashion of cutting the hair. Carloman, the brother of Charlemagne, is represented at the age of fourteen with his hair falling in long tresses behind. The councils regulated the head-dress of clerics and monks. The "Statuta antiqua Ecclesiae" (can. xliv) forbade them to allow hair or beard to grow. A synod held by St. Patrick (can. vi) in 456 prescribed that the clerics should dress their hair in the manner of the Roman clerics, and those who allowed their hair to grow were expelled from the Church (can. x). The Council of Agde (506) authorized the archdeacon to employ force in cutting the hair of recalcitrants; that of Braga (572) ordained that the hair should be short, and the ears exposed, while the Council of Toledo (633) denounced the lectors in Galicia who wore a small tonsure and allowed the hair to grow immoderately, and two Councils of Rome (721 and 743) anathematized those who should neglect the regulations in this matter. This legislation only shows how inveterate was the contrary custom. The insistence of the councils is readily explained if we recall the ridiculous fantasies to which the heretical sects permitted themselves to go. Whether through the love of mortification or a taste for the bizarre, we see, according to St. Jerome's testimony, monks bearded like goats, and the "Vita Hilarionis" also states that certain persons considered it meritorious to cut hair each year at Easter.

In the ninth century there is more distinction between freemen and slaves, as regards the hair. Henceforth the slaves were no longer shorn save in punishment for certain offences. Under Louis the Débonnaire and Charles the Bald the hair was cut on the temples and the back of the head. In the tenth century the hair cut at the height of the ears fell regularly about the head. At the end of twelfth century the hair was shaven close on the top of the head and fell in long curls behind.

Thus people passed from one fashion to another, from hair smooth on the top of the head and rising in a sudden roll in front, a tuft of hair in the form of a flame, or the more ordinary topknot. Not every one followed these fashions, but the exceptions were considered ridiculous. If anyone wishes to form an idea of the head-dress of the more modern epoch, pictures, stamps, and books furnish so many examples that it is useless to attempt description. The clergy followed with a sort of timidity the fashion of the wig, but, except prelates and court chaplains, they refrained from the over-luxurious models. Priests contented themselves with wearing the wig in folio, or square, or the wig á la Sartine. They bared the part corresponding to the tonsure. The decadence of the religious orders has always been noticeable in the head-dress. The tonsure very early interposed an obstacle to fantastic styles, but the tonsure itself was the occasion of many combinations.

Information relative to the head-dress of regulars will be found in HÉLYOT, Histoire des ordres religieux. See also DAREMBERG AND SAGLIO, Dict. des Antiques grecques et lat., s. v. Coma; BAUMEISTER, Denkmäler des klass. Alterthums, I, 615 sq.; KRAUSE, Plotina, oder die Kostüme des Haupthaares bei den Völkern der Alten Welt (Leipzig, 1858); RACINET, Le costume historique (1882).

H. LECLERCQ

Hairshirt

(Latin cilicium; French cilice).

A garment of rough cloth made from goats' hair and worn in the form of a shirt or as a girdle around the loins, by way of mortification and penance. The Latin name is said to be derived from Cilicia, where this cloth was made, but the thing itself was probably known and used long before this name was given to it. The sackcloth, for instance, so often mentioned in Holy Scripture as a symbol of mourning and penance, was probably the same thing; and the garment of camels' hair worn by St. John the Baptist was no doubt somewhat similar. The earliest Scriptural use of the word in its Latin form occurs in the Vulgate version of Psalm 34:13, "Ego autem, cum mihi molesti essent, induebar cilicio." This is translated hair-cloth in the Douay Bible, and sackcloth in the Anglican Authorized Version and the Book of Common Prayer.

During the early ages of Christianity the use of hair-cloth, as a means of bodily mortification and as an aid to the wearer in resisting temptations of the flesh, became very common, not only amongst the ascetics and those who aspired to the life of perfection, but even amongst ordinary lay people in the world, who made it serve as an unostentatious antidote for the outward luxury and comfort of their lives. St. Jerome, for instance, mentions the hairshirt as being frequently worn under the rich and splendid robes of men in high worldly positions. St. Athanasius, St. John Damascene, Theodoret, and many others also bear testimony to its use in their times. Cassian, however, disapproved of it being used by monks, as if worn outside it was too conspicuous and savoured of vanity and if underneath it hindered the freedom of the body in performing manual labour. St. Benedict does not mention it specifically in his rule, but van Haeften maintains that it was worn by many of the early Benedictines, though not prescribed universally throughout the order.

Later on, it was adopted by most of the religious orders of the Middle Ages, in imitation of the early ascetics, and in order to increase the discomfort caused by its use it was sometimes even made of fine wire. It was not confined to the monks, but continued to be fairly common amongst lay people also. Charlemagne, for instance, was buried in the hairshirt he had worn during life (Martene, "De Ant. Eccl. Rit."). The same is recorded of St. Thomas of Canterbury. There was also a symbolic use made of hair-cloth. St. Augustine says that in his time candidates for baptism stood with bare feet on hair-cloth during a portion the ceremony (De Symb. ad Catech., ii, 1). Penitents wore it on Ash Wednesday, and in the Sarum Rite a hair-cloth banner was carried in procession at their reconciliation on Maundy Thursday. The altar, too, was sometimes covered with the same material at penitential seasons.

In modern times the use of the hairshirt has been generally confined to the members of certain religious orders. At the present day only the Carthusians and Carmelites wear it by rule; with others it is merely a matter of custom or voluntary mortification. Objections have been raised against its use on sanitary grounds, but it must be remembered that ideas as to personal cleanliness have changed with the advance of civilization, and that what was considered a sign of, or aid to, piety in past ages need not necessarily be regarded in the same light now, and vice versa, but the ideas and practices of the ancients must not for that reason be condemned by us, because we happen to think differently.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Haiti

(Sp. Santo Domingo, Hispaniola.)

An island of the Greater Antilles.

I. STATISTICS

The area is 28,980 square miles; population about 1,900,000. the chief products are coffee, sugar, cotton and tobacco.

Political

The island is divided into the Republic of Santo Domingo in the east, and the negro Republic of Haiti in the west. The latter covers 11,070 square miles with 1,579,630 inhabitants in 1909 (Church statistics). The language is a debased French (Creole); the religion, Catholic, although the natives are still widely affected with African fetichism (Voodoo or snake-worship). Education is deficient; it requires a yearly appropriation of 1,000,000 dollars. In addition to nearly 400 State free elementary schools, there are five public lycées.

The president is the head of the Republic (salary £4800). The Chamber of Deputies consists of ninety-five members. The senate numbers thirty-nine members. The revenue amounted for the financial year ending 30 Sept., 1907, to $2,547,664 (U. S. gold), and 6,885,660 paper gourdes. In 1907 the foreign debt was $11,801,861; the home debt, $13,085,362. The army consists of 6828 men; there is a special "guard of the government," numbering 650 men, commanded by 10 generals. The Republic possesses a fleet of six small vessels. The exports were valued in 1907 at $14,330,887, of which nearly $3,000,000 went to the United States—in 1906-07, $2,916,104, while the imports from the United States to Haiti for the same period were only $1,274,678. The capital is Port-au-Prince (population 75,000).

II. POLITICAL HISTORY

Haiti (i.e., the "hilly country") was discovered by Columbus, 6 December, 1492. In December, 1493, Columbus founded Port Isabella, which was soon re-named Santo Domingo.—As the aborigines soon became extinct the importation of negroes began about 1517. But the colony fell into decay, when, about 1638, the filibusters obtained a footing at Santo Domingo, and harassed commerce. After 1659 French settlements were established on the west side of the island with the help of the filibusters, which led to the definite occupation by the French at the Peace of Ryswijck (1697). While the parts left to the Spaniards became more and more impoverished and depopulated, the French colony flourished greatly until the French Revolution also affected Haiti, and there led to an insurrection of the blacks in which the negro Toussaint L'Ouverture finally in 1800 made himself dictator, declared Haiti's independence, and gave the country a constitution. He was soon overthrown by the French general Leclere and sent to France. The negro Dessalines, the author of a massacre of whites in 1804, was proclaimed James I, Emperor of Haiti, 8 Oct., 1804, but he was murdered two years later in a conspiracy under Christophe and Pétion.

Christophe thereupon established another negro state in the north which he ruled from 1811 to 1820 as King Henry I; while Pétion in the south founded a mulatto republic, and Spain re-conquered the eastern part which she had surrendered to France at the Peace of Basle (1795). Christophe's successor, Boyer, united all three parts of the island in 1822, but he was driven out in 1843, and the eastern part declared itself the independent Dominican Republic on 27 Feb., 1844. The western part became again an "empire" under Soulouque (Emperor Faustin I) in 1849, but a republic was again proclaimed by the mulatto Geffrard after the expulsion of Soulouque in 1859. Geffrard was replaced by the negro party under Salnave, 13 March, 1867. then followed a succession of presidents, who were nearly all disturbed by revolution, and under whom the republic was brought to the verge of ruin by civil war, financial maladministration, corruption, and thoughtlessly occasioned conflicts with European Powers. Even to-day (1909) the country has not yet settled down after the last revolution in the autumn of 1908.

III. MISSION HISTORY

On the erection of the Dioceses of Santo Domingo and Concepción de la Vega, in 1511, the whole island was divided between these bishoprics. In 1527 Concepción was suppressed, and its territory united to Santo Domingo, which was the only diocese until 1862. Many regular clergy came with the French into the French territory, especially the Dominicans and the Capuchins. The Dominicans devoted themselves especially to the mission in the western part of the colony, and were for a time supported therein by other orders and secular priests.

The Dominicans were also designated as missionaries to the southern part of the island. The Capuchins, who looked after the northern part of the island, and were likewise assisted by other orders and secular priests, soon were unable to supply enough missionaries. On that account they gave up this mission in 1704, and in their place came the Jesuits, who worked there until their expulsion at the end of 1763. Secular priests followed, but after five years they were superseded by Capuchins.

The Revolution brought confusion into the ranks of the clergy; several priests took the constitutional oath, and in the northern part of the country Divine worship ceased. while the mission in the west, uninterfered with under the British occupation (1794-8), was able to improve more and more. But in the south the prefect Apostolic, Père Viriot, was murdered. When Toussaint L'Ouverture came to power in 1800, he restored its rights to the Catholic religion. But meanwhile the council of Constitutional bishops at Paris had nominated a bishop of Santo Domingo, who, however, obtained no recognition either from Toussaint or the Capuchins. In 1802 General Leclere restored the former jurisdictions of Cap-Haïtien and Port-au-Prince, and named as prefects Apostolic Pères Corneille Brelle, O. Cap., and Lecun, O. P., these arrangements being confirmed at Rome. On account of the massacre of 1804 nearly all the clergy left the colony, so that for that two years the only religious services given at Port-au-Prince were held by a former sacristan. After the overthrow of James I (1806) some missionaries returned.

After many years of fruitless negotiations, a concordat was signed at Rome, 28 March, 1860. In Dec., 1860, Mgr. Monetti arrived as Apostolic delegate.

The Concordat provides that the Catholic religion shall enjoy the special protection of the Government. The president nominates the archbishop and the bishops, but the pope can refuse them canonical institution. The clergy receives an annual salary of 1200 francs from the State.

Five bishoprics were erected in 1861; the Archbishopric of Port-au-Prince, and the suffergan Sees of Cap-Haitien, Les Cayes, Gonaïves, and Port-de-Paix. the Archbishop of Port-au-Prince at first admninistered all the dioceses. A separate bishop was not appointed to Cap-haitien until 1873, and at the same time was entrusted with the administration of Port-au-Paix. In 1893 a separate bishop was appointed for Les Cayes; while Gonaïves is still administered by the archbishop. On the conclusion of the Concordat, three fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Holy Heart of Mary were sent to Port-au-Prince. These restored the regular parish organization in the capital. The first archbishop, du Cosquer, and his successor, Quilloux, visited France to enlist new priests. Owing to the unhealthy tropical climate, death caused serious gaps in the ranks of the clergy; thus, at the beginning of 1906, out of 516 priests who had come from France since 1864, 200 had died, 150 were still at their posts, and the rest were invalided to Europe. To ensure recruits, Mgr. du Cosquer established at Paris in 1864 the Saint-Martial Seminary, which was united with the Colonial Seminary conducted by the Fathers of the Holy Ghost; it received a State subvention of 20,000 francs per annum, the payment of which, however, was suspended owing to the political troubles of 1867, and in 1869 it was entirely abrogated. When in 1870 owing to the war, the Fathers of the Holy Ghost gave up direction of the seminary, Mgr. Quilloux founded a new seminary in Pontchâteau (Loire inférieure) in 1873 under the direction of the Fathers of the Society of Mary. Finally in 1893 the seminary was removed to St-Jacques (Finisterre) and its direction entrusted to the secular priests; Pontchâteau Seminary had sent 196 priests to Haiti, and St. Jacques, in 15 years (down to 1909) 171. In 1864, in the whole of Haiti, there were only 34 priests devoted to the care of souls in the 65 parishes and 7 annexes. The progress which the Church has made in Haiti since then is shown by the fact that there are now (1909) 182 priests and 92 parishes.

Of ecclesiastical seminaries and schools, Haiti has: (1) at Port-au-Prince the "Petit Séminaire-Collège," under the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and of the Holy Heart of Mary. There is affiliated to it a children's school; also a meteorological observatory. A second observatory was founded by the Christian Brothers; (2) in Cap-Haitien, the College of Notre-Dame-du-Perpétuel-Secours, directed by four secular priests. The religious societies include: (1) the Brothers of Christian Instruction, who direct a secondary school at Port-au-Prince, besides nine primary schools elsewhere; (2) the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny direct a pensionnat at Port-au-Prince, and eighteen primary schools elsewhere (also 2 hospitals); (3) the Sisters de la Sagesse, who direct a pensionnat in Port-au-Prince, 5 primary schools and 3 hospices. Of ecclesiastical benevolent institutions there are: an orphan asylum for girls and two hospitals, of which one is supported at the cost of the clergy, while the other is supported by the Dames Patronesses. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul also labours in Port-au-Prince. Among the religious associations mention may also be made of: the Third Order of St. Francis, and the Confraternities of the Sacred Heart, the Holy Rosary, the Children of Mary, the Christian Mothers, La Persévérence, etc.

Du Tertre, Histoire générale des Ant-Isles habitées par les Français (3 vols, Paris, 1671); Charlevoix, Histoire de l'Isle Espagnole ou de St-Dominique (Paris, 1730); Moreau de Saint-Mery, Lois de Constitutions des Colonies Françaises de l'Amérique sous le Vent de 1550-1785 (6 vols. Paris, 1784-5); Idem, Topographique, physique, civile, politique et historique de la partie française de St-Dominique (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1798); Jordan, Gesch. der Insel Hayti, I-II (Leipzig, 1846-9); Madiou, Histoire du Haïti (3 vols, Port-au-Prince, 1847-8); Arduin, Etudes sur l'histoire d'Haïti (11 vols., Paris, 1853-6); Handelman, Gesch. von Hayti (Kiel, 1856); Linstant-Pradine, Recueil général des lois et actes du Gouvernement d'Haïti (6 vols, Paris, 1866); Eduoard, Recueil général des lois et des actes du Gouvernement d'Haïti (2 vols., 1888), continuation of the preceding work to the year 1845; Le Selve, Histoire de la littérature haïtienne (Versailles, 1876); Idem, Le Pays de Nègres; Voyage à Haïti (Paris, 1881); Janvier, Le République d'Haïti, 1840-82 (Paris, 1883); St. John, Haiti, or the Black Republic (London 1884; 2nd ed., ibid, 1889); Mathon, Documents pour l'histoire l'Haïti (Paris, 1890, dealing with the revolution of 1888-9); Vibert, La République d'Haïti son présent, son avenir économique (Paris, 1895), a reckless diatribe against the clergy of Haiti, cfr. Anon, Simple réplique à M. Paul Vibert (Paris, 1897); Tippenhauer, Die Insel Haïti (Leipzig, 1893); Justin, Etudes sur les institutions haïtiennes, I-II (Paris, 1894-5); Sundstral, Aus der schwarzen Republik (Leipzig, 1903); Léger, Haïti, her History and Detractors (New York, 1907); de Vaissière, Saint-Dominique, le société et la vie créoles sous l'ancien régime, 1629-1789 (Paris, 1909). Concerning the Concordat, see; Dubois, Deux ans et demi de ministère (2nd ed., Paris, 1867); Guilloux, Le Concordat d'Haïti, ses resultats (Rennes, 1885). For mission-history, Piolet, La France au dehors: les missions catholiques françaises au XIXe siècle, VI (Paris, 1903), 302-30, where a bibliography is given; Caplan, La France en Haïti: Catholicisme, Vaudoux, Maçonnerie (Paris, s. d.); Pouplard, Notice sur l'hist. de l'Eglise de Port-au-Prince (Port-au-Prince, 1905). Periodicals: Bulletin Religieux (Port-au-Prince, 1872—); La Croix—Catholic Weekly (1895-8); Ordo divinii officii in usum prov. eccl. haitiané (Paris, issued annually with statistics).

GREGOR REINHOLD

Haito

(HATTO).

Bishop of Basle; b. in 763, of a noble family of Swabia; d. 17 March, 836, in the Abbey of Reichenau, on an island in the Lake of Constance. At the age of five he entered that monastery. Abbot Waldo (786-806) made him head of the monastic school, and in this capacity he did much for the instruction and classical training of the monks, as well as for the growth of the library. When Waldo was transferred to the Abbey of St. Denis, near Paris, in 806, Haito was made Abbot of Reichenau, and about the same time Bishop of Basle. He enjoyed the confidence of Charlemagne and in 811 was sent with others to Constantinople on a diplomatic mission, which he fulfilled to the satisfaction of his master. The interests of his diocese and abbey were not neglected. He rebuilt the cathedral of Basle and the abbey church of Reichenau, and issued appropriate instructions for the guidance of clergy and people in the ways of religion. In 823 he resigned both positions, owing to serious infirmities, and spent the remainder of his life as a simple monk in the monastery of Reichenau.

Haito was the author of several works. He wrote an account of his journey to Constantinople, the "Hodoeporicon", of which, however, no trace has been found so far. In 824 he wrote the "Visio Wettini" (P.L., CV, 771 sqq.; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Poetae Lat. Aev. Car., II, 267 sqq.), in which he relates the spiritual experiences of Wettin, president of the monastic school of Reicheneau. The day before his death (4 November, 824) Wettin saw in a vision bad and good spirits; an angel took him through hell, purgatory, and heaven, and showed him the torments of the sinners and the joys of the saints. The book, which bears some resemblance to Dante's "Divina Commedia", was soon afterwards put into verse by Walafrid Strabo (Mon. Germ. Hist., loc. cit.). White Bishop of Basle, he issued a number of regulations in twenty-five chapters, known as the "Capitulare Haitonis" (P.L., CV, 763 sqq., Melon. Germ. Leg., Sect. II, Capitular. Reg. Franc., I, 363 sqq., Mansi, XIV, 393 sqq.), in which he legislated on matters of diocesan discipline. The statutes were probably published in a synod.

VAUTREY, Histoire des eveques de Bale. I (Einsiedeln. 1884); WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Berlin, 1904), I; HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, 1890), II; BUCHI in Kirchliches Handlexikon, I; SCHRODL in Kirchenlex., V; WIEGAND in Realencyklopadie, VII.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Hakodate

Situated between 138º and 157º E. long., and between 37º and 52º N. lat., comprises the six northern provinces of the island of Nippon, the island of Yezo, and the Kurile Islands, as well as the administration of the southern part of the island of Saghalin, which still belongs to the Diocese of Mohilev. It contains about 9,000,000 Japanese inhabitants, 17,000 of whom are Aino aborigines, the last representatives of the primitive population of the Japanese archipelago; they are confined to the Island of Yezo and the Kuriles. At the last census (15 August, 1908) the number of Catholics was 4427. The Vicariate Apostolic of Hakodate, created 17 April, 1891, was made a diocese on 15 June of the same year. It was confided to the missionaries of the Société des Missions Etrangères of Paris, who in 1891 numbered twelve and resided at six stations in the territory designated above. The undersigned was the first bishop. The staff is at present composed of twenty-four missionaries of the same society, one Japanese priest and seventeen regulars. The residences number twenty. As auxiliaries the mission has three communities of men and four of women: Trappists (1896), Friars Minor (1907), and Fathers of the Society of the Divine Word (1907); Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres (1891), the Reformed Cistercians (1898), the Sisters of Steyl (1908), and the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary.

Christianity was widespread during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but the only vestiges now left of these earlier missions are a few religious objects, crosses, statuettes, medals, pictures, and images, secretly preserved in families or preserved in the treasuries of pagodas. The actual Catholics are exclusively neophytes, recruited for the most part before 1895, at which time it was still believed that Christianity was the sole basis of true civilization. At present the instruction of all classes is dominated by materialism, and pride of success blinds the Japanese intelligence; consequently conversions to Catholicism have become rare and difficult. Each year, however, yields its small harvest of baptisms. During 1908 there were baptized in this diocese 345 adults. The writer is persuaded that the Japanese will yet come in large numbers to the Catholic Church. There is yet manifest among them a strong love of truth, despite the deceptions of material civilization; to this we may add a growing respect and esteem for Catholicism, whose orderly hierarchy, unity of faith, purity of morals, and self-sacrificing missionaries it admires. The apostolic spirit newly aroused in English-speaking countries is also a precious pledge of hope, for it foreshadows the irresistible union of all Catholic forces, hitherto widely scattered.

Katholische Missionen, 1896, p. 142; 1903, 87; Compte rendu de la société des missions étrangères, 1905 (Paris, 1906), 23-31; DELAPORTE, La découverte des anciens chrétiens au Japon in Etudes (1897), 577-603; LIGNEUL AND VERRET, L'Evangile au Japon au XX ^e siècle (Paris, 1904); JOLY, Le Christianisme et l'Extréme-Orient, II: Missions catholiques du Japon (Paris, 1907); BATCHELOR, The Ainu of Japan (New York, 1892).

A. BERLIOZ.

Hakon the Good

King of Norway, 935 (936) to 960 (961), youngest child of King Harold Fair Hair and Thora Mosterstang. Harold several years previous to the birth of Hakon, had divided his realm among his sons by former wives and, except for a species of suzerainty over the whole, retained only the central portion of the country (Gulathingslagen) for himself. Hakon remained under his mother's care, and developed into a beautiful youth, in every respect like his father. But as his elder half-brothers showed but little love for him and even tried to compass his death, Harold determined to remove him out of harm's way and accordingly sent him to the court of his friend, King Athelstan of England, who brought him up (hence his nickname Adelstenfostre) and gave him a splendid education. Hakon was destined never to see his father again, as the latter expired at the advanced age of eighty-three in 932 (or 933) at his residence at Hange, after a glorious reign of seventy years. His successor as ruler of the kingdom was Eric Blodoexe, who disarmed his brothers by craft and war, and earned the hatred of the people by his despotic temper. The disaffected nobles (Jarls) consequently turned to Hakon in the hope that he might take the reins of government into his hands and at the same time restore their old-time rights. The ambitious youth gladly agreed to their views. Above all Hakon won the support of Sigurd, the leader of the nobility, who had given proofs of a sincere attachment to him from the very beginning, by promising him increased power; moreover, he managed to gain the goodwill of the freedmen by his clemency and liberality. Eric soon found himself deserted on all sides, and saved his own and his family's lives by fleeing from the country. Hakon was now undisputed master of the nation, the unity of which seemed to be assured; of course the royal power was signally curtailed to the advantage of the people. Before he could feel secure on his throne, Hakon had to fight a dangerous war with the Danes. Having emerged victorious from this, he directed his efforts towards the improvement of domestic conditions as well as to the extension of his power abroad. Judiciously planned reforms in the administration of justice, government, and military affairs were carried out, and suitable measures were taken to promote commerce and to advance the deep sea fishing industry. At this juncture Jämtland and Vermland were annexed to Norway, provinces which that country afterwards lost to Sweden. Having been brought up a Christian, and being firmly convinced of the benign influence of Christianity on the intellectual as well as the moral life of mankind, Hakon attempted by precept and by duress to spread the new faith, and to root out paganism with its bloody ceremony. But meanwhile the sons of King Eric had grown up, and Hakon stood in need of the help of the entire nation in order to repel their invasion. Consequently, to his grief, he was compelled first to let matters rest half-way and subsequently to tolerate paganism which was still powerful. Finally, to escape the fury of the fanatical pagans, he was forced to take part in their sacrifices. When the heathens, however, subsequently grew so arrogant as to demolish Christian temples and murder Christian priests, the gallant prince determined to punish the criminals at all hazards and to enforce the laws he had enacted for the conversion of the nation. Taking advantage of the civil war that ensued, three of Eric's sons (Gamle, Harold, and Sigurd) landed unnoticed on Hoerdaland in 950 (961) and surprised the king at Fitje. The latter, although he was at the head of only a few faithful followers and vastly outnumbered, drove the enemy back to his ships. During the over-hasty pursuit of the vanquished, Hakon was struck in the forearm by an arrow, which caused the hero's death by hæemorrhage. He expressed his contrition for his sins before dying, begged the forgiveness of those who were present, and recommended his former enemy Harold as his successor, excluding his daughter Thora from the succession. As he had deemed himself unworthy of a Christian burial, he was interred according to ancient custom as a warrior in a raised mound at his palace at Sacim near Lygren in Nordhoexdadalen. He left behind him an honoured name. The people surnamed him "the Good", and historians extol him as the second founder of Norway's power. His memory lived long in songs and is not forgotten even to-day.

MUNCH, Det norske Folks Historie, I (Christiania, 1852), 1; SARS, Udsigt over den norske Historie, pt. I (Christiania, 1873); BANG, Udsigt over den norske Kirkes Historie under Katholicismen (Christiania, 1887); Historisk Tidskrift (udgivet af den norske Historiske Forening) (Christiania, 1870); WITTMANN in Kirchenlex., s. v. Schweden und Norwegen.

PIUS WITTMANN.

Halicarnassus

A titular see of Caria, suffragan of Stauropolis. It was a colony from Trœzen in Argolis, and one of the six towns that formed the Dorian Hexapolis in Asia Minor. It was situated on Ceramic Gulf and the isthmus known as Zephyrion, whence its original name, Zephyria, was protected by many forts, and was the largest and strongest town in Caria. Its harbour was also famous. The Persians imposed tyrants on the town who subdued all Caria, and remained faithful to Persia, though they adopted the Greek language, customs, and arts. Its queen, Artemisia, and her fleet were present with Xerxes at Salamis. Another Artemisia is famous for the magnificent tomb (Mausoleum) she built for her husband, Mausolus, at Halicarnassus, a part of which is now in the British Museum. The town was captured and burnt by Alexander. Though rebuilt, it never recovered its former prosperity, and gradually disappeared almost from history. The historians Herodotus and Dionysius were born there. It is the modern Bodrum, the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Smyrna, and has 6000 inhabitants, of whom 3600 are Mussulmans and 2200 Greeks. Halicarnassus is mentioned (I Mach., xv, 23) among the towns to which the consul Lucius sent the letter announcing the alliance between Rome and the high-priest Simon. To its Jewish colony the Romans, at a later date, gave permission to build houses of prayer near the sea coast (Josephus, Ant. jud., XIV, x, 23). In the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" mention of it occurs until the twelfth or thirteenth century.. Lequien (Oriens Christ., I, 913) mentions three bishops: Calandion, who sent a representative to the Council of Chalcedon, 451; Julian, condemned in 536 as an Aphthartodocetist; Theoctistus, present at the Council of Constantinople, 553. At the Second Council of Nicæa in 787, the see was represented by the deacon Nicetas.

NEWTON, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Branchidœ (London, 1862-3); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1894), 662-664; BEURLIER in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Archdiocese of Halifax

(HALIFAXIENSIS)

This see takes its name from the city of Halifax which has been the seat of government in Nova Scotia since its foundation by Lord Cornwallis in 1749. The archdiocese includes the middle and western counties of the province (Halifax, Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis, Kings, Hants, Cumberland, and Colchester), and the British colony, Bermuda. The island last mentioned has been attached to the archdiocese since 1851. It has a population of about 16,000, of whom about 700 are Catholics. The majority of these are Portuguese or of Portuguese extraction. Bermuda has one resident priest. There is a convent school at Hamilton, the capital of Bermuda, which is in charge of the Sisters of Charity. The portion of the archdiocese which lies within the Province of Nova Scotia had at the last federal census (1901) a Catholic population of 54,301. Of this number about forty per cent are descendants of the early French settlers; they reside principally in the Counties of Yarmouth and Digby, at Chezzetcook in the County of Halifax, and in portions of Cumberland County. At Church Point, Digby County, is St. Anne's College, which is devoted to the education of the French Acadian youth. It is conducted by the Eudist Fathers. Within the archdiocese is Port Royal, now known as Annapolis. It was founded by De Monts in 1604, and, with the exception of the early Spanish settlement in Florida, it is the oldest European settlement in North America. With De Monts came Rev. Nicholas Aubry and another priest, and at Port Royal in that year the Holy Sacrifice was offered up by them, for the first time on what is now Canadian soil. From the founding of Port Royal down to the time of the cruel expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, the Catholic missionaries who laboured in Nova Scotia, or Acadia as it was then called, came from France. Some of the early priests were Jesuits. After the colony had been temporarily broken up by Argall in 1613, the Recollect Fathers arrived, and, besides attending to the spiritual wants of the French settlers, they laboured with great success in converting the Micmacs, the native Indians of Nova Scotia. In 1632 Capuchin Friars of the province of Paris were sent to Acadia, and were still at work among the Indians in 1655. One of the most famous of the French missionaries was Abbé Antoine-Simon Maillard, who left France in 1741. He acquired great influence over the Indians, to whom he ministered with devoted zeal. He was taken prisoner by the English, but on account of the favour with which he was regarded by the Micmacs he was not expelled. His aid was invoked in making treaty arrangements with the natives. In 1760 he was made administrator of Acadia. He carried on his missionary labours down to the time of his death in 1762. He was highly esteemed by the civil authorities, and his name is held in great veneration by the Micmacs to this day.

A legislature was established in Nova Scotia in 1758, and severe laws directed against the Catholics were passed without delay. A Catholic was not allowed to hold land except by grant direct from the Crown, and Catholic priests were ordered to depart from the province by a given date. These disabilities continued for upwards of twenty years. In the meantime there was considerable Irish immigration, and in 1783 the Irish Catholics of Halifax petitioned for the removal of the disabilities, and the obnoxious laws were then repealed. Two years later, Rev. James Jones, of the Order of Capuchins, came to assume spiritual charge of the Catholics of Halifax, and he remained for fifteen years. Other Irish priests followed. A noted missionary was the Abbé Sigogne, who arrived in Nova Scotia in 1797, and continued his work among the Catholics of western Nova Scotia until his death in 1844. He became the leader and adviser of the Acadians in civil as well as in religious matters, and he was unceasing in his efforts to promote the welfare of the French population. He also cared for the Micmacs, whose language he spoke with ease. He held a commission of the peace from the Government.

In 1801 Father Edmund Burke left Quebec to enter upon his useful work in Halifax, which at that time formed part of the Diocese of Quebec and so remained until it was made a vicariate in 1817. Father Burke was consecrated Vicar Apostolic of Nova Scotia in 1818, and filled the office until his death in 1820. It was not until 1827 that his successor, Rt. Rev. William Fraser, was appointed. The vicariate was erected into a diocese 15 Feb., 1842, and was called the Diocese of Halifax. It included the whole of Nova Scotia. In 1844 the diocese was divided; Bishop Fraser became Bishop of the new Diocese of Arichat; and Bishop WILLIAM WALSH, who had been Bishop Fraser's coadjutor, "with the right of succession", became Bishop of Halifax. In 1852 Halifax was made an archdiocese. Archbishop Walsh administered the affairs of his see until his death in 1858. He was scholarly and devout, and although at that time the feeling between Protestants and Catholics was occasionally somewhat bitter, the "British Colonist", a newspaper owned and edited by Protestants, said of him at his death: "The Archbishop was distinguished for his attainments as a scholar and divine. In society the courtesy and affability of his manners and his conversational powers made his intercourse agreeable and instructive."

The second Archbishop of Halifax was the Most Rev. THOMAS LOUIS CONNOLLY, who was consecrated in 1859, and died in 1876. Like his predecessor, he was a native of Ireland. He was ordained at Lyons, France, in 1838. In 1842 he came to Nova Scotia as secretary to Bishop Walsh. In 1852 he was appointed Bishop of St. John, N. B., and in 1859 was transferred to Halifax. Of Archbishop Connolly, Mr. Nicholas Flood Davin, a non-Catholic, wrote: "He belonged to the great class of prelates who have been not merely Churchmen, but also sagacious, far-seeing politicians and large-hearted men, with admiration for all that is good, and a divine superiority to the littleness which thinks everybody else wrong." By his tact he soon removed the ill-feeling that had existed between Catholics and Protestants in Nova Scotia. He took a great interest in public affairs. He was strongly opposed to Fenianism, and was a warm advocate of the confederation of the British North American provinces. At the Vatican Council he was a prominent figure, and, while opposed to the declaration of the dogma of infallibility, he loyally accepted it as soon as it had been declared. During his administration, St. Mary's Cathedral, a beautiful edifice, was modernized and completed. When he died the Rev. Principal Grant, one of the most noted Presbyterian divines in Canada, wrote: "I feel as if I had not only lost a friend, but as if Canada had lost a patriot; for in all his big-hearted Irish fashion he was ever at heart a true Canadian"

The Most Rev. MiCHAEL HANNAN succeeded Archbishop Connolly. He was a native of Limerick, and was ordained priest in 1845. In May, 1877, he was consecrated archbishop, and he died in 1882. He was a prelate of calm and sound judgment, and was greatly beloved by all classes.

The Most Rev. CORNELIUS O'BRIEN, the fourth Archbishop of Halifax, was consecrated 21 January, 1883; died 9 March, 1906. Archbishop O'Brien was a native of Prince Edward Island. He was a distinguished scholar, and as a preacher, historian, novelist, and poet, he displayed a versatility rarely found in combination. In his Lenten pastorals he not only gave excellent explanations of Catholic doctrines but he made unanswerable attacks upon the theological and scientific errors of his time. His funeral sermon on the Rt. Hon. Sir John Thompson, the first Catholic Prime Minister of Canada, is a model of dignified pulpit eloquence. He was, besides, a prelate of rare executive ability, as the numerous charitable institutions that owe their foundation to his zeal bear ample witness. In political matters he was a strong imperialist.

Archbishop O'Brien's successor is the Most Rev. EDWARD J. MCCARTHY, a native of Halifax, who was consecrated 9 Sept., 1906. He is noted for his zeal, industry, and courtesy, and is held in high esteem by all classes.

There are 73 priests in the archdiocese and 96 churches. Among the educational institutions are: St. Anne's College, already mentioned; St. Mary's College, Halifax; Holy Heart Seminary, Halifax, in charge of the Eudist Fathers; the Sacred Heart Academy, Halifax, an institution conducted by the Religious of the Sacred Heart; and the Academy of Mount St. Vincent at Rockingham, a successful institution in charge of the Sisters of Charity.

DAVIS, The Irishmen in Canada (Toronto, 1877); O'BRIEN, Memoirs of the Rt. Rev. Edmund Burke, Bishop of Zion, First Vicar-Apostolic of Nova Scotia (Ottawa, 1894); DENT, The Canadian Portrait Gallery (Toronto, 1880); WILSON, A Geography and History of the County of Digby, Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1900); CAMPBELL, Nova Scotia in its Historical, Mercantile and Industrial Relations (Montreal, 1873); BOUINOT, Builders of Nova Scotia (Toronto, 1900); MORE, The History of Queen's County, N. S. (Halifax, 1873); HALIBURTON, An Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1829); MURDOCH, A History of Nova Scotia or Acadia (Halifax, 1865); MAGUIRE, The Irish in America (New York, 1868); The Official Catholic Directory and Clergy List (Milwaukee, 1909); AKINS, The History of Halifax City (1847); Fourth Census of Canada, 1901, I (Ottawa, 1902).

JOSEPH A. CHISHOLM.

Margaret Hallahan

Foundress of the Dominican Congregation of St. Catherine of Siena (third order); b. in London, 23 January, 1803; d. 10 May, 1868. The parents of this remarkable, holy woman were poor and lowly Irish Catholics, who died when Margaret, their only child was nine years old. She was sent to an orphanage at Somers Town for two years, and then at the age of eleven went out to service, in which state of life she remained for nearly thirty years. In 1826 she accompanied the family in which she was living to Bruges; there she tried her vocation as a lay sister in the convent of the English Augustinian nuns, but only ramained there a week, feeling sure God had other work for her. She became a Dominican tertiary in 1842, and then came to England, proceeding to Coventry where she worked under Dr. Ullathorne, afterwards Bishop of Birmingham, among the factory girls. Presently she was joined by others, and with the consent of the Dominican fathers formed a community of Dominican tertiaries, who were to devote themselves to active works of charity. The rule of the Third Order of St. Dominic, being intended for persons living in the world, was not suited to community life; she therefore drew up, from the rule of the first and second orders, constitutions which she adapted to her own needs. The first professions were made on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1845. From Coventry the community moved to Bristol, where several schools were placed under their charge, from there they went to Longton, the last of the pottery towns in Stafford-shire, where a large field of labour was opened to them.

In 1851 her congregation received papal approbation, and in 1852 the foundation stone of St. Dominic's convent was laid at Stone, also in Stafford-shire, but not in the Black Country: this became the mother house and novitiate, and to it the Longton community afterwards rnoved. This stone convent at one time enjoyed the reputation of numbering some of the cleverest women in England its subjects, of whom the late mother provincial, Theodosia Drane, was one. At Stone a church and a hospital for incurables were built; this latter was one of Mother Margaret's dearest schemes, and was begun on a small scale at Bristol. In 1857 she opened another convent at Stoke-on-Trent, a few miles from Stone, and the same year founded an orphanage at the latter place. In 1858 she went to Rome, to obtain the final confirmation of her constitutions, which was granted, and the congregation was placed under the jurisdiction of the master general of the Dominicans, who appoints a delegate, generally the bishop of the diocese, to set for him. New foundations were made at Bow, and at Marychurch, Torquay, before her death. She was a woman of great gifts both natural and supernatural, she had marvellous faith and wonderful determination. She refused to accept government aid for any of her schools, or to place them under government inspection, but since her death her congregation has followed the custom of the country in these respects.

Life of Mother Margaret Hallahan by her religious children (Lordon, 1869); Die Orden und Congregationem der katholischen Kirche II (Paderborn, 1901); STEELE, Convents of Great Britain (London, 1902).

FRANCESCA M. STEELE

Karl Ludwig von Haller

A professor of constitutional law, b. 1 August, 1768, at Berne, d. 21 May, 1854, at Solothurn, Switzerland. He was a grandson of the famous poet Albrecht von Haller, and son of the statesman and historian Gottlieb Emmrnuel von Haller. He did not, however, receive an education worthy of his station, but after some private lessons, and having passed through a few classes of the gymnasium, he was forced at the age of fifteen to enter the chancery of the Republic of Berne. Being extremely talented, however, he studied by himself and so filled out the gaps in his education. He even considered himself fortunate in this respect as circumstances compelled him to investigate, think and prove things for himself. At the age of nineteen he was appointed to the important office of Kommissionsschreiber, or clerk of a public commission. In this capacity he obtained an insight into methods of government, practical politics, and criminal procedure. As secretary of the Swiss diet held at Baden and Frauenfeld, he became familiar with the conditions of things in the Swiss Confederation. A journey to Paris in 1790 made him acquainted with the great ideas that were agitating the world at that time. As secretary of legation he served several important embassies, for instance, one to Geneva in 1792, about the Swiss troops stationed there; to Ulm in 1795, regarding the import of grain from southern Germany; to Lugano, Milan, and Paris in 1797, regarding the neutral attitude of Switzerland towards the warring powers. These journeys were very instructive and made him acquainted with the leading personalities of the day, including Bonaparte, Talleyrand, and others. When the old Swiss Confederation was menaced he was dispatched to Rastatt to allay the storm. It was too late, however, and when he returned in February, 1798, the French army was already on Bernese territory. Even his pamphlet, "Projekt einer Constitution für die schweizerische Republik Bern", was unable to stay the dissolution of the old Swiss Republic. But he soon renounced the principles expressed in this pamphlet. Close acquaintance with the new freedom made him an uncompromising opponent of the Revolution. Thereupon he resigned the government office he had held under the revolutionary authorities and established a paper, the "Helvetische Annalen", in which he attacked their excesses and legislative schemes with such bitter sarcasm that the sheet was suppressed, and he himself had to flee to escape imprisonment. Henceforth, von Haller was a reactionary, and was more and more exalted by one party as the saviour of an almost forlorn hope, and hated and reviled by the other as a traitor to the rights and dignity of man. Nevertheless, both parties alike acknowledged the independence and forcefulness of his opinions, the fearless logic of his conclusions, and the wealth of his erudition.

After many wanderings, he came to Vienna, where he was court secretary of the council of war, from 1801 till 1806. A revulsion of public opinion at home resulted in his being recalled by the Bernese Government in 1806, and appointed professor of political law at the newly founded higher school of the academy. When the old aristocratic regime was reinstated, he became a member of the sovereign Great Council, and soon after also of the privy council of the Bernese Republic. But in 1821, when his return to the Catholic Church became known, he was unjustly dismissed. This change of religion caused the greatest sensation, and the lettter he wrote to his family from Paris, explaining his reasons for the step he had taken, went through about fifty editions in a short time and was translated into nearly every modern language. Of course it called forth numerous rejointers and apologies. In this document he made known his long-felt inclination to join the Catholic Church, exhibiting a keen analysis of his feelings and has growing conviction that he must bring his political opinions in harmony with his religious views. His family soon followed him; with them he left Berne for ever and took up his residence in Paris. There the Foreign Office invited him to assume the instruction of candidates for the diplomatic service in constitutional and international law. After the revolution of July he went to Solothurn and, from that time until the day of his death, was an industrious contributor to political journals, including the "Neue preussische zeitung" and the "Historisch-Politische Blätter". In 1833 he was again elected to the Grand Council of Switzerland and exercised an important influence in ecclesiastical affairs which constituted the burning question of the hour. In connection with his other work, Haller had propounded and defended his political opinions as early as 1808 in his "Handbuch der allgemeinen Staatenkunde, des darauf begründeten allgemeinen Rechts und der allgemeinen Straatsklugheit nach den Gesetzen der Natur". This was his most important work. It was this, moreover, that impelled Johann von Müller to offer Haller the chair of constitutional law at the University of Göttingen. In spite of the great honour involved in this offer, he declined it.

Haller's magnum opus, however, was the "Restauration der Staatswissenschaft oder Theorie des naturich-geselligen Zustandes, der Chimare des kunstlich-burgerlichen entgegengesetzt". It was published at Winterthur in six volumes from 1816 to 1834. In this he uncompromisingly rejects the revolutionary conception of the State, and constructs a natural and juridical system of government, showing at the same time how a commonwealth can endure and prosper without being founded on the omnipotence of the state and official bureaucracy. The first volume, which appeared in 1816, contains the history and the refutation of the older political theories, and also sets forth the general principles of his system of government. In the succeeding volumes he shows how these principles apply to different forms of government: in the second to monarchies; in the third (1888) to military powers; in the fourth (1820) and fifth (1834) to ecclesiastical states; and in the sixth (1825) to republics. This work, written primarily to counteract Rousseau's "Contrat Social", has been thus commented on: "It was not merely a book, but a great political achievement. As such it found not only innumerable fanatical friends but even more numerous enemies." There is no doubt that his weakness consists in the fact that he does not make sufficient distinction between the State and other natural social relations. The book in its entirety was translated into Italian, part of it into French, and an abridged version into English, Latin and Spanish. All his later writings are influenced by the ideas here set forth, and oppose vigorously the revolutionary tendencies of the times and the champions of liberalism in Church and State.

SCHERER, Erinnerungen am Grabe Hallers (Solothurn, 1854); Notice sur la vie et les ecrits de Haller (Fribourg, 1854); MOHL, Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften, Il. 529-60.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Jean-Baptiste-Julien D'Omalius Halloy

Belgian geologist, b. at Liège, Belgium, 16 February, 1783; d. at Brussels, 15 January, 1875. He was the only son of an ancient and noble family, and his education was carefully directed. After completing his classical studies he was sent to Paris in 1801 by his parents to avail himself of the social and literary advantages of the metropolis. A lively interest, however, in natural history awakened by the works of Buffon, directed his steps to the museums and the Jardin des Plantes. He visited Paris again in 1803 and 1805, and during these periods attended the lectures of Fourcroy, Lacépède, and Cuvier. His homeward journeys were usually made the occasion of a geological expedition through northern France. He thus conceived the project of making a series of surveys throughout the whole country. This was furthered by a commission to execute a geological map of the empire which brought with it exemption from military duty. He devoted himself energetically to the work and by 1813 had traversed over 15,500 miles in France and portions of Italy. His family had, however, but little sympathy with his geological activity, and persuaded him about this time to gave up his expeditions. The map which he had made of France and the neighbouring territories was not published until 1822 and served as a basis for the more detailed surveys of Dufrénoy and Elie de Beaumont. After having served as sous-intendant of the arrondissement of Dinant and general secretary of the province of Liège, he became in 1815 governor of Namur. He held this office until after the Revolution of 1830. He was elected a member of the Belgian Senate in 1848, became its vice-president in 1851, was made a member of the Academy of Brussels in 1816, and was elected its president in 1850.

As a statesman Halloy had at heart the well-being of the people and, though his duties allowed him little opportunity for extended geological research, he retained a lively interest in his favourite science and engaged occasionally in field work. In his later years he gave much attention to questions of ethonology and philosophy. His death was hastened by the exertions of a scientific expedition undertaken alone in his nine-first year.

Halloy was one of the pioneers of modern geology, and in particular laid the foundation of geological knowledge over wide areas. He made important studies in the carboniferous districts of Belgium and the Rhine provinces and in the Tertiary deposits of the Paris basin. He was a practical Catholic during his long and active life, and was characterized by his loyalty and devotion to the Church. He insisted on the harmony between faith and science, making this the subject of his oration on the occassion of the golden jubilee of the Belgian Academy in 1866. Among his published works are: "Description géologique des Pays-Bas" (1828); "Eléments de Géologie" (1831); "Introduction à la Géologie" (1833); "Coup d'oeil sur la géologie de la Belgique" (1842); "Precis elementaire de Géologie" (1843); "Abrégé de Géologie" (1853); "Des Races humaines ou Eléments d' Ethnographie" (1845).

DUPONT, Annuaire de l'Academie Belgique (Brussels, 1876), XLII, 181; KNELLER, Das Christentum u. die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg, 1904), 266; VON ZITTEL, Hist. of Geology and Palaeontology (London, 1901).

HENRY M. BROCK

Nicholas Halma

French mathematician; born at Sedan, 31 December, 1755; died at Paris, 4 June, 1828. He was educated at the College of Plessis, Paris, took Holy orders, and received the title of Abbé. In 1791 he became principal of Sedan College. When this school closed in 1793, he went to Paris and entered military service as surgeon. In 1794 he was appointed secretary to the Polytechnic School. He held the chair of mathematics at the Prytanéee of Paris, and then that of geography in the military school at Fontainebleau. As librarian of the Empress Josephine and of the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées, he was charged to instruct the empress in history and geography. Underthe Restoration he was appointed curator at the library of Sainte Geneviève and became a canon of Notre Dame. In 1808 he was commissioned by the minister of the interior to continue the "History of France" of Velly, and prepared the manuscript of two volumes. His most important work, however, was the editing and the translating into Latin and French of Ptolemy's "Almagest" (Paris, 1813-16). This work, undertaken at the instance of Lagrange and Delambre, is used to this day, almost exclusively, as a standard in connection with the history of astronomy. He also translated the "Comentaries" of Theon (Paris, 1822-25). Other works of his are: "Table pascale du moine Isaac Argyre" (Paris, 1825); "Astrologie égyptienne" (Paris, 1824); "Examen historique et critique des monuments astronomiques des anciens" (Paris, 1830).

WILLIAM FOX

Hamatha

(AMATHA).

A titular see of Syria Secunda, suffragan of Apamea. Hamath was the capital of a Canaanite kingdom (IV Kings, xxiii, 33; xxiv, 21) whose king, Thou, congratulated David on his victory over the king of Soba (II Kings, viii, 9-11; I Chron., xiii, 9-11). Solomon, it would seem took possession of Hamath and its territory (III Kings, iv, 21-24; II Chron., viii, 4). Amos (vi, 2) calls the town "Hamath the Great". The Assyrians took possession of it in the seventh century B.C. At the time of the Macedonian conquest it was given the name Epiphania, no doubt in honour of Antiochus Epiphanes. Aquila and Theodoretus call it Emath-Epiphania. It is as Epiphania that it is best known in ecclesiastical documents. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, II, 915-918) mentions nine Greek bishops of Epiphania. The first of them, whom he calls Mauritius, is the Manikeios whose signature appears in the Council of Nicaea (Gelzer, "Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina", p. lxi). Conquered by the Arabs in 639, the town regained its ancient name, and has since retained it, under the form Hamah, meaning a fortress.

Tancred took it in 1108, but in 1115 the Franks lost it definitively. The Arab geographer, Yakout (1148-1229), was born there. The modern Hamah is a town of 45,000 inhabitants, prettily situated on the Orontes. It is the residence of a Mutessarif, depending on Damascus. The main portion of the population is Mussulman; but there are about 10,000 Christians of various rites. It has two Catholic archbishops, a Greek Melchite and a Syrian, the one residing at labroud, the other at Homs, reuniting the titles of Homs (Emesus) and Hamah (Missiones Catholicae, 781-804) The Orthodox Greeks have a bishop of their own for either see. The modern town is without interest, the main curiosity of the place being the norias used for watering the gardens.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus II, 915-918; BLUMENBACH, Antiquitates Epiphaniorum (Leipzig, 1737); JULIEN, Sinai et Syrie, 189-192; LEGENDRE in Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Emath.

S. SALAVILLE

Ven. John Hambley

English martyr (suffered 1587), born and educated in Cornwall, and converted by reading one of Father Persons' books in 1582. After his course at Reims (1583-1585), he returned and worked for a year in the Western Counties. Betrayed and captured about Easter, 1586, he was tried and condemned at Taunton. He saved his life for the moment by denying his faith, then managed to break prison, and fled to Salisbury. Next August, however, the Protestant bishop there, in his hatred of the ancient Faith, resolved to search the houses of Catholics on the eve of the Assumption, suspecting that he might thus catch a priest, and in fact Hambley was recaptured. Being now in a worse plight that ever, his fears increased; he again offered conformity, and this time he gave up the names of most of his Catholic friends. Next Easter he was tried again, and again made offers of conformity. Yet after this third fall he managed to recover himself, and suffered near Salisbury "standing to it manfully, and inveighing much against his former fault". How he got the grace of final perseverance was a matter of much speculation. One contemporary, Father Warford, believed it was due to his guardian angel, but another, Father Gerard, with great probability, tells us that his strength came from a fellow-prisoner, Thomas Pilchard, afterwards himself a martyr.

J.H. POLLEN

Hamburg

A city supposed to be identical with the Marionis of Ptolemy, was founded by a colony of fishermen from Lower Saxony, who settled on the wooded heights (hamma-wald) at the end of a tongue of land between the Elbe and the Alster, on the spot now occupied by the church of St. Peter and the Johanneum Gymnasium. Between 805 and 810 Charlemagne fortified the place and used it as a base of operations for the diffusion of Christianity in the North. By permission of Gregory IV, Louis the Pious established there an archiepiscopal see, in 831, with jurisdiction over all missions in Scandinavia, Northern Russia, Iceland, and Greenland. The see was given to St. Ansgar, the Apostle of the North, but the piratical raids of the Northmen and the Obotrites compelled him to remove to Bremen. When, in 845, the Bishop of Bremen died, Ansgar sought to have the two sees united, and his request was granted, but the consolidation was not ratified by Nicholas I until 31 May, 864, Bremen being detached from the metropolitan Province of Cologne. Ansgar died in 865, after preparing the way for the conversion of Sweden and giving new life to the missionary movement among the Danes. He was succeeded by his disciple Rimbert, a second Apostle of the North (865-88), who carried on the work of evangelization in Denmark and Sweden in spite of repeated raids by the Northmen and the Wends. Rimbert's immediate successors were St. Adalgar (888-909) and Holger (909-916), both of them monks from Corvey, in whose time Cologne renewed its claims to metropolitan jurisdiction. Under Reginwart (916-18), the successor of Holger, the diocese was overrun by the Huns, who burned Bremen. Of the succeeding archbishops, St. Unni (918-36) became known as the third Apostle of the North, such was his energy, and so successful was he, in evangelizing Denmark and Sweden, while St. Adalgag (936-88) is credited with having established the suffragan Sees of Aarhuus (946), Schleswig (c. 948), Ripen (950), and Odensee (980), as well as the Wendish See of Oldenburg, later Lübeck (940). Lubentius I (988-1013), an Italian, proved a very able administrator of the diocese. Like St. Ansgar, he was forced by the Danish pirates to flee in order to save his own life and the sacred treasures of the Church. The first Swedish see was established at Skara during the incumbency of Unwann (1013-30). Lubentius II (1030-32) established a chapter of canons at Hamburg, the city having been rebuilt in 1015. He also founded a hospital and organized in a practical way the work of relieving the poor. The next archbishop was Hermann (1032-35), who was succeeded by Bezzelin Alebrand (1035-43). The latter built the stone cathedral and the archiepiscopal palace, and transferred the see to Hamburg.

The united See of Hamburg-Bremen reached both the height of its greatness and the depth of its misfortune under Adalbert the Great (1043-72), a scion of the royal Saxo-Thuringian line, and a remarkable man in every respect. He was contemporary with Adam of Bremen (died c. 1076), the first and best of the medieval historians of North Germany. Adam's chief work is the "Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiæ Pontificum" in four books, the third of which deals exclusively with the administration of Adalbert, whose loyal and devoted adherent he was, though he did not deny or conceal that prelate's weaknesses of mistakes. The political eminence attained by Adalbert makes Adam's work exceedingly important for the history of the German Empire. It may be noted that the fourth book of the "Gesta", entitled "Descriptio Insularum Aquilonis" (Account of the Islands of the North) is unique in its kind, and is in fact a geography of Northern Europe and of the Baltic Coast so far as those regions were then known at Bremen. The decline of the metropolitan See of Hamburg-Bremen was hastened under the administration of Adalbert's successors, Liemar (1072-1101) and Humbert (1101-04). On account of their opposition to Gregory VII, they were compelled to reside outside of the diocese. Externally, the decline of Hamburg was indicated by the separation from it of the See of Lund, which became the metropolitan of the entire Germanic North. As the Wendish sees had already disappeared, Hamburg-Bremen had now only nominal suffragans. This state of affairs prevailed during the period following, in spite of the efforts of Frederick (1104-23) and Adalbero (1123-48). Hartwig I, of Stade (1148-68), a clever and energetic, but haughty, prelate, who introduced brick into the construction of the many and magnificent churches which he built, made things worse by his quarrel with Henry the Lion, who, in the incumbency of Baldwin of Holland (1169-78), was not only the temporal lord of Hamburg-Bremen, but also dominated the ecclesiastical administration. Whatever Sigfrid, the successor of Hartwig, accomplished in the brief period from 1178 to 1184 was undone under Hartwig II, of Ultede (1184-1207). His death was followed by a disputed election, the Hamburg chapter supporting the claims of Burkhard of Stumpenhusen, prior of the cathedral, while the Bremen chapter chose for bishop Waldemar of Schleswig. Even the speedy death of Burkhard did not put an end to the conflict, and Gerhard I, of Oldenburg, though elected by the combined chapters in 1210, did not take possession of his see until 1216. Under Gerhard II, of Lippe (1219-58), the see was finally removed, in 1223, to Bremen, whence Bezzelin Alebrand (see above) had transferred it to Hamburg.

The ecclesiastical importance of Hamburg thenceforward declined with the rapid growth of its commerce and its consequent political development, especially after the city had joined the Hanseatic League, in 1253. Despite temporary improvements, the condition of Hamburg on the whole grew worse from year to year, and at last the popular discontent with the clergy became so great that the Reformation, generally accepted by the cities, was here welcomed with eagerness. It entered Hamburg in 1525, under the leadership of Magister Stiefel, of the apostate Minorite Kempe, the blacksmith Ziegenhagen, and others. As early as 1528 the faithful Catholic clergy were forced to leave the city, for which new religious regulations were made by Johann Bugenhagen, generally known as Doctor Pommer. The last Mass publicly celebrated at Hamburg was on 15 August, 1529. Catholic services in the cathedral were prohibited, while the cathedral and the convents and monasteries were secularized. The stone cathedral built, in 1037, by Bezzelin Alebrand remained in the possession of the archbishops of Bremen until the Treaty of Westphalia placed it in the possession of Hanover. It was given back to the city in 1802, but in 1805 was condemned as unsafe and was razed to the ground. The "Long Recess" Decree of 1529 commanded strict observance of the Lutheran creed and the prosecution and punishment of all who did not conform; while the Protestant preachers, both in speech and writing, insisted upon rigorous enforcement of that decree.

Nevertheless, Catholic merchants and residents managed to re-establish themselves gradually, and as early as 1581 incorporated themselves as an independent community under the protection of the emperor, and found a home in the neighbouring city of Altona. Emperor Rudolf II issued an edict protecting Catholics from the molestation and persecution of the Hamburg magistrates. Relying upon this edict, the Jesuits, led by the historian, Michael of Isselt, began missionary work. In spite of many obstacles they succeeded in opening two chapels for religious services, one in the palace of the French envoy, the other in that of Queen Christina of Sweden, who had been converted to the Catholic Faith. The envoys from the courts of Catholic rulers furthered the Catholic cause by lending it valuable protection and influence. In 1671 Leopold I sent a most powerful protector in the person of an imperial minister resident. The chapel in his legation served the Catholics of Hamburg for more than a hundred years as their parochial church, until, on 10 September, 1719, a mob desecrated and destroyed it. During the era of Illuminism the hatred against Catholics was stirred up on the one hand by the Lutheran preachers, who, in 1777, abandoned all use of ecclesiastical vestments, and on the other hand, especially after 1770, by many apostate priests and monks who sought and found asylum at Hamburg. Among these latter was the ex-Augustinian F. A. Fidler of Vienna, who conducted a particularly vehement "Antipapistisches Journal", in which he reviled the Catholics of Hamburg, until he was taken into the service of the Duke of Mecklenburg as consistorial councillor and superintendent.

In 1784 the Catholics of Hamburg were officially recognized by the civic authorities and were legally authorized to celebrate Divine worship. In 1792 they became independent of the parish of Altona, even in respect to church property. During the French occupation, in 1806 and in 1810-14, the prefect of the Department of Elbemündungen raised the mission to the rank of a parish, and in 1811 established as its parish church the chapel known as Little St. Michael's, which had grown out of the former chapel of the legation. The downfall of Napoleon did not disturb these privileges. Religious liberty, already fully established, was extended, in 1815, by Article 16 of the Decrees of the Confederation, which guaranteed civil equality to Catholics. This was also guaranteed later on by the Constitution of 28 September, 1860. New dangers arose in 1821-24 and in 1839, when Gregory XVI sought to make Hamburg the residence of the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions. These troubles, however, soon passed away. The parish clergy for a long time suffered from lack of means, so that at times only one resident priest could be appointed. Not until 1831 was the parish able to support two.

The first Catholic school was established in 1840. The support of the schools is a heavy burden on the faithful, as the State refuses aid to Catholic schools. In the last three decades, not only has the condition of the Catholics of Hamburg greatly improved, but their numbers have materially increased. Of nearly 900,000 inhabitants, about 840,000 are Protestants, and some 18,000 are Jews. The State of Hamburg consists of the Hanseatic Free City itself and what is known as the Vierlande or Four Districts¯i.e. the Geestland and Marschland, Bergedorf and Ritzebüttel, the last-named including Cuxhaven, the four Walddörfer, or forest hamlets, of Farmsen, Volksdorf, Wohldorf, and Grosshausdorf, in Holstein, Geesthacht in Lauenburg, Moorburg and Gudendorf in Hanover, and the islands of Neuwerk and Scharhörn. Notwithstanding the separation of Church and State, Protestant ecclesiastical affairs are supervised by the Senate. The Protestant population is divided into four church districts, with 33 parish churches and 100 clergymen, under the government of a council and the synod. The 32,000 Catholics belong to the Vicariate Apostolic of the Northern Missions, under the Bishop of Osnabrück, who appoints the pastors. Non-Lutheran Christians are subject to a special board of control. Of the 28 places of worship in the city 18 are Protestant, 5 Catholic, and 5 Hebrew. There are altogether 6 Catholic parishes: St. Michael, St. George, Eimsbüttel, Hammerbrook, Rothenburgsort, and Barmbek. The oldest parish church is that of St. Ansgar, which dates from the eighteenth century and was formerly known as Little St. Michael's. Next come St. Boniface's chapel, dating from 1892. St. Mary's church, built in 1893 in Romanesque style, by Güldenpfennig, with two steeples 200 feet high, St. Sophia's, built in 1900, by Beumer, in Early Gothic, and St. Joseph's, by the same architect, in 1901, in Late Gothic. There is another Catholic church at the emigrant piers of the Hamburg-American Line, on the Veddel. Fifteen priests attend to the needs of these churches. According to the latest census (1905) there are altogether 143 elementary, or public, schools (Volkschulen), and of these 6 are Catholic parochial schools. The secondary schools include one Catholic high school for boys (Realschule and Progymnasium). Among the 50 girls' high schools two are Catholic, that of St. Johannis Kloster and that of the Ursuline Sisters. More than one-third of the children baptized as Catholics attend Protestant schools and receive scanty Catholic religious instruction, in many cases none at all. The loss sustained every year by the Catholic Church in Hamburg in this way and through mixed marriages is very considerable. There are several Catholic charitable institutions, among them St. Joseph's Convent (St. Josephstift) and St. Mary's Hospital (1864), conducted by the Borromean Sisters, a Catholic orphanage with school attached. Towards the expenses of the Church in Hamburg the Boniface Association has contributed in all, since 1858, about half a million marks ($125,000). Voluntary contributions are the only other resource, and, as the German Catholics are generally poor, great sacrifices must be made for the preservation of the Faith. The social and charitable life of Catholic Hamburg is sustained by numerous associations, among them the Gesellenverein and the Societies of St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent (three conferences each).

Rimbertus, Vita Ansgarii in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., II, 683-725; Tappehorn, Leben d. hl. Ansgar (Münster, 1863); Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammab. eccl. pontif. in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., VII, 267-389; Krantz, Metropolis, sive hist. eccles. Saxoniæ (Bar, 1548); Lappenberg, Hamburg. Urkundenbuch (Hamburg, 1842); Idem, Hamburg, Chroniken, 1852-61; Hodenberg, Die Diözese Bremen und ihre Gaue (Celle, 1858-59); Dehio, Hartwig von Stade (Göttingen, 1872); Idem, Gesch. des Erzbist. Hamburg-Bremen (Berlin, 1877); Drever, Gesch. der kathol. Gemeinden Hamburg und Altona (Schaffhausen, 1866); Idem, Annuæ Missionis Hamb. a 1529 ad 1781 (Freiburg, 1867); Hist.-polit. Blätter, XC (Munich, 1882), 407 sqq.; Bollheimer, Zeittafeln der Hamb. Gesch. (Hamburg, 1896-98); Wichmann, Hamb. Gesch. in Darstell. aus alter und neuer Zeit (Hamburg, 1880); Koppmann, Aus Hamburgs Vergangenheit (Hamburg, 1885-86); Pieper, Die Propaganda-Kongreg. und die Nord. Missionen (Cologne, 1886); Woker, Aus norddeut. Missionen (Cologne, 1894); Der Bonifatius Verein (Paderborn, 1899); Curschmann, Die älteren Papsturk. d. Erzb. Hamburg (Hamburg, 1909).

P. Albert

Diocese of Hamilton

(Hamiltonensis). Located in Ontario, Canada; a suffragan of Toronto. It comprises the counties of Haldimand, Brant, Wentworth, Halton, Waterloo, Wellington, Grey and Bruce, and has 43 seculars and 18 religious priests ministering to 55,000 people with 42 churches, 24 chapels and 20 stations. This diocese was erected out of Toronto by papal Bull, 17 February, 1856. Its first bishop was Rt. Rev. John Farrell, a native of Ireland, consecrated 11 May, 1856. He introduced Catholic schools, built St. Mary's cathedral, established academies of the Ladies of Loretto at Hamilton and Guelph, encouraged the founding of St. Jerome's College by the Fathers of the Resurrection, and confided the Own Sound Missions to the Basilian Fathers. He died 26 September, 1873, and was succeeded by Rt. Rev. P.F. Crinnon, born in Ireland in 1818 and consecrated 19 April, 1873. He built St. Patrick's Church, Hamilton, established the House of Providence, Dundas, and secured a site for Holy Sepulchre cemetery. He died 25 November, 1882 and was succeeded by Rt. Rev. James Joseph Carbery, O.P. Bishop Carbery was consecrated 11 November, 1883, held an important diocesan synod and died in Ireland, 19 December 1887. Rt. Rev. T. J. Dowling, D.D., bishop of Peterborough, was installed Bishop of Hamilton, 2 May, 1889. Since then 14 new parishes have been established, 28 priests ordained, 22 new churches, schools and presbyteries erected, besides hospitals at Hamilton and Guelph, and the new House of Providence at Dundas. Of the priests in the diocese, 42 are Canadian by birth, 4 Irish, 4 are from the United States, 4 French, 3 German, 2 Polish and 2 Italian. Candidates for the priesthood study in St. Jerome's College (Berlin) and Grand Seminary, Montreal. The diocese has 9 parishes for German-speaking people and one Indian parish, besides chapels for Poles and Italians.

There are 51 Catholic separate schools under the Sisters of St. Joseph (Hamilton), the Sisters of Loretto (Toronto), and the Sisters of Notre Dame (Milwaukee), with 6000 pupils. The State accords to Catholic schools practically the same rights as to public schools. The taxes paid by Catholics go to support Catholic schools only. Teachers, whether religious or lay, must qualify exactly like public school teachers. Higher education of young women is provided for in the academies of the Ladies of Loretto at Hamilton and Guelph. St. Jerome's College, Berlin, in charge of the Resurrectionist Fathers, has 150 pupils. Connected with the college is also the American novitiate for candidates before going to Rome to complete their studies. Hamilton, the largest city, has 65,000 population (about 11,000 Catholics), 5 churches, mother-house, novitiate and house of study of the Sisters of St. Joseph. There are asylums for orphans and destitute children at Hamilton and St. Agatha, homes for the aged and indigent at Dundas and Guelph, hospitals at Guelph and Hamilton. By the "Neglected Children's Act" of Ontario, children of immoral or dissolute parents are adopted by the State, but Catholic children must be placed in Catholic homes. In all the civil institutions there is freedom of worship. In addition to the Resurrectionists and Basilians, there are the Jesuits who have charge of Guelph, also of Cape Croker, an Indian mission. The cathedral was consecrated 20 May, 1906, on the occasion of the celebration of "the Golden Jubilee" of the Diocese.

Teefy, History of the Diocese of Toronto (Toronto, 1892); O'Reilly, Golden Jubilee of the Diocese of Hamilton (Hamilton, 1906); Archives of St. Mary's Cathedral.

J.M. MAHONY

John Hamilton

Archbishop of St. Andrews; b. 1511; d. at Stirling, 1571; a natural son of James, first Earl of Arran. Placed in childhood with the Benedictines of Kilwinning, he acquired, through James V, the abbacy of Paisley, which he held from the age of fourteen till his death. It is doubtful whether he ever actually entered the order. After studying in Glasgow he entered the University of Paris. Then he received holy Orders, and returned to Scotland in 1543. His half-brother James, second Earl of Arran, being then regent during Mary Stuart's minority, Hamilton was speedily promoted to important offices of state, becoming privy seal, and later, high treasurer. Knox's "Historie" gives evidence of the hopes entertained by the reformers of winning him over, but he soon showed himself a strong partisan of Cardinal Beaton and the Catholic party, and was instrumental in overcoming the Protestant sympathy of Arran and reconciling him with the cardinal. In 1544 Hamilton was appointed Bishop of Dunkeld, and after the assassination of Beaton, succeeded that prelate not only as metropolitan, but also as the prominent opponent of nascent Protestantism. By the assembling of ecclesiastical councils in 1549, 1552 and 1559, the archbishop took an important part in the framing of statutes for the much-needed reformation of the clergy and religious instruction of the laity. When the packed parliament of 1560 voted the overthrow of Catholicism and the adoption of the Protestant "Confession of Faith", Hamilton was the leading dissentient. He has been accused of making too feeble a protest, but his correspondence with Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, then in Paris, shows that he regarded the matter as one of less serious import than events proved. When the Abbey of Paisley was wrecked by the reforming mob in that same year, Hamilton narrowly escaped with his life. In 1563 he was seized and put to trial together with forty-seven other ecclesiastics, on the charge of saying Mass and hearing confessions, contrary to the new laws; after imprisonment for a time, he was released through the queen's intervention. He baptized with solemn rites, in December, 1566, the infant prince James, afterwards James VI. The opposition of the Protestant party to the use of Catholic ceremonies, upon which Mary was determined, had delayed the baptism for six months. The queen having restored the archbishop's consistorial jurisdiction, which the parliament of 1560 had abolished, he took his seat in the assembly of 1567. In the troubles which beset the hapless Mary, Hamilton was the queen's constant supporter. After the ruin of her hopes at Langside, and her flight into England, which he had done his utmost to prevent, he was compelled to seek his own safety in Dumbarton Castle, but in 1571 that stronghold was cast down and Hamilton taken prisoner. He was carried to Stirling, and three days after his capture, was hanged there in his pontifical vestments on the common gibbet. No record remains of any formal trial; he was put to death on the strength of his previous forfeiture as a traitor on the fall of Mary. Though a man of wisdom and moderation, possessed of many sterling qualities, and a valiant champion of the Catholic cause, Hamilton was not free from grave irregularities in his private life, as records of legitimation of his natural children testify. His complicity in the murders of Darnley and of the regent Murray has never been proved; with his last breath he protested that his death was due solely to his loyalty to Church and sovereign. It is difficult to explain how he could declare the nullity from consanguinity of the marriage between Bothwell and his countess, enabling the earl to espouse Queen Mary, although he had previously granted the necessary dispensation; it has been suggested, however, that the dispensation was worthless, owing to some flaw.

Two works bearing his name, since they were published by his authority and at his expense, though compiled by another, are "Archbishop Hamilton's Catechism" and "Ane Godlie Exhortatioun". The catechism was printed at St. Andrews in August, 1552. It had been drawn up in obedience to a decree of the provincial council of the previous January, for the use of the clergy in instructing their people. The council ordered it to be read in the churches on all Sundays and Holy Days, when there happened to be no sermon, for the space of half an hour.

The work consists of an introduction commending its use to the clergy, followed by another addressed to the laity on the necessity of a thorough knowledge of the doctrines of faith. The body of the book is divided into four parts: I, "Of the ten commandis", consisting of 26 chapters; II, "The twelf artiklis of the Crede", in 13 chapters; III, "The sevin Sacramentis", 13 chapters; IV, "Of the maner how Christin men and wemen suld mak their prayer to God"; 10 chapters are devoted to an explanation of the seven petitions of the Pater Noster, followed by instructions on the Ave Maria, invocation of saints, and prayer for the dead. The whole work is in the vernacular Scottish of the period. The catechism is thoroughly Catholic in tone, while it has been highly commended, even by Protestant writers, such as Bishop Keith and Hill Burton, as an excellent work of its kind–learned, moderate, and skilfully compiled. It is especially valuable as a specimin of pure Scottish speech, unadulterated by foreign idioms. The original work is very rare. There have been two reprints; one a facsimile in 1882, edited by Professor Mitchell; the other published in 1884 with a preface by the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone.

The "Godlie Exhortatioun" is much smaller, consisting of but four pages of black letter. It was printed in 1559. Besides its proper title, it has often borne that of "The Twopenny Faith", given in derision on account of its price when hawked abroad by pedlars. The treatise consists of an explanation of Holy Communion; it was intended to be read by the clergy to the people when the latter approached the sacraments. A facsimile reprint is appended to the 1882 edition of the catechism.

Hamilton was a munificent benefactor to his cathedral city; he completed and endowed St. Mary's College, strengthened the castle, erected other buildings, and constructed as many as fourteen bridges in the neighbourhood. He was the last Catholic metropolitan of the pre-Reformation Church in Scotland.

Lang, History of Scotland (Edinburgh and London, 1902), II, 235; Bellesheim, tr. Hunter- Blair, Hist. of the Cath. Church in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1890), II, 200-219, 240-53, 302-7; III, 15, 73, 117, 128, 154, 161-4, 214; Regist. Mag. Sigil. in Rolls Series, 1551 and 1580; Theiner, Monumenta (Rome, 1864), 538; Mitchell, Archbishop Hamilton's Catechism (Edinburgh, 1882).

Michael Barrett

Joseph, Baron von Hammer-Purgstall

A distinguished Austrian Orientalist; b. at Graz, 9 June, 1774; d. at Vienna, 23 November, 1856. He studied at Graz and Vienna, entering the Oriental academy of Vienna in 1788, to devote himself to Oriental languages. His first scholarly work was done as collaborator of von Jenisch, the editor of Meninski's Arabic-Persian-Turkish dictionary. In 1796 he entered the Austrian diplomatic service as secretary in the ministry of foreign affairs, was appointed interpreter to the internuncio at Constantinople in 1799 and was sent from there to Egypt where he took part in as secretary in the campaign of the English and Turks against the French. He returned to Vienna in April, 1802, but in August went again to Constantinople as secretary of the legation, remaining there until 1807, when he returned definitely to Vienna, where he continued to serve in various diplomatic capacities. In 1817 he was made Aulic Councillor, was knighted in 1824, and when he inherited the Styrian estates of the Countess Purgstall in 1835, he was made a baron and received permission to join her name to his. In 1847 he was elected president of the newly founded Academy of Sciences. Hammer-Purgstall was a very prolific writer. His knowledge of Oriental languages was extensive but not thorough. This detracts seriously from the value of his work; his text editions are unreliable and his translations often inaccurate. Much of his work is to-day antiquated. But his wide range of studies enabled him to make valuable contributions to the field of Oriental history, while his translations have exerted a noteworthy influence, especially on German literature. His version of the Persian poems of Hafiz inspired Goethe's "Westöstliche Divan" (1815-1819); Rückert and Platen were also indebted to him.

His chief historical works are: "Die Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung des osmanischen Reichs" (Vienna, 1814, 2 vols.); "Geschichte der Assassinen" (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1818); "Geschichte des osmanischen Reichs" (Pest, 1827-35, 10 vols.); "Gemaldesaal der Lebensbeschreibungen grosser moslimischer Herrscher" (Darmstadt, 1837-39, 6 vols); "Geschichte der Goldenen Horde in Kiptschalk" (Pest, 1840); "Geschichte der Ilchane" (Darmstadt,1843, 2 vols.); and "Geschichte der Chane der Krim" (Vienna, 1856). His translations are numerous. From the Arabic he translated the poems of Mutanabbi (Vienna, 1824), and the "Atwak al-dhahab" of Zamahsharl under the title "Samachscharis Goldene Halsbander" (Vienna, 1835). From the Persian he translated the entire "Divan" of Hafiz (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1812-13). Unfortunately this rendering is in German prose and does scant justice to the original but it was the first time the poems of Persia's greatest lyrist were made known to Europe in their entirety. He also published the Persian text with a German version of Mahmud Shabistarl's famous Sufi poem "Gulshan-i-raz" under the title of "Mahmud Schabisteris Rosenflor des Geheimnisses" (Pest, 1838), and a part of the "Ta'rikh-i-Wassaf", under the title "Geschichte Wassafs" (Vienna, 1856). From the Turkish he made a translation of the "Divan" of Baki (Vienna, 1825), of Fazli's romantic poem "Gul u Bulbul", i.e. "Rose and Nightingale" (Pest, 1834), and of the "Baznamah", a treatise on falconry, which he published with two other treatises on the same subject, one Greek and one German, under the title "Falknerklee" (Vienna, 1840).

Hammer's contributions to literary history were very important. Together with Count Reviczky he founded the "Fundgruben des Orients" (Vienna, 1809-19, 6 vols.), a periodical devoted to Oriental subjects. His "Geschichte der schönen Redekünste Persiens" (Vienna, 1818), based on Daulatshah's "Taz-kirat-ushu'ara", a sort of history of Persian poetry although now wholly antiquated, had great influence on German poetry. Goethe and Rückert made liberal use of it. Hammer also wrote a history of Turkish poetry, "Geschichte der osmanischen Diehtkunst" (Pest, 1836-3S, 4 vols.), and one of Arabic literature, "Literaturgeschichte der Araber" (Vienna, 1850-56, 7 vols), which to-day has little more than historic value. His original poems, based mostly on Oriental models, are devoid of literary merit.

SCHLOTTMAN, Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall (Zurich, 1857); AHLWARDT, Chalef Elahmars Quasside, nebst Wurdigung Joseph von Hammer als Arabistan (Greifswald, 1859). See also GOETHE, Westosliche Divan, notes.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Hammurabi

(Ha-am-mu-ra-bi)

The sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty; well known for over fifty years to students of Babylonian history. Inscriptions of Hammurabi were published by Rawlinson in 1861 and Oppert in 1863; the "Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian tablets, etc., in the British Museum" contained many letters and other documents belonging to his period; finally the most valuable work of L. W. King, "Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi" (1895-1900) supplied a mine of information on the reign of the now famous Babylonian ruler of 4000 years ago. The origin and etymology of Hammurabi's name are somewhat puzzling, for this name does not appear to be distinctly Babylonian. Later scribes regarded it as foreign and translated it Kimta-rapaashtum, "great family", a fairly good rendering of Hammu-rabi in the S. Arabian dialect. It is noteworthy that, with only two exceptions, the names of the kings of that so-called Babylonian dynasty are likewise best explained from the Arabic. This fact gives much weight to the hypothesis, first suggested by Pognon in 1888, of the Arabic or Aramean origin of that dynasty. All scholars seem to agree that the nationality of these rulers must be sought in the "land of Amurru", whereby the Babylonians designated all the regions lying to the west (N. and S.) of their own country.

There is not so great a divergence of opinions as to the date to be assigned to Hammurabi. The King-lists would suggest 2342 b.c. as the date of his accession; but it is now commonly believed that these lists need to be interpreted, for from the "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings", published by L. W. King (1907), it appears that the first and second Babylonian dynasties were not successive, but in part contemporary; the first kings of the second dynasty (that of Shesh-ha) ruled not at Babylon, but on "the Sea-country". Other indications furnished by Nabonidus, Assurbanipal, and Berosus lead us to lower the above date. Thureau-Daugin and Ungnad place the reign of Hammurabi between 2130 and 2088 b.c.; Tofteen adopts the dates 2121-2066 b.c.; King suggests 1990- 1950 b.c.; Father Scheil, O.P., says 2056 b.c. is the probable date of the king's accession, which Father Dhorme places in 2041. Hammurabi's was therefore a long reign. Since the victorious expedition of Kutir-Nahhunte, in 2285, against Babylonia, the latter country had been in a condition of vassalage to Elam. Under Hammurabi's predecessors, it gradually improved its condition; but it was reserved to him to free it from the foreign yoke. In the thirtieth year of his reign, Hammurabi defeated the army of Kudur-Lagamar (?), King of Elam, thereby winning Babylonia's independence; the ensuing year he completed this success by conquering the lands of Iamuthala (W. of Elam) and Larsa, and taking, in consequence, the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. Other triumphs followed: Rabiqu, Dupliash, Kar-Shamash, possibly Turukku, Kakmum, and Sabe fell into his power, so that towards the end of his life he had knit together into a mighty empire N. and S. Babylonia, and very likely extended his sway, at least nominally, over the land of Amurru as far as Chanaan.

The warlike exploits of "Hammurabi, the strong warrior, the destroyer of his foes, the hurricane of battle", are not perhaps such as would make him the peer of the most renowned captains; what has won for him a well-deserved prominent place among the rulers of kingdoms is that to his military achievements he joined the wisdom of a consummate statesman in the government of his vast domains. From the brief outline of his reign sketched in the "Chronicles" we learn that every year there was some important work accomplished: temples erected or restored, cities built or embellished, canals dug, agricultural progress promoted, justice re-established; and his letters witness to the attention given by him to every detail of administration: revenue, public works, regulation of food supplies, exemptions from duty. Assyriologists agree that Hammurabi's reign was, moreover, a period of great literary activity. The interest which attaches to his history has waxed more intense since Schrader proposed, in 1887, to identify this prince with Amraphel, King of Sennaar, mentioned in Gen., xiv. That Senmar (Hebr. Shin‘ar) corrsponds to Shaanhaar, an Assyrian name for Babylonia, is beyond dispute; that the two names Hammurabi and Amraphel are phonetically identical, most scholars readily admit; as, moreover, the other names cited in the same context: "Arioch, king of Pontus (Hebr. Ellasar), and Chodorlahomor, king of the Elamites, and Thadal king of nations (Hebr., Gôyîm)", may designate Rim-Sin (’-Riw- Akû), King of Larsa, Kudur-Lagamar, King of Elam, and a certain Thudhula, otherwise unknown, sâr mâtâti, i. e. "king of the (foreign) countries", the identification of Hammurabi and Amraphel is, to say the least, very probable. We should gather thence that the expedition referred to in the Bible must have taken place before Rim-Sin's downfall, when Babylon was still a vassal to Elam, hence before the thirtieth year of Hammurabi's reign, that is to say, before about 2010, a date in perfect agreement with the probable chronology of Abraham.

The discovery of Hammurabi's Code has raised him to a leading place in the roll of the greatest men of antiquity. This wonderful document was unearthed partly in Dec., 1901, and partly in Jan., 1902, by the French Délégation en Perse, under M. de Morgan, in their excavations at Susa, once the capital of Elam and, later, of Persia. The stele containing the Code is an obelisk-like block of black diorite measuring 7 ft. 4½ in. in height and 6 ft 9½ in. in circumference at the base. With the exception of a large carving in relief on the upper end, it was once entirely convered with forty-four columns (over 3800 lines) of text in the old Babylonian wedge-writing. From the inscription we learn that it was engraved for the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and that another copy stood in the temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon, and the discovery of various fragments make it probable that more copies had been set up in different cities. This stele, now in the Louvre Museum, was carried off from Sippar, about 1120 b.c., by Shutruk-Nahhunte, King of Elam, who set it in his capital as a trophy of his victory. To this circumstance should likely be attributed the chiseling away of some five columns of the text, probably to make place for a record of the Elamite ruler's triumphs, which, however, was never written. The relief carved at the upper end of the stele represents the king standing before the sun-god Shamash seated upon a throne, clothed in a flounced robe, wearing the swathed head-gear and holding in his hand the sceptre and ring.

With wonderful promptness, the editio princeps of the text, accompanied with a French translation, was published late in 1902. A German version by Winckler, and one in English by Johns, appeared in 1903. The text of the inscription may be divided into three parts: the introduction, the Code, and the conclusion. In the first part there is a lengthy enumeration of Hammurabi's honorific title and a recital of his deeds of war and peace, ending with these words, very aptly prefacing the Code: "When Marduk sent me to govern men, to sustain and instruct the world, right and justice in the land I established, I brought about the happiness of men".

According to a fragment found in Assurbanipal's library, the Code contained 285 "legal judgments of Hammurabi" (Cuneif. Texts, etc., XIII, pl. 46 and 47). Fr. Scheil estimated that the five columns erased, as has been described above, contained about forty laws; the exact nuimber might be 37, thus giving a total of 285; at any rate, the numbering of the editio princeps is usually followed.

An idea of the comprehensiveness of the Code may be gathered from the enumeration of the legal matters, both civil and criminal, dealt with in it. It opens with two laws concerning ban and witchcraft (§§ 1, 2), two dealing with false witnesses (§§ 3, 4), and one on prevaricating judges (§ 5). The next laws treat of theft (§§ 6-8), stolen property found in another's hand (§§ 9-13), kidnapping (§ 14), escape and kidnapping of slaves (§§ 15-20), burglary and brigandage (§§ 21-25). Others are devoted to feudal relations to the king (§§ 26-41); the relations between landowner and cultivator (§§ 42-52), responsibility for damages caused to crops by careless farmers (§§ 53-56) and shepherds (§§ 57, 58), enactments concerning orchards (§§ 59-65).

Among the laws chiselled off, three have been recovered by Fr. Scheil from mutilated copies of the Code: they deal with loans and house-renting. Following the blank space are provisions touching the respective rights of merchants and agents (§§ 100-107) and the policing of wine-shops (§§ 108-111), appropriation of consignments (§ 112), debts (§§ 113-119), and deposits (§§ 120-126) are also treated of. These are followed by laws treating of the family. Slander against a woman, either dedicated to a god or married, opens the series (§ 127); then, after having defined the position of the woman (§ 128), the Code deals with adultery (§ 129), violation of a married virgin (§ 130), suspicion of unchastity (§§ 131, 132), separation and divorce (§§ 133-143), taking a concubine (§§ 144-149), women's property (§§ 150-152), various forms of unchastity (§§ 153-158) and the customs regarding the purchase price for, and the marriage portion of, the bride (§§ 159-164). Inheritance laws come next; they define the rights of children, wives, concubines (§§ 165-174), slaves (§§ 175-176), widows (§ 177), and non-marriageable temple- and street-girls (§§ 178-184); provisions respecting adoption and foster-children (§§ 185-193) conclude this important part of the Code. Following are various series of regulations concerning personal damages (§§ 194-214), fees and responsibilities of physicians (§§ 215-227), payment and responsibilities of house-builders (§§ 228-233), ship-builders (§§ 234, 235), and boatmen (§§ 236-240). Another set is devoted to agricultural labour: hiring of domestic animals (§§ 241-249), injuries caused by goring oxen (§§ 250-252), the hiring of persons, animals, wagons, and ships (§§ 253-277). The last regulations deal with slave-trade (§§ 278-281) and the penalty inflicted on rebellious slaves (§282).

The conclusion of the inscription sounds like a hymn of high-keyed self-praise. The document ends with a blessing for those who will obey the laws and a long series of curses against him who will give no heed to the laws, or interfere with the word of the Code. Hammurabi's Code cannot by any means be regarded as a faltering attempt to frame laws among a young and inexperienced people. Such a masterpiece of legislation could befit only a thriving and well-organized nation, given to agriculture and commerce, long since grown familiar with the security afforded by written deeds drawn up with all the niceties and solemnities which clever jurists could devise, and accustomed to transact no business otherwise. It is inspired throughout by an appreciation of the right and humane sentiments that make it surpass by far the stern old Roman law.

Of all the ancient legislations, that of the Hebrews alone can stand comparison with the Babylonian Code. The many points of resemblance between the two, the Babylonian origin of the father of the Hebrew race, the long relations of Babylon with the land of Amurru, have prompted modern scholars to investigate whether the undeniable relation of the two codes is not one of dependence. The conclusions arrived at may be breifly stated as follows. Needless to notice that Hammiurabi is in no wise indebted to the Hebrew Law. As to the latter, its older part, the Code of the Covenant (Exod., xxi, 1- xxiii, 19), is intended for a semi-nomadic people, and therefore cannot depend on Hammurabi's enactments. Both codes derive from a common older source, to be sought in the early customs of the Semitic race, when Babylonians, Hebrews, Arabs, and others were still forming one people. The work of the Hebrew lawgiver consisted in codifying these ancient usages as he found them, and promulgating them under Yahweh's authority. The early Israelite code may, perhaps, seem imperfect in comparison with the Babylonian corpus juris, but, whilst the latter is founded upon the dictates of reason, the Hebrew Law is grounded on the faith in the one true God, and is pervaded throughout by an earnest desire to obey and please Him, which reaches its highest expression in the Law of Deuteronomy.

     I. Inscriptions of Hammurabi.– Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (London, 1861-1884); Cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets, etc., in the British Museum (London, 1896); King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi (London, 1898-1900); Menant, Inscriptions de Hammurabi (Paris, 1863); Amiaud, Recueil de Travaux (Paris, 1880); Scheil, Délégation en Perse. Mémoires publiés sous la direction de M. J. de Morgan, IV: Textes Elamites-Sémitiques, deuxième série (Paris, 1902– Editio princeps of the Code); Scheil, Loi de Hammurabi (Paris, 1904); Johns, Oldest Code of Laws in the World (Edinburgh, 1903); Hauper, Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon (Chicago, 1904); Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis. Das älteste Gesetzbuch der Welt übersetzt (Leipzig, 1903); Idem, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Unschrift und Uebersetzung herausgeben (Leipzig, 1904); Kohler and Peiser, Hammurabis Gesetz (Leipzig, 1903).
     II. History of Babylonia at the Time of Hammurabi.–Besides the works mentioned in the articles on Assyria and Babylonia: King, Chronicles concerning early Babylonian kings (London, 1907); Ungnad, Selected Babylonian business and Legal documents of Hammurabi's period (London, 1907); Boscaven, The First of Empires (London, 1907); King, History of Babylonia and Assyria from the earliest times to the Persian conquest (London, 1908); Schrader, Keilinschriften Bibliotek, III, i: Hist. Texte altbabyl. Herrscher (Leipzig, 1889); Ulmer, Hammurabi, sein Land und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1907).
     III. Studies on the Hfammurabi Code.– Cook, Law of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903); Davies, Codes of Hammurabi and Moses (Cincinnati, 1905); Edwards, Hammurabi Code and the Sinaitic legislation (London, 1904); Johns, Notes on the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903); Idem, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (London, 1904); Idem, Code of Hammurabi in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, extra vol. (1905); Pinches, Old Testament in the light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London, 1904); Grimme, Das Gesetz Chammurabis und Moses. Eine Skizze (Cologne, 1903), tr. by Pilter: The Law of Hammurabi and Moses. A Sketch (London, 1907); Orelli, Das Gesetz Hammurabis und die Thora Israels: Eine religions- und rechtgeschichtliche Parallele (Leipzig, 1903); Cohn, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (Zurich, 190a3); Daiches, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Hammurabi-Dynastie (Leipzig, 1903); Jeremias, Moses und Hammurabi (Leipzig, 1903); Mueller, Die Gesetze Hammurabis und der Verhältnis zur mosaischen Gesetzgebung sowie zu den römischen XII Tafeln (Vienna, 1903); Idem, Ueber die Gesetz Hammurabis (Vienna, 1904); Idem, Das syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch und Hammurabi (Vienna, 1905); Mari, Il Codice di Hammurabi e la Bibbia (Rome, 1903); Bonfante, Le leggi di Hammurabi re di Babylonia (Milan, 1903); Bischeron, Babylone et la Bible (Paris, 1906); Among the numerous articles in theological and other reviews, we shall mention only the following: Johns, Code of Hammurabi in Journal of Theological Studies (Jan., 1903); Sayce, The Legal Code of Babylonia in American Journal of Theology (1904), 256--66; Buhl, Kong Hammurabis lovsamling in Nordisk Tidskrift (1903), 335-54, 556-99; Oussani, Code of Hammurabi in New York Review (Aug.-Sept., 1905), 178-97, copious bibliography to date; Idem, Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Legislation in New York Review (Dec., 1905- Jan., 1906), 488-510; Dareste, Code babylonien d'Hammourabi in Journal des Savants (1902), 517-28, 586-99; Idem, Code babylonien d'Hammourabi in Comptes Rendus des Séances et Travaux de l'Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, CLIX, 306-39; Lagrange, Code de Hammourabi in Revue Biblique (1907), 27-51; HalÉvy, Le Code d'Hammourabi et la Législation Hébraïque in Revue Sémitique (1903), 149-53, 240-49, 323-24; Oppert, La loi de Hammourabi (Paris, 1905); Cuq, Le Mariage à Babylone d'après les lois de Hammourabi in Revue Biblique (1905, 359-71.
     IV. Hammurabi- Amraphel.–See the works mentioned in the bibliographies to the articles Assyria and Babylonia, and the modern commentaries on Genesis: Oussani, The Fourteenth Chapter of Genesis in New York Review (Sept.-Oct., 1906), 204-43; Dhorme, Hammurabi-Amraphel in Revue Biblique (1908), 205-26.

Charles L. Souvay

Adrian Hamsted

Founder of the sect of Adrianists; born at Dordrecht, 1524; died at Bruges, 1581. We know nothing of his personal history, and very little concerning the short-lived sect to which he gave his name. The Adrianists, who were mostly women, professed in general the doctrines of the Anabaptists; but what their specific beliefs were cannot be ascertained. Charges of immorality have been named against them, but have never been proved.

LEO A. KELLY

Daniel Bonifacius von Haneberg

A distinguished German prelate and Orientalist of the nineteenth century, b. At Tanne near Kempten, Bavaria, 16 June, 1816; d. At Speyer, the capital of the Rhine Palatinate (Bavaria), 31 May, 1876. He began his classical course at Kempten, where he pursued with superior ability and industry the studies prescribed by the curriculum, and mastered with hardly any guidance several Oriental languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Persian, and Ethiopic). He next betook himself to Munich, where he completed his elementary studies in the gymnasium, and followed the courses of philosophy and theology in the university. While a theological student, he cultivated Sanskrit and Chinese over and above the Oriental languages with which he was already acquainted, translated a few works of Cardinal Wiseman, contributed several essays and poems to various German periodicals, and neglected nothing of what appertains to the spiritual life in one preparing for the Catholic priesthood. He took his degree of Doctor of Theology at the University of Munich in 1839, and was ordained priest at Augsburg, on 29 August of the same year. The following November he qualified for a Privatdozent in the University of Munich by his thesis "De significationibus in Veteri Testamento præter literam valentibus" (Munich, 1839), and began in December his career of thirty-three years as a lecturer of the Old Testament. In 1841, he became extraordinary professor of Hebrew and of Holy Scripture in the same university, and in 1844 ordinary professor. His lectures, wherein he displayed a solid learning, a constant discretion, and a deep piety, were attended with great profit and delight by an increasing number of students not only from Bavaria, but also from the other German States, and soon caused him to be regarded as one of the most prominent Catholic professors of his day.

Haneberg was also a distinguished and prolific writer. During the years 1840 and 1841 he worked on his "Die religiösen Alterthümer der Hebrüer", and in 1844 he published his "Einleitung in das Alte Testament" as a text-book for his lectures. In the course of time, he recast both these works, the former of which passed to the second edition in 1869 under the title of "Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel", and the latter of which appeared rewritten as "Geschichte der biblischen Offenbarung," and was rendered into French by Goschler (Paris, 1856), reaching a fourth edition in 1876. Besides these, his best-known works, he published several others which were chiefly the fruit of his Hebrew and Arabic studies, and formed his contribution to the Journal of the Oriental Society and to the transactions of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences of which he became a member in 1848. Among these latter works the following may be mentioned: "Ueberdie arabische Psalmenübersetzung des Saadia;" "Uber das Schulwesen der Mohammedaner;" "Erörerungen über Bendo-Wakidi's Geschichte der Eroberung von Syrien;" "Ueber die Theologie des Aristotles;" and chiefly his "Canones S. Hippolyti arabice e codd. Romanis cum versione latinâ, annotationibus, et prolegomenis." He found time also for contributing articles to the Kirchenlixicon of Wetzer and Weite. Nor did he neglect in any way the various duties of his priestly calling, such as preaching, attendance at the confessional, answers to sick-calls, etc. His learning and still more his virtues, secured for him great favor at the Bavarian court, and he acted as tutor in the families of the Duke Maxmilian and Prince Leopold. In 1850, he joined the Order of St. Benedict, and a few years afterwards (1854) was chosen abbot of the Benedictine monastery of St. Boniface at Munich. He soon founded the Reform School at Andechs in Upper Bavaria, and a little he tried, but with small success, to establish missions of his order in Algiers and in the Orient.

At the approach of the Vatican Council he was invited by Pope Pius IX to share in the labours preparatory to that August assembly. After the dogma of papal infallibility had been solemnly proclaimed by the Council (18 July, 1870), and publicly accepted by the German Bishops assembled at Fulda, (end of August, 1870), Hanneberg humbly gave up his former views concerning this point of doctrine, and sincerely submitted to the authority of the Church. From 1864 onwards, several episcopal sees had been offered him, but he had declined them all. At length, however, on his presentation by the King of Bavaria for the Bishopric of Spires and at the instance of the Sovereign Pontiff, the humble abbot accepted that see, and was consecrated 25 August, 1872. His zeal and success in the government of this diocese fully justified his selection for the episcopal dignity. In days of violent opposition to Catholicism in Germany — the days of the framing and application of the Falk Laws (1872-1875) — he unflinchingly fought against the encroachments of the civil power on the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He also strenuously, though not always successfully, combated the influence of the Old Catholics of the time. He was most unsparing of himself in his confirmation tours, although the bodily fatigues thus entailed were far too much for his failing strength. After a few days of sickness he succumbed (31 May, 1876) to pneumonia, which he had contracted in one of those episcopal tours, and was lamented by both clergy and people who revered him as a saint.

Jocham, D. B. Haneberg (Würzburg, 1874); Schegg, Erinnerungen an D. B. von Haneberg (Munich, 1878); Weinhart in Kirchenlexicon, s.v.; Guérin, Dictionnaire des Dictionnaires. Supplément (Paris, 1895).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Hanover

The former Kingdom of Hanover has been a province of the Prussian monarchy since 20 September, 1866. Its nucleus was a region inhabited, when its history began, by Saxon tribes, which subsequently formed part of the old Duchy of Saxony. From the year 1137, under the name of the Guelphic Lands (Welfissche Lande), it was under the Dukes of Brunswick. In 1692 this country was raised to the dignity of the ninth electorate, as Hanover (or Bruswick-Lüneburg). As such it consisted of the Principalities of Lüneburg (Celle), Calenberg, Göttingen, and Grubenhagen.

After the partition of the Guelphic Lands (1569) it was extended to include the County of Hoya in 1582, the County of Diepholz in 1585, parts of the County of Schaumburg in 1640, the Duchy of Lauenburg in 1689, the Duchies of Bremen and Verden in 1719, the Principality of Osnabrück in 1802, the Principality of Hildesheim, Goslar, the Lower Eichsfeld, Eastern Friesland, the Duchy of Aremberg-Meppen, the district of Emsbüren, the Sub-county of Lingen, and the County of Bentheim in 1814, the Dominion of Plesse together with the Abbey of Höckelheim and the Bailiwick of Neuengleichen in 1816. In 1714 Hanover was connected with Great Britain through the personal union of its rulers. Thereafter it was under a peculiar regime, ruled over at times by a governor-general or viceroy. During the Napoleonic wars it was annexed now to one and then to another state. By the Congress of Vienna it was raised to the dignity of a kingdom, after the separation of Saxe-Lauenburg. A new constitution was conferred upon the kingdom in 1819; this was amended in 1833, in 1840, again in 1848, and, by the annexation to Prussia in 1866, was annulled.

The beginnings of Christianity in Hanover date from the time of the Emperor Charlemagne. This monarch having conquered the Saxons under their chieftain, Wittekind, after a war that lasted for thirty years, marked by unparalleled stubbornness, opened the way (785) for the conversion of this contumacious race. It was not until a comparatively late date that they were won over to civilization, and even after their nominal conversion they cherished heathen superstitions and customs for a long time. For centuries the Christian Church continued to exert all its might and power in the effort to eradicate the relics of paganism from the minds of this people. In this, however, she did not completely succeed. Until far into the Middle Ages they continued obstinate, notwithstanding the rigour with which the State and Church punished any relapse into heathen customs. In a certain sense, these customs are not quite extinct even at the present day. Various attempts to convert the Saxons were made, even before Charlemagne, by St. Boniface and other apostles. Apparently they succeeded in implanting Christianity in the Hanoverian Province of Eichsfeld and the region directly north of it. The next foothold secured by the Faith was in the North Thuringian counties of Eastphalia, where Charlemagne, as early as A. D. 777, bestowed churches at Allstedt, Riestedt, and Osterhausen in the Friesenfeld, on the Abbey of St. Wigbert at Hersfeld. St. Liafwin, a Briton, at Marklo, and Abbot Sturm of Fulda were less successful in their missionary preaching, from 760 to 770. Thanks to the zealous co-operation of the Emperor Charlemagne, the scattered missions were built up into bishoprics, but not until the supremacy of the Franks over the Saxons had been firmly secured. The first of these bishoprics was at Osnabrück, where a church had been in existence before the year 787; Wiho appears to have been the first bishop, in 803. Another bishopric was established, about the same time, at Mimigardeford (afterwards Münster), where St. Liudger, a Frieslander, laboured successfully; and others at Paderborn, Minden, and Verden. The Bishopric of Bremen, under St Willehad, was added to the number in the year 787. The two bishoprics for Eastphalia proper and Northern Thuringia, Hildesheim and Halberstadt, were created with the help of Charlemagne's son and successor, Louis the Pious. In addition to this, the Archdioceses of Cologne and Mainz extended their influence into the western and southern portions of the Saxon country.

Aside from the episcopal sees, the abbeys took an exceedingly important part in the work of converting and civilizing the Saxons, in the country that later became Brunswick-Lüneburg territory. The most important of all was the Abbey of Corvey, founded by Louis the Pious at the beginning of his reign. This developed into not merely the chief source of Christian civilization and learning for its immediate neighbourhood, but became the centre of an active and self-denying missionary movement which carried its teachings as far north as Scandinavia. It was from this place that St. Ansgar, the Apostle of the North, directed his great campaign of conversion. Next in importance were the Abbeys of Bücken and Bassum in the County of Hoya, Wunstorf, Lamspringe, and Gandersheim. The most eloquent and brilliant testimony to the fervour and depth of religious feeling that already inspired large sections of the Saxon people at the period is given by the Old Saxon poem "Heliand" (Evangelienharmonie), the only monument in German philology that has survived from the early days of Christianity in Saxony. This poem is unique in its simplicity and grandeur.

It was not long before the ecclesiastical dignitaries, bishops and abbots, became as powerful as the temporal lords, the dukes, margraves, and counts, even in the Saxon country. They were supported by the rest of the clergy, then, and for a long time afterwards, almost the sole custodians of culture and learning, and exponents of business methods. The princes of the Church in Saxony during the Othonian and Salic era included many men of rare intellectual endowments, men, moreover, of extensive learning and of moral excellence. Their names will always reflect honour on the German episcopate: names such as those of Bishop Bernward and Bishop Godehard of Hildesheim; of Liemar and Adalbert, Archbishops of Bremen; of Benno II of Osnabrück; of Meinwerk of Paderborn, and others. Besides Benno II (died 1088), Drogo, (952-968) and Detmar (1003-1022) stand pre-eminent among the Bishops of Osnabrück in the early Middle Ages. Benno II was as illustrious on account of his knowledge and efficiency in building and husband ry as because of his ecclesiastical and political ability. Detmar, according to contemporary accounts, was one of the most learned men of his day. Of the later bishops, Adolf (1216-1224), who was venerated as a saint, was especially notable. Most of them had to fight against the encroachments of their temporal and spiritual neighbours, and the nobility in general, so that the entire period prior to the sixteenth century was taken up with endless, devasating feuds, both internal and external. Little can be reported of the See of Verden, for its history is enveloped in obscurity because of its limited extent, and the bishops were, for the most part, insignificant or unfit men; moreover, they frequently were changed so rapidly that even the really strong characters among them had scarcely time enough to achieve anything noteworthy. The Bishoprics of Paderborn, Münster, Minden, and Halberstadt, though larger than Verden, had little influence on Hanover.

Much more important was the part played by the Church of Hildesheim and her rulers, above all by Bishop Bernward (d. 1022), an exceptionally pious, learned, and art-loving prelate, one of the most influential men of this period. The Church canonized him in the year 1193, but even during his lifetime he looms up a venerable and saintly figure, in the midst of wild excitement, wars, and strife. Rarely do we meet with a prince of the Church who at the same time held so brilliant a position in the world and was yet a man of such touching modesty, of such learning and love of art, and so solicitous a father of the lowly and the poor. He was the tutor, friend, and counsellor of his emperor; he conducted negotiations for him and followed him into battle. He governed his diocese, founded churches and abbeys, and also built strong fortresses for a protection against foreign marauders, and raised the fortifications around his metropolitan city. He took care of the needy and the sick and adjusted legal disputes. He was not only a liberal patron of art and science, but was himself a scholar and an artist and the foremost educator of his day. In the history of art his importance is even greater than in political history or in legend. In his time began the religious movement which, starting in Cluny, about the year 1007, leavened the entire religious life of the Church; which, in the monasteries, preferred asceticism to the practical work of the old Benedictine rule and the confined views of the cloister, to freedom of motion; but which, moreover, gradually infused its spirit into bishops and secular clergy and forced them to take a political attitude fundamentally different from that which they had hitherto held. The literary and artistic activity of this time was purely religious and was notably conspicuous in monasteries and episcopal cities. Widukind, a monk of the Abbey of Corvey, published, in 967, an historical work on the fortunes and achievements of the Saxon race from its origin down to the days of Otto the Great. Hroswitha, the nun of Gandersheim (d. about 1002), wrote several dramatic and other poems. Much more brilliant and many-sided were the achievements of Christian art, especially of architecture, calligraphy, and metal work, whose grandest creations were inspired by Bernward of Hildesheim, and bear the impress of royal magnificence and deep religious sentiment. They may be looked upon as the finest products of the truly Christian spirit which in the tenth and eleventh centuries pervaded Europe.

The steady growth of power and wealth in the Church, since the beginning of the twelfth century, introduced an ever increasing spirit of worldliness. Even the austerity that emanated from Cluny did not suffice to check it, inasmuch as it was fostered by the Crusades. However, both spiritual and temporal powers sought to stop this decay. The monastic orders themselves repeatedly attempted to reform the monastic and ecclesiastical abuses, and this was done especially by the newly founded Premonstratensian and Cistercian Orders in the twelfth century. The former founded in Hanover two excellent centres for their activities at Pöhlde and Ilfeld; but the latter established more than eighteen: at Walkenried, Amelungsborn, Mariental near Helmstedt, Rigsdagshausen, Michnelstein near Halberstadt, Lokkum, St. Mary's Convent at Osterode, Wibrechtshausen, Bischofsrode, Mariensee or Isensee, Wöltingerode, Neuwerk zu Goslar, Heiligkreuz near Brunswick, Wienhausen and Isenhagen, Altenmedingen, and several other places. From these points of vantage monks and nuns most efficiently promoted education and culture. Besides introducing rational methods of husbandry, they fostered learning and the minor arts, erected churches, and produced liturgical vessels and vestments that challenge our admiration to this day. To the progress due to these causes the Church in Hanover owed the dominant position it held since the fourteenth century, which had its sure material foundations in the donations and gifts, both of money and property of every kind, offered to the Church by the laity. As pre-eminent examples of wealth thus bestowed, as well as of its wise administration, we may cite the cathedral of Hildeshelin, the Abbey of Walkenried, St. Michael's Convent near Lüneburg, and even such less prominent institutions as the Martinikirche in Brunswick, the hospital of the Holy Ghost at Hanover; and there were others.

The Church now attained the summit of her power, influence, and prestige. While the disintegration of the Empire was affecting all its ancient institutions, while the administrative affairs of the State were bordering on anarchy, the Church was the sole immovable bulwark of the country, the only thing permanent amid the changes and revolution of the time. In the Hartz country, throughout the valley of the Ecker, near the Brocken, over Elend and Hohegeiss, then down and along the valley of the Zorge, were found her chapels of succour, her hospices for travellers, her hospitals, infirmaries, and houses of worship, where the wretched could find shelter and safety, where the sick and the maimed were taken in and nursed. To the persecuted she afforded protection against the rich and the powerful, against the despotism of princes and the aggressions of the nobility, by using the numerous and effective means of punishment at her disposal. When the abuse of her temporal power and wealth threatened to destroy her, the Church twice reformed herself before the Lutheran revolt. The first time was during the thirteenth century, through the instrumentality of the Dominicans and Franciscans; and again, during the fifteenth century, by means of the reform movement led by the Brethren of the Common Life under Johannes Busch of Zwolle (1437-79), which had its origin in the Dutch Abbey of Windesheim. Busch, one of the chief champions of the internal reform movement, laboured with most signal success in Hanover, first in Wittenburg and Neuwerk, and then in the Sültenkloster near Hildesheim. With the help of friends sympathizing with his aims he thoroughly reorganized, from this place, most of the monasteries of Lower Saxony, and revived their discipline and religious zeal.

This revival, however, was confined almost entirely to the religious orders, while the secular clergy, especially the high dignitaries, became more and more corrupt. This paved the way for the revolt against the Church, which convulsed Germany under the lead of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century, resulting in a lasting schism and the division of the country into two hostile camps. Favoured by the internal dissensions called the Stiftsfehde and supported by the burghers, Luther's innovations found ready entrance at first among the lower classes, then spread through the larger cities amid more or less tumultuous rioting, and finally gained the ascendancy even in the country, when the reigning house in all its branches embraced the new doctrines. Duke Ernest of Brunswick-Lüneburg, in 1529 and Duke Julius of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, in 1545, reorganized ecclesiastical affairs along Lutheran lines. In this they were not actuated by religious motives but by a desire to extend their possessions. The establishment of the Protestant Church administration threw a great part of the possessions and the revenue of ecclesiastical property and of the abbeys into the princely exchequer. This, of course, increased their influence on the religious views of their Church. Hanover had become almost entirely Protestant by about the middle of the sixteenth century. Only the episcopal chapter of Hildesheim and a few abbeys held out against the Reformation in that diocese, until Bishop Ernest II of Bavaria (1573-1612) improved the situation somewhat by inviting the Jesuits to Hildesheim. In Osnabrück the see was even occupied by Protestant sympathizers, until here also the Jesuits, who were summoned in 1624 by Eitel Frederick of Hohenzollern, effected a tardy improvement.

The conversion, in 1651, of John Frederick, who was Duke of Calenherg-Grubenhagen from 1665 to 1679, and resided at Hanover, led to the establishment of several new mission parishes in the electorate. He organized the Catholic congregations in Hanover, Hameln, and Göttingen, from Catholic newcomers and numerous converts. Ernest Augustus I, his successor (1679-1698), who annexed Celle, made a compact with the emperor, guaranteeing to Catholics the right to practice their religion in the aforesaid places and in Celle. But it was only when liberty of worship was accorded at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and freedom of settlement was permitted towards its middle, that numerous new Catholic parishes were established. Until the reorganization of church affairs after the secularization of 1803 the country belonged to the Vicariate Apostolic of Lower Saxony and the North. By the circumscription Bull of Pope Leo XII, "Impensa Romanorum", 26 August 1824, the Kingdom of Hanover was divided between the Bishoprics of Hildesheim and Osnabrück, the revenues of the church regulated, the rules laid down for the election of bishops, and the limits of parishes and succursals fixed. The agreement arrived at was not carried out until 1928. Since then the Catholic Church in Hanover has grown visibly stronger and the Catholic population has markedly increased. In a total population of 2,500,000 in 1905, the Catholics numbered more than 325,000.

LAUENSTEIN. Hildesheim. Kirehen- u. Reinmationsgesch. (Hildesheim, 1736); SPLITTLER, Gesch. d. Fürstent. Hannover seit d. Reformation (Hanover, 1798); HÜNE, Getch. d. Königr. Hannover (Hanover, 1824-30); HAVEMANN, Gesch. d. Lande Braunachweig u. Lüneburg (Lüneburg, 1837-38); LUNTZEL, Die ältere Diözese Hildesheim (Hildesheim, 1837); IDEM, Gesch. d. Diözese u. Stadt Hildesheim (Hildesheim, 1858); VON MANN, Gesch. von Braunschaeig u. Hannover (Gotha, 3884-92); WOKER, Gesch. d. kathol. Kirche in Hannover u. Celle (Paderborn, 1889); IDEM, Der Bonifatius-Verein 1849-1899, II (Paderborn, 1899), 84-97.

P. ALBERT

Blessed Everald Hanse

Martyr; b. in Northamptonshire; executed 31 July, 1581. He was educated at Cambridge, and was soon presented to a good living. His brother William, who had become a priest in April, 1579 tried to convert him, but in vain until a sharp attack of illness made him enter into himself. He then went over to Reims (1580-1581), was ordained, and returned but his ministry was very short. In July he was visiting in disguise some Catholic prisoners in the Marshalsea, when the keeper noticed that his shoes were of a foreign make. He was closely examined, and his priesthood was discovered. As yet there was no law against priests, and to satisfy the hypocritical professions of the persecutors, it was necessary to find some treason of which he was guilty. He was asked in court at the Newgate Sessions, what he thought of the pope's authority, and on his admitting that he believed him "to have the same authority now as he had a hundred years before", he was further asked whether the pope had not erred (i.e. sinned) in declaring Elizabeth excommunicate, to which he answered, "I hope not." His words were at once written down as his indictment, and when he was further asked whether he wished others to believe as he did, he said "I would have all to believe the Catholic faith as I do." A second count was then added that he desired to make others also traitors like himself. He was at once found guilty of "persuasion" which was high treason by 23 Elizabeth. He was therefore in due course sentenced and executed at Tyburn. The case is noteworthy as one of the most extreme cases of verbal treason on record, and it was so badly received that the Govermnent had afterwards to change their methods of obtaining sentences. The martyr's last words were "O happy day!" and his constancy throughout "was a matter of great edification to the good". The Spanish ambassador wrote, "Two nights after his death, there was not a particle of earth on which his blood had been shed, which had not been carried off as a relic."

ALLEN, Briefe Historie of the Glorious Martyrdom of Twelve Reverend Priests (1582), ed. POLLEN, (London, 1908), 98-106; CAMM, Lives of the English Martyrs, II (London, 1905), 249-265.

J.H. POLLEN

Markus Hansiz

Historian, b. at Volkermarkt, Carinthia, Austria, 25 April, 1683; d. at Vienna, 5 September, 1766. He was only fifteen when he entered the Society of Jesus at Eberndorf. He was ordained a priest in 1708 and became on the completion of his studies professor of humanities at Vienna. From 1713 to 1717 he taught philosophy at Graz, and from 1717 devoted himself entirely to the study of history. His interest in the "Anglia Sacra" of Wharton, the "Gallia Christiana" of Sainte-Marthe, Ughelli's "Italia Sacra", and other similar treatises, together with the advice of the scholarly librarian, Bernardo Gentilotti, determined him to execute a comprehensive "Germania Sacra". For this purpose he examined numerous libraries and archives, and published (1727-1729) histories of the Church of Lorch and of the Sees of Passau and Salzburg: "Germaniae Sacrae tomus primus: Metropolis Laureacensis cum episcopatu Pataviensi chronologice proposita" (Augsburg, 1727), and an "Archiepiscopatus Salisburgensis chronologice propositus" (Vienna, 1729). This work took him to Rome, where he profited by his intercourse with Muratori and Maffei.

Despite the composition of divers short treatises, chiefly canonical and dogmatic, he did not lose sight of his main purpose, but gathered assiduously his materials for his history of the Dioceses of Ratisbon, Vienna, Neustadt, Seckau, Gurk, Lavant, and for the secular history of Carinthia. lt is true that the only result of his industry published by him on these subjects was a preliminary inquiry into the earliest periods of the See of Ratisbon: "Germaniae sacrae tomus tortius. De episcopatu Ratisbonensi" (Vienna, 1754). His copious notes are preserved in the Hofbibliothek at Vienna. Contrary to the Salzburg tradition he maintained in his second volume, that St. Rupert first founded this see about the close of the seventh century; this aroused oppositlon. The third volume also involved him in controversy with the canons of St. Emmeram, from which he emerged with honour. With advancing age he ceased personal researches, but induced his younger brethren in the Society, at Graz, and Klagenfurt, to take up and carry on his labours. With the same end in view he communicated, only a short time before his death, with the learned prince abbot, Gerbert of St. Blasien, the result being that the Benedictine Fathers, Emil Usserman, Ambrosius Eichhorn, and Trudpert Neugart, took charge of the work for the Dioceses of Wurzburg, Chur, and Constance. Hansiz was a genuine historian; he combined with great learning and thoroughness of method a discerning mind and an uncompromising love of truth, and he possessed the gift of an attractive style.

PLETZ, Wiener Theologische Zeitschrit (1834, I, 13, sq., 161 sq.; Allg. Deutsche Biographie, X (1879), 541 sq.; Hurter, Nomenclator.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Chrysostomus Hanthaler

(JOHANNES ADAM.)

A Cistercian, historical investigator and writer; b. at Marenbach, Austria, 14 February, 1690; d. in the Cistercian monastery of Lilienfeld in Lower Austria, 2 September, 1754. Having finished his scholastic education, he made his profession in 1716, and subsequently he devoted himself with untiring zeal to historical research. The archives and rich library of the monastery offered a splendid field for his activity. On becoming a librarian, he made it his first task to compile a reliable catalogue, and then collected all documents bearing on the history of Lilienfeld and of Austria. Copies and impression of memorial tablets, seals, and coins were reproduced until his transcripts and compilations filled twenty-two folio volumes. From this matter he composed the "Fasti Campililienses" in two large volumes (Link, 1747-1754), which gives a complete history of his monastery from the thirteenth century to the end of the Middle Ages, together with a history of the Babenberg dukes of Austria and Steyer. The completion of his great work of compilation was delayed by his death. On the suppression of the monastery in 1789, the manuscript was brought to the Imperial Library at Vienna, but the copper plates and prints were sold. Subsequently both came into the hand of Abbot Ladislaus Pyrker, who published the last two volumes under the title of "Fastorum Campiliensium Chrysostomi Hanthaler continuatio seu Recensus genealogico-diplomaticus archivi Campiliensis" (Vienna, 1819-20), together with two appendixes containing descriptions of the tomestones and extracts from the necrology of the monastery. Hanthaler left behind numerous other writings among which may be mentioned the three volume work published at Linz (1744) "Grata pro gratiis memoria eorum, quorum pietate Vallis de campo liliorum et surrexit et crevit", also a memorandum book, a valuable contribution to Austrian history. His knowledge of numismatics was displayed in an excellent book of instructions for amateur collectors, entitled "Excercitationes faciles de numis veterum" (Nuremberg and Vienna, 1753). The glory to which Hanthaler is undoubtedly entitled for these works is considerably dimmed by the fact that, led asthay by ambition, he endeavoured to palm off in his "Fasti" four chronicles that he himself had written as newly discovered ancient sources of the history of the Babenbergs. These are the "Ortilonis de Lilienfeld Liber de exordio Campililii", "Notulae anecdotae e chronica stirpis Babenbergicae, quam Aloldus de Peklarn capellanus conscripsit, excerptae"; "Chronicon Ricardi canonici Newnburgensis" and "Chronicon Fridrici bellicosi" of the Dominican Pernold.

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, X, 547; ZEISSERG, Das Totenbuch des Cisterzieserstiftes Lilienfeld (Vienna, 1879); WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, II (1894), 496.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Johann Ernest Hanxleden

Jesuit missionary in the East Indies: b at Ostercappeln, near Osnabruck, in Hanover, 1681; d. in Malabar, 20 March, 1732. He volunteered for the East India mission while a young student, and went through his novitiate on the journey thither. He started from Augsburg on 8 December, 1699, in the company of Fathers Weber and Mayer and a German barber named Johann Kaspar Schillinger. They proceeded across Italy, through Turkey, Asia Minor, Syria, Armenia, and Persia to Bender-Abbas on the Gulf of Persia where they took ship to Surat. Both the Fathers died on the voyage. Hanxleden and a lay brother set foot in India alone on 13 December, 1700, and settled in Goa Major. Thenceforth, for more than thirty years, he laboured on the coast of Malabar, and died while professor in the seminary of the Christians of St. Thomas. Esteemed for virtue and erudition, he was mourned greatly. The heathen ruler of the country declared that the Paulists (as the Jesuits were then called in India) had lost in him a great man and a pillar of their religion.

To Hanxleden and his colleague, Heinrich Roth, belongs the credit of having been the pioneers among Europeans in the study of Sanskrit. He was the first European to write a Sanskrit grammar, and also the first to compile a Malabar-Sanskrit-Portughese lexicon. The Carmalite Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo brought back Hanxleden's manuscript Sanskrit grammer to Rome and made use of part of it; he pronounced him the best Sanskrit scholar of his time. His Sanskrit works would probably have created a great stir among scholars had they been published immediately after their completion, and Schlegel and Max Muller speak of them in the highest terms. Hanxleden compiled a "Dictionarium samscredamico-lusitanum", with the assistance of the two Jesuits, Anton Pimentel and Bernhard Bischopinck (of Borken in Westphalia). He left also a "Grammatica malabarico-lusitana" and a long list of religious poems in the Malabar tongue, a life of Christ, songs of the end of all things, on St. Genevieve, the Mater Dolorosa, etc. Many of his songs were still sung on the Malabar coast in the time of the aforesaid Paulinus.

SCHILLINGER, Ost-lndianische Reise-Beschreibung (Nuremberg, 1707), epitomized in STOCKLEIN, Der Neue Welt-Bott (Augsburg, 1726), no. 93; ibidem, no. 601; PLATZWEG, Lebensbider deutscher Jesuiten (Paderborn, 1822). 54; PAULINUS A. S. BARTHOLOMAEO, Examen historico-criticum codicum indicorum biblioth. sacrae congreg. de prop. fide (Rome, 1792), 51, 55, 76; IDEM. India orientalis christiana (Rome, 1794), 191; HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionare (Freiburg irn Br. 1899), 48, 89, 175; DAHLMANN, Die Sprachkude u. die Missionen (Freiburg, lm Br. 1891), 18 sqq.; manuscript Ietters in the library of the Ecole St-Genevieve at Paris: cf. SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la Soc. de Jesus. s. v, BENFEY, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (Munich, 1869), 335 sq. and 352; VON SCHLEGEL, Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Inder (Heidelberg, 1808), preface, XII; IDEM, Samtliche Werke (Vienna, 1846),VIII, 277; MAX MULLER, Vorlesungen uber die Wissenschaft der Sprachen (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1866) I, 429; GILDEMEISTER, Bibliotheca Sanskritica sive recensus librorum Sanskritorum hucusque typis vel lapide exscriptorum critici specimen, I, (Bonn, 1847).

A. HUONDER

Happiness

(Fr. bonheur; Germ. Glück; Lat. felicitas; Gr. eutychia, eudaimonia).

The primary meaning of this term in all the leading European languages seems to involve the notion of good fortune, good chance, good happening; but from a very early date in the history of Greek philosophy the conception became the centre of keen speculation and dispute. What is happiness? What are its constituents? What are the causes and conditions of happiness? How, if at all, does it differ from pleasure? What are its relations to man's intellect, to his will, to his life as a whole? What is its position in a general theory of the universe? These are questions which have much occupied the various schools of philosophy and, indeed, have exercised men who would not be willingly accused of philosophizing. For happiness is necessarily amongst the most profoundly interesting subjects for all of us. With the Greeks interest in the problem was mainly ethical, the psychology of happiness being ancillary; whereas for several modern schools of philosophy psychology is deemed the key to many of the most important queries respecting this familiar yet enigmatic conception.

Dismissing the view that happiness was a lot arbitrarily bestowed by capricious Fortune, the more serious thinkers among the Greeks regarded it as a gift of the gods. Further reflection led to the view that it was given as a reward for goodness of life. Hence the acquisition of happiness depends on the working out of the good for man in man's life. What then is the good? For Socrates it is eupraxia, which receives closer definition at the hands of Plato, as such harmonious functioning of the parts of man's soul as shall preserve the subordination of the lower to the higher, of the non-rational to the rational. In this view happiness becomes for Plato less the reward than the inevitable concomitant of such harmony. It is the property of the whole soul; and the demand of any element of the soul for preferential treatment in the matter of happiness Plato would thus look upon as unreasonable. In setting happiness as the intrinsic result of a policy of "following nature", the Stoics and the Cyrenaics were in verbal agreement with Plato, though diverging to opposite poles in their answer to the psychological question as to the constituents of happiness. "Follow Nature", for the Cyrenaics, meant: "Gratify the sensuous faculties which are the voices of nature." For the Stoics it signified: "Satisfy your reason which nature bids us to exalt by the entire suppression of our sensuous appetites." Happiness is for these latter the consequence of the virtuous life which issues in spiritual freedom and peace.

In Aristotle's ethical system, happiness, as expressed by eudaimonia, is the central idea. He agrees with Plato in rejecting the exaggerated opposition set up between reason and nature by the Sophists, and fundamental to both the Stoic and Epicurean schools. For Aristotle, nature is human nature as a whole. This is both rational and sensuous. His treatment of happiness is in closer contact with experience than that of Plato. The good with which he concerns himself is that which it is possible for man to reach in this life. This highest good is happiness. This must be the true purpose of life; for we seek it in all our actions. But in what does it consist? Not in mere passive enjoyment, for this is open to the brute, but in action (energeia), of the kind that is proper to man in contrast with other animals. This is intellectual action. Not all kinds of intellectual action, however, result in happiness, but only virtuous action, that is, action which springs from virtue and is according to its laws; for this alone is appropriate to the nature of man. The highest happiness corresponds to the highest virtue; it is the best activity of the highest faculty. Though happiness does not consist in pleasure, it does not exclude pleasure. On the contrary, the highest form of pleasure is the outcome of virtuous action. But for such happiness to be complete it should be continued during a life of average length in at least moderately comfortable circumstances, and enriched by intercourse with friends. Aristotle is distinctly human here. Virtues are either ethical or dianoetic (intellectual). The latter pertain either to the practical or to the speculative reason. This last is the highest faculty of all; hence the highest virtue is a habit of the speculative reason. Consequently, for Aristotle the highest happiness is to be found not in the ethical virtues of the active life, but in the contemplative or philosophic life of speculation, in which the dianoetic virtues of understanding, science, and wisdom are exercised. Theoria, or pure speculation, is the highest activity of man, and that by which he is most like unto the gods; for in this, too, the happiness of the gods consists. It is, in a sense, a Divine life. Only the few, however, can attain to it; the great majority must be content with the inferior happiness of the active life. Happiness (eudaimonia), therefore with Aristotle, is not identical with pleasure (hedone), or even with the sum of pleasures. It has been described as the kind of well-being that consists in well-doing; and supreme happiness is thus the well-doing of the best faculty. Pleasure is a concomitant or efflorescence of such an activity.

Here, then, is in brief Aristotle's ethical theory of eudemonism; and in its main features it has been made the basis of the chief Christian scheme of moral philosophy. Constituting happiness the end of human action, and not looking beyond the present life, Aristotle's system, it has been maintained with some show of reason, approximates, after all, in sundry important respects towards Utilitarianism or refined Hedonism. This is not the place to determine precisely Aristotle's ethical position, but we may point out that his conception of happiness (eudaimonia) is not identical with felicity — the maximum sum of pleasures — which forms the supreme end of human conduct for modern hedonistic schools. It is rather in his failure to perceive clearly the proper object of man's highest faculty, on the one hand, and, on the other, his limitation of the attainment of this proper end of man to a handful of philosophers, that the most serious deficiency in this part of his doctrine lies. It is here that the leading Schoolmen, enlightened by Christian Revelation and taking over some elements from Plato, come to complete the Peripatetic theory. St. Thomas teaches that beatitudo, perfect happiness, is the true supreme, subjective end of man, and is, therefore, open to all men, but is not attainable in this life. It consists in the best exercise of the noblest human faculty, the intellect, on the one object of infinite worth. It is, in fact, the outcome of the immediate possession of God by intellectual contemplation. Scotus and some other Scholastic writers accentuate the importance of the will in the process, and insist on the love resulting from the contemplative activity of the intellect, as a main factor; but it is allowed by all Catholic schools that both faculties play their part in the operation which is to constitute at once man's highest perfection and supreme felicity. "Our heart is ill at ease till it find rest in Thee" was the cry of St. Augustine. "The possession of God is happiness essential." "To know God is life everlasting." With all Christian writers true happiness is to come not now, but hereafter. Then the bonum perfectum quod totaliter quietat appetitum (the perfect good that completely satisfies desire) can be immediately enjoyed without let or hindrance, and that enjoyment will not be a state of inactive quiescence or Nirvana, but of intense, though free and peaceful, activity of the soul.

The divorce of philosophy from theology since Descartes has, outside of Catholic schools of thought, caused a marked disinclination to recognize the importance in ethical theory of the future life with its rewards and punishments. Consequently, for those philosophers who constitute happiness — whether of the individual or of the community — the ethical end, the psychological analysis of the constituents of temporal felicity, has become a main problem. In general, such writers identify happiness with pleasure, though some lay considerable stress on the difference between higher and lower pleasures, whilst others emphasize the importance of active, in opposition to passive, pleasures. The poet Pope tells us, "Happiness lies in three words: Peace, Health, Content". Reflection, however, suggests that these are rather the chief negative condition, than the positive constituents of happiness. Paley, although adopting a species of theological Utilitarianism in which the will of God is the rule of morality, and the rewards and punishments of the future life the chief part of the motive for moral conduct, yet has written a celebrated chapter on temporal happiness embodying a considerable amount of shrewd, worldly common sense. He argues that happiness does not consist in the pleasures of sense, whether the coarser, such as eating, or the more refined, such as music, the drama, or sports, for these pall by repetition. Intense delights disappoint and destroy relish for normal pleasures. Nor does happiness consist in exemption from pain, labour, or business; nor in the possession of rank or station, which do not exclude pain and discomfort. The most important point in the conduct of life is, then, to select pleasures that will endure. Owing to diversity of taste and individual aptitudes, there is necessarily much variety in the objects which produce human happiness. Among the chief are, he argues, the exercise of family and social affections, the activity of our faculties, mental and bodily, in pursuit of some engaging end, that of the next life included, a prudent constitution of our habits and good health, bodily and mental. His conclusion is that the conditions of human happiness are "pretty equally distributed among the different orders of society, and that vice has at all events no advantage over virtue even with respect to this world's happiness". For Bentham, who is the most consistent among English Hedonists in his treatment of this topic, happiness is the sum of pleasures. Its value is measured by quantity: "Quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry." Rejecting all distinctions of higher or lower quality, he formulates these tests of the worth of pleasure as an integral part of happiness: (1) its intensity, (2) duration, (3) propinquity, (4) purity, or freedom from pain, (5) fecundity, (6) range. J. Stuart Mill, whilst defining happiness as "pleasure and absence of pain", and unhappiness as "pain and privation of pleasure", insists as a most important point that " quality must he considered as well as quantity", and some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and valuable than others on grounds other than their pleasantness. "It is better", he urges, "to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." This is true; but it is an inconsistent admission fatal to Mill's whole position as a Hedonist, and to the Hedonistic conception of happiness.

The aid of the evolutionist hypothesis here as elsewhere was called to the support of the Sensationist school of psychology and ethics. Pleasure must be life-giving, pain the reverse. The survival of the pleasure fittest to survive will, according to Herbert Spencer, lead to an ultimate well-being not of the individual, but of the social organism; and the perfect health of the organism will be the concomitant of its perfect functioning, that is, of its perfect virtue. Thus happiness is defined in terms of virtue, but of a virtue which is a mere physical or physiological excellence. Spencer's critics, however, have been keen to point out that the pleasure of an activity in man is not by any means a safe criterion of its healthiness or conduciveness to enduring well-being. In the writings of the German Rationalists from Kant onwards we meet echoes of the ancient Stoicism. Usually there is too narrow a view of human nature, and at times an effort to set aside the question of happiness as having no real bearing on ethical problems. Kant is inclined to an over-ready acceptance of the Hedonistic identification of happiness with sensuous pleasure, and for this reason he is opposed to our working for our own happiness whilst he allows us to seek that of others. His rigoristic exclusion of happiness from among the motives for moral action is psychologically as well as ethically unsound, and although "Duty for duty's sake" may be an elevating and ennobling hortatory formula, still the reflective reason of man affirms unequivocally that unless virtue finally results in happiness, that unless it be ultimately happier for the man who observes the moral law than for him who violates it, human existence would be irrational at the very core, and life not worth living. This latter, indeed, is the logical conclusion of Pessimism, which teaches that misery altogether outweighs happiness in the universe as a whole. From this the inevitable inference is that the supreme act of virtue would be the suicide of the entire human race.

Reverting now to the teaching of St. Thomas and the Catholic Church respecting happiness, we can better appreciate the superiority of that teaching. Man is complex in his nature and activities, sentient and rational, cognitive and appetitive. There is for him a well-being of the whole and a well-being of the parts; a relatively brief existence here, an everlasting life hereafter. Beatitudo, perfect happiness, complete well-being, is to be attained not in this life, but in the next. Primarily, it consists in the activity of man's highest cognitive faculty, the intellect, in the contemplation of God — the infinitely Beautiful. But this immediately results in the supreme delight of the will in the conscious possession of the Summum Bonum, God, the infinitely good. This blissful activity of the highest spiritual faculties, as the Catholic Faith teaches, will redound in some manner transcending our present experience to the felicity of the lower powers. For man, as man, will enjoy that perfect beatitude. Further, an integral part of that happiness will be the consciousness that it is absolutely secure and everlasting, an existence perfect in the tranquil and assured possession of all good — Status omnium bonorum aggregatione perfectus, as Boethius defines it. This state involves self-realization of the highest order and perfection of the human being in the highest degree. It thus combines whatever elements of truth are contained in the Hedonist and Rationalist theories. It recognizes the possibility of a relative and incomplete happiness in this life, and its value; but it insists on the importance of self-restraint, detachment, and control of the particular faculties and appetencies for the attainment of this limited happiness and, still more, in order to secure that eternal well-being be not sacrificed for the sake of some transitory enjoyment.

(See also EPICUREANISM; ETHICS; GOOD; HEDONISM; LIFE; MAN; STOIC PHILOSOPHY; UTILITARIANISM; VIRTUE.)

Joseph Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus, I (London, 1892); Idem, Moral Philosophy (New York and London, 1893); Cronin, The Science of Ethics (Dublin, 1909); Janet, Theory of Morals (tr., Edinburgh, 1872); Paley, Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (London, 1817); Bentham, Works, Pt. I, ed. Bowring (Edinburgh, 1838); Mill, Utilitarianism (New York and London, 1844); Spencer, Data of Ethics (Edinburgh, 1879); Seth, Ethical Principles (New York and London, 1904); Lecky, History of European Morals, I (New York and London, 1894); Plato, Philebus, tr. Jowett (Oxford, 1892); Grant, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, I (4th ed., London, 1884); Rashdall, Aristotle's Theory of Conduct (London, 1904). — There are several of the translations of the Nicomachean Ethics; Williams (New York and London, 1879) and Peters (9th ed., London, 1904) are good. — Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics (6th ed., New York and London, 1907); Idem, History of Ethics, (17th ed., New York and London, 1896); OllÉ- Laprune, Essai sur la morale d'Aristote (Paris, 1891).

MICHAEL MAHER

Harbor Grace

(Portus Gratiæ)

Diocese in Newfoundland, erected in 1856. It comprises all the northern bays — Conception, Trinity, Bonavista, Notre Dame, and White Bays — together with that portion of the coast of Labrador over which the Government of Newfoundland exercises jurisdiction. Engaged in the ministerial work of the diocese are twenty-three priests, who minister to the Catholic population of twenty-nine thousand (29,000), consisting chiefly of sparse congregations scattered over five hundred miles of coastline. There are within the diocesan boundaries forty-nine churches, eighty- five stations, five convents, of which three are of the Order of the Presentation and two of the Order of Mercy, and one hundred Catholic schools, having an attendance of four thousand five hundred pupils. The towns of Harbor Grace and Carbonear have each an academy, and in some other of the more populous settlements there are superior or high schools. The system of education is denominational, the annual legislative grand of $245,323 being divided pro rata among the several religious denominations of the island. Besides the educational institutions within the diocese there is in the city of St. John's the College of St. Bonaventure conducted by the Irish Christian Brothers. The position which this seat of learning occupies with regard to the whole Catholic body of the island is clearly laid down in a joint circular letter recently addressed by the archbishop and bishop of the ecclesiastical province to the reverend clergy and laity. "The College", the circular states, "is the center of our educational system. It belongs not to St. John's alone, but to the whole island. It is the nursery in which are trained the youths who are, in future years, to be the teachers of our boys all over the country. It is the lyceum in which is given the Higher Education which fits our young men for the learned professions." In 1893 the Legislature incorporated a Council of Higher Education with power to confer diplomas and scholarships, as the result of competitive examinations, upon candidates from any educational institutions in the colony.

Among the institutions that appertain to the internal (religious) life of the diocese are the Priests' Eucharistic League, the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Society of the Children of Mary, and the League of the Sacred Heart.

BISHOPS

Rev. John Dalton, a native of Thurles, Ireland, and for some years pastor of St. Patrick's Church, Carbonear, was appointed first Bishop of Harbor Grace, 20 January, 1856, and on 12 May of the same year was consecrated by Rt. Rev. Dr. Mullock in the cathedral, St. John's. He died in May 1869, having ruled the diocese thirteen years. His episcopate was peaceful and full of good works, the great achievement of his administration being the erection of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.

Bishop Dalton was succeeded by Rt. Rev. Henry Carfagnini, an Italian friar of the Order of St. Francis. He had been previously president of St. Bonaventure's College, St. John's. Dr Carfagnini was consecrated in 1870. He was a man of large conception, breadth of view, and bold initiative. During his ten years' administration he increased the number of the diocesan clergy from six to fourteen, encouraged the erection of churches and schools, and completed and embellished the cathedral at Harbor Grace. His episcopate was, however, thick sown with trials of the most painful character. He had to struggle with a spirit of insubordination and faction which threatened to result in an open schism. In 1880 he was translated to the See of Gallipoli, Italy. He died in Rome in 1904.

Rev. Ronald MacDonald, parish priest of Pictou, Nova Scotia, was appointed third Bishop of the see. He was consecrated in Pictou, 21 August, 1881. A happy result of his rule was the restoration of peace to the diocese which had been torn by conflicting factions. His twenty-five years' episcopate was a period of great activity, and full of enterprise for the cause of religion. The rebuilding of the cathedral at Harbor Grace, destroyed by fire in 1889, was one of the great works of his administration. In 1906 the venerable prelate was, by reason of a protracted illness, obliged to retire from the scene of his active labours, and in June of the same year he published his farewell pastoral, announcing the acceptance by the Holy See of his resignation. Before severing connection with the diocese he was made titular Archbishop of Gortyna.

The present bishop, Rt. Rev. John March, D.D., was consecrated on 4 November, 1906. He is a native of Northern Bay, Newfoundland, where he was born on 13 July, 1863. He was ordained priest on 16 March, 1889, in the College of the Propaganda, of which institution he is a graduate. Returning to Newfoundland he was appointed rector of the cathedral, a position he continued to occupy until his elevation to the episcopacy. He possesses unusual executive ability and is fully cognizant of the requirements of the diocese. His first important move in the administration of the see was the inauguration, in 1907, of an ecclesiastical students' fund.

FELIX D. MCCARTHY

William J. Hardee

Soldier, convert, b. at Savannah, Georgia, U.S.A., 1817, d. at Wytheville, Virginia, 6 Nov., 1873. He graduated from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1838, and served in the second dragoons in the Florida Indian war. In 1839 he was sent to the French military training school at St. Maur for professional study and attached to the French cavalry department. On his return to the United States he was stationed in the West and promoted to be captain of dragoons on 18 Sept., 1844. During the Mexican War his services were conspicuous. At its close he was made of the twentieth cavalry and ordered to prepare a manuel of tactics for the army. This he finished in 1856 and was then appointed commandant of cadets at West Point. At the breaking out of the Civil War he joined the Confederacy and was given the rank of colonel in its army. He served all through the contest, attaining the rank of lieutenant-general and corps commander. After the war he retired to live on his plantation in Alabama. His book, "United States Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics", published in New York, 1856, was eclectic rather than original, and drawn chiefly from French sources.

Encycl. of Am. Biog., s.v.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Mary Aloysia Hardey

Of the Society of the Sacred Heart, who established all the convents of her order, up to the year 1883, in the eastern part of the United States, Canada, and Cuba; b. at Piscataway, Maryland, 1809; d. at Paris, France, 17 June. 1886. Both her parents (Frederick Hardey, Sarah Spalding) were descended from old Maryland Catholic families. Mr. Hardey removed to Louisiana, his daughter became (1822) one of the first pupils of the Sacred Heart, Grand Coteau. She entered the order in 1820 and her extraordinary endowments soon justified her appointment (1835) as superioress of St. Michael. Bishop Dubois having invited the society to New York, Mothers Calitzin and Hardey opened in Houston Street the first Eastern convent, this school is now located in Aqueduct Avenue. A visit to Rome, the benediction of Gregory XVI, and a sojourn with Mother Barat in France, prepared Mother Hardey for her future work. Thenceforth she was directed in all by the blessed foundress until the death of that holy guide in 1865. Amidst overwhelming labours she maintained that unalterable serenity which was her distinctive trait. She was gifted by nature and grace for immense undertakings; she was of simple manners, her words were few and kind, and she had great power of organization. When asked on her death-bed the number of her foundations, she replied: "I have never counted them, I went where obedience sent me"; that sentence delineates her character and her career. This alphabetic list of thirty convents, of which a few are now closed, represents the toil of more than forty years (from New York, 1841, to Atlantic City, 1883): Albany (New York), Astoria (New York), Atlantic City (New Jersey), Boston (Massachusetts), Buffalo (New York), Cincinnati (Ohio), Clifton (Cincinnati, Ohio), Detroit (Michigan), Eden Hall (Torresdale, Pennsylvania), Elmhurst (Rhode Island), Grosse Pointe (Michigan), Halifax (Nova Scotia), Havana (Cuba), Kenwood (Albany, New York), London (Ontario), Montreal (Quebec), McSherrystown (Pennsylvania), Manhattanville (New York), New York City (Aqueduct Avenue, and Madison Avenue), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Providence (Rhode Island), Rochester (New York), Rosecroft (Maryland), Sancti Spiritus (Cuba), Sandwich (Ontario), Sault-au-Recollet (Montreal), Saint Jacques (Quebec), St. John (New Brunswick), St Vincent (Quebec).

The hardships and perplexities entailed on one woman by all these foundations are hard to realize in these days when travelling is so easy and money so plentiful. Ten voyages to Europe, five to Cuba, and constant journeyings as mother provincial or visitatrix forced her to undergo much fatigue and peril. Her paramount concern was not the erection of convents but the formation of fervent religious as consecrated teachers, and where the world saw an executive and a benefactress, her communities found simply a vigilant but tender mother, an unfailing friend whose memory they bequeathed as a sacred legacy. The Civil war rent her heart, equally bound to North and South: food, money, hospital supplies, provisions for the Holy Sacrifice, went wherever suffering appealed. Her name became a household word. With Northern leaders, her influence was exerted on behalf of Southern convents and she herself, passing through contending armies, brought aid to the southwestern houses. Liberal benefactions went to Cuban homes, 1860-70; to Chicago, after its great fire; to France, 1870-71; to the South, when ravaged with fever; in a word, to sorrow and necessity, always and everywhere. She provided twenty-five free schools in the States and Canada, beyond computing is the number of young girls educated gratuitously in her academies; while she delicately assisted many young aspirants to the priesthood to fulfil their vocations. Kenwood, Albany, became her residence and the novices' home in 1866 when she erected the buildings which now contain the general novitiate for North America.

In 1871 she was appointed assistant general, an office requiring residence in the mother-house, Paris. She inspected first, as visitatrix, all convents of the order in the United States and Canada and embarked for Europe in 1872. In the central government, her wisdom and experience there invaluable, while the example of her self-effacing humility was not less precious. She aided the superiors-general in visitations and foundations of French and Spanish convents, still supervising those of America. She came back to America on her official visits in 1874, 1878, 1882. Her daughters, who treasured her parting counsels as oracles, bade her a last farewell in 1884, when she returned to Paris as member of the general council. She had spent herself for God in the Institute, a severe illness struck her down in 1885, and after months of patient suffering the end came peacefully.

She was buried in Conflans crypt, the tomb of the general administrators; but the persecutions of the French government suggesting removal of the venerated dead, her remains were bestowed on the country she had loved so profoundly and so loyally served. On 12 December, 1900, she was interred at Kenwood, Albany, where, on the tablet from Conflans vault, her own order records its testimony to the work she achieved ". . . late per regiones Americae. . . prudentia virtute".

DUFOUR, Vie la Rererende Mere Aloysia Hardey (Paris, 1890), compiled from original documents in the archives of the mother-house.

MARY BELINDA MCCORMACK

Thomas Harding

Controversialist; b. at Combe Martin, Devon, 1516 d. at Louvain, Sept., 1572. The registers of Winchester school show that after attending Barnstaple school he obtained a scholarship there in 1528, being then twelve years old. If this information be correct, he was three years younger than is commonly stated. He went to New College, Oxford, in 1534, was admitted a Fellow in 1536, and took his Master's degree in 1542, in which year he was appointed Hebrew professor by Henry VIII. Having been ordained priest he became chaplain to Henry Grey, Marquess of Dorchester and afterwards Duke of Suffolk. He at first embraced the Reformed opinions, but on the accession of Mary he declared himself a Catholic, despite the upbraidings of his friend Lady Jane Frey, and the events of his later life proved his sincerity. In 1554 he took the degree of Doctor of Divinity and was appointed prebendary of Winchester, becoming treasurer of Salisbury in the following year. He also acted as chaplain and confessor to Bishop Gardiner. When Elizabeth became queen he was deprived of his preferments and imprisoned (Sander, "Report to Cardinal Moroni"). Subsequently he retired to Louvain to escape persecution. There he served St. Gertrude's church and devoted himself to study and to his long controversy with Jewel, the Bishop of Salisbury and champion of Protestantism.

In 1564 he published "An answere to Maister Juelles Challenge", Jewel having undertaken to conform to the Catholic Church if any Catholic writer could prove that any of the Fathers of six centuries taught any of twenty-seven articles he selected. Jewel replied first in a sermon (which Harding answered in a broadsheet "To Maister John Jeuell", printed at Antwerp in 1565) and then in a book. Against the latter Harding wrote "A Rejoindre to M. Jewel's Replie" (Antwerp, 1566) and "A Rejoindre to M. Jewel's Replie against the Sacrifice of the Mass" (Louvain, 1567). Meanwhile he had become engaged in a second controversy with the same author, and, in his confutation of a book entitled an "Apologie of the Church of England" (Antwerp, 1565), he attacked an anonymous work, the authorship of which Jewel admitted in his "Defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande". Harding retorted with "A Detection of Sundrie Foule Errours, Lies, Sclaunders, corruptions, and other false Dealinges, touching Doctrine and other matters uttered and practized by M. Jewel" (Louvain, 1568). In 1566 Pius V appointed Harding and Dr. Sander Apostolic delegates to England, with special powers of giving faculties to priests and of forbidding Catholics to frequent Protestant services. Harding was of great assistance to his exiled fellow-countrymen and to Dr. Allen in founding the English College at Douai. He was buried (16 Sept., 1572) in the Church of St. Gertrude, Louvain.

KIRBY, Winchester Scholars (London, 1892); PITTS, De illustr. Angliae Scriptoribus (Paris, 1623); DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1739-42); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1887), s. v.; PERRY in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1890), s. v.; SANDER. Report to Card. Moromi in Catholic Record Society's Publications: Miscellanea, I (London, 1905); BIRT, Elizabethan Religious Settlement (London, 1907).

EDWIN BURTON

Mary Juliana Hardman

Known in religion as Sister Mary; b. 26 April, 1813; d. 24 March, 1884; was the daughter of John Hardman, senior, of Birmingham, a rich manufacturer, by his second wife, Lydia Waring. The Hardmans were a stanch old Catholic family, who had suffered for the Faith in penal times; they were also most generous to the Church. Mary Juliana was one of a large family; she was educated in the Benedictine convent at Caverswall, in Staffordshire, and, when she was nineteen, her father founded the convent of Our Lady of Mercy at Handsworth, near Birmingham, spending upwards of 5000 pounds (25,000 dollars) upon it. In 1840 Miss Hardman and three friends offered themselves to Bishop Walsh, to form the nucleus of a new community, and by his advice they went to Dublin to make their novitiate under Mother M. C. McAuley, the holy foundress and first superioress of the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy, Baggot Street, Dublin. The novices made their profession on 19 August, 1841, and a day or two later Mother McAuley accompanied them to the new convent at Handsworth, where they were solemnly received by Bishop, afterwards Cardinal, Wiseman. Shortly afterwards Sister Mary Juliana was appointed first prioress of the community, and held that office off and on for thirty-five years, her first appointment lasting for six. She was then elected for three years, and twice re-elected for the same period, and from 1870 she held the office of superioress till her death. In 1849 she opened another convent at St. Chad's, Birmingham, and also one at Wolverhampton. The next year she built an almonry for the relief of the poor, and opened poor-schools. In 1851 she placed the orphanage founded by her father at Maryvale under the care of Sisters of her community, making her own sister, Mary Hardman, in religion Sister Mary of the Holy Ghost, superioress. In 1858 she built a middle-class boarding-school; twelve years later she erected elementary schools for the working classes at Handsworth; and in 1874 she opened a middle-class day-school for both of boys and girls. She died at Handsworth, at the age of seventy. She is said to have been the personification of the rule of her institute, in her exercise of piety, self-sacrifice, and humility; she was also most wise and prudent, gentle and loving, in her government: she was unassuming and retiring; "deeds not words" was the motto up to which she lived. Her brother, John Hardman, founded the well-known ecclesiastical metal works and stained glass works at Birmingham, and was, like his father, a most generous benefactor of the Church, besides taking an active interest in the Catholic revival of his time.

AMHERST, St. Mary's Convent of Mercy, Handsworth (Birmingham 1891); GlLLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.

FRANCESCA M. STEELE

Jean Hardouin

Jesuit, and historian; b. at Quimper, Brittany, 23 Dec., 1646, son of a bookseller of that town; d. at Paris, 3 Sept., 1729. He entered the novitiate of the Society, 25 Sept., 1660; and was professor of belles-lettres and rhetoric, and afterwards taught positive theology for fifteen years. He became librarian at the Jesuit College of Louis-le-Grand in Paris, where he succeeded Pere Garnier whose biography he published in 1684. His first scientific work was an article published in the "Journal des Scavans", 10 March, 1681, on the meaning of a passage in Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXXIII, iii). His books are numerous, but many of them are ill-balanced and full of errors. Others, however, have won for him a place among men of learning. Many of his works deal with ancient numismatics, especially, his "Nummi antiqui populorum et urbium illustrati" (Paris, 1684); others treat of Greek and Roman classical literature, e.g. his "Themistii Orationes XXXIII" (Paris, 1684), and Pliny secundi Historae Naturalis libri XXXVII" (Paris, 1685; a new edition by Hardouin in 1723). It was especially in his "Chronologia Veteris Testamenti" (Paris, 1697; reprinted Strasburg, 1697, after the Parliament of Paris had interdicted the sale of the works that he questioned the authenticity of nearly all the works attributed to the classical writers; the only exceptions he made were in favour of the works of Cicero, Pliny's Natural History, Virgil's Georgies, Horace's Satires and Epistles, and in some writings Homer, Herodotus, and Plautus. In Iike manner he cast doubts on the authenticity of many of the writings of early Christian literature, and denied the authenticity of the Alexandrian version and the Hebrew deal with the interpretation OId and New Testament and the chronology of the life of Christ, especially the date on which He kept the Passover and the date of His birth. He also wrote a number of polemical works which, like those of his adversaries, are lacking in dignity and reserve. He attacked Pere Courayer on the subject of Anglican orders, Mlle Darcier on the basic idea of Homer's Iliad, and Gravius on the authenticity of the classical authors.

His greatest work is the "Conciliorum collectio regis maxima", or "Acta conciliorum, et epistolae decretales ac constitutiones summorum pontificum" (Paris, 1726). He received a pension from the French clergy for this work, and it was printed at the expense of the King of France. It is generally conceded to be the most critical edition we have of the text of the Councils. The work had been printed ten years (1715) before it was issued to the public. At the instigation of the Sorbonne, the Parliament of Paris had opposed it because Hardouin had studded the work with maxims opposed to the claims of the Gallican Church. His "Commentarius in Novum Testamentum" was not published till after his death (Amsterdam, 1741), and then it was put on the Index. Other works of his placed on the Index there the edition of his "Opera Selecta," published without its author's knowledge (Amsterdam, 1709); and his "Opera Varia" Amsterdam, 1733).

ZIMMERMANN in Kircheler, s. v; SCHMIDT-PFENDER in Realencyk fur. prof.Theol., s.v.; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Brussels, 1893), IV, 84 -111, which mentions all Hardouin's works; QUENTIN, Jean-Dominique Mansi et les grandes collectiones conciliares (Paris, 1900), 38-54.

A. VAN HOVE

John Hardyng

An English chronicler; b. 1378; d. about 1460. He was of northern parentage and entered the service of Henry Percy (Hotspur), and subsequently that of Sir Robert Umfreville. He was present at the battles of Homildon Hill (1402) and Shrewsbury (1403), and in 1405 was made constable of Warkworth Castle. In 1415 he accompanied Umfreville to Harfleur, took part in the battle of Agincourt, and was later employed by Henry V to visit Scotland in order to procure official documents to show that Scotland was subservient to England. Shortly before Henry's death (1422) Hardyng returned with his results and was rewarded with the manor of Geddington, Northamptonshire. In 1424 he was in Rome consulting historical works on behalf of Cardinal Beaufort, and later on he resumed his Scottish investigations. His conduct on this mission is indefensible, for he forged many documents, some of which still survive in the Record Office, London, and returned to claim a reward for his fraudulent work. Before 1436 he had been made constable of Kyme Castle, in Lincolnshire, where he lived for many years, and he now received an annual grant from that county. His later years were occupied in the compilation of his chronicle, which is valuable because of his acquaintance with the leading statesmen of his age. He wrote three different versions: the first, compiled in the Lancastrian interest, ends in 1436; the second was written as a Yorkist; and the third, dedicated to Edward IV and his queen, goes down to 1461. No critical edition of the Chronicle has yet been published and the version first printed by Richard Grafton differs from all existing manuscripts. The latest edition was polished by H. Ellis in 1812, and reproduces Grafton's version including his continuation to the reign of Henry VIII.

WARTON, History of English Poetry, ed. HAZLITT, (London, 1871); PALGRAVE, Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland (London, 1837); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue, I, II, 806 (London, 1862-1871); LEE, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1905), I, 2027.

EDWIN BURTON

Hare Indians

A Déné tribe which shares with the Loucheux the distinction of being the northernmost Redskins in America, their habitat being immediately south of that of the Eskimos. Their territory extends from Fort Norman, on the Mackenzie, west of Great Bear Lake, to the confines of the Eskimos, not far from the Arctic Ocean. They are divided into five bands or sub-tribes, namely: the Nni-o'tinné, or "People of the Moss", who rove along the outlet of Great Bear Lake; the Kra-tha-go'tinné or "People among the Hares", who dwell on the same stream; the Kra-cho-go'tinne, "People of the Big Hares", whose hunting grounds are inland, between the Mackenzie and the coast of the Arctic Ocean; the Sa-cho-thu-go'tinné, "People of Great Bear Lake", whose name betrays their location, and lastly, the Nne-lla-go'tinné, "People of the End of the World", whose district is conterminous with that of the Eskimos. The Hares do not now number more than 600 souls. They are a timorous and kindly disposed set of people, whose innate gentleness long made them and their hunting grounds, bleak and desolate as they are, a fair field for exploitation by their bolder neighbours in the West and South-East. According to some this natural timidity is responsible for their name; but others apparently better informed contend that it is derived from the large number of arctic hares (lepus arcticus) to be found in their country, and the aboriginal designations of some of their ethnic divisions confirms this opinion. Their medicine men, or shamans, were formerly an object of dread to the sub-arctic Dénés, being famous for the effectiveness of their ministrations and the wonderfulness of their tricks.

The Hare Indians are naturally very superstitious. Owing partly to the nature of their habitat, dreary steppes which are the home of starvation much more than abundance, and partly from the distance which at first separated them from religious centres, they retained their practice of abandoning and even eating the old and infirm in times of scarcity, and adhered to their superstitious customs, long after their more favoured congeners had discarded them. The first Hare Indian admitted into the church was baptized some fifteen hundred miles south of the land of his birth in the summer of 1839 by Father Belcourt, a famous missionary of the Red River Settlement. The Indian was then dying while in the employ of the Hudson Bay Company. But his tribe was not evangelized until 1859, when Father Grollier, a French Oblate of Mary Immaculate, reached Fort Norman and later Good Hope, where he established his residence. He laboured unremittingly to win over the Hares, among whom he died, practically in the act of instructing them. Fathers Séguin and Petitot, of the same congregation, perfected his work, and the latter was the first minister of the Gospel to visit (1866) their lands on Great Bear Lake, and take the glad tidings to the tribal division that lived on its shore. To-day the Hare Indians are almost all Catholics.

Petitot, Exploration de Grand Lac des Ours (Paris, 1893); Monographie des Déné Dindjié (Paris, 1876); Maurice, The Great Déné Race (in course of publication, Vienna); and the works of the explorers, Franklin and Richardson.

A.G. MORICE

Family of Harlay

An important family of parliamentarians and bishops, who deserve a place in religious history.

(1) Achille de Harlay

Born At Paris, 7 March, 1536; d. at Paris, 21 October, 1619. Councillor of the Parlement of Paris in 1558, president to the Parlement in 1572, "first president" (premier president) in 1582, he was the typical Christian and Gallican parliamentarian of the old regime. De la Vallée, his panegyrist, calls him the Christian Cato. He opposed the League when its action in Paris became revolutionary (see Guise, The House of); he incited the protest of the Parlement against the Bull of 1585, which declared Henry of Bourbon, the future Henry IV, stripped of his rights to the throne. Throughout the Jour des Barricades, and after the assassination of the Guises by order of Henry III, Harlay displayed great courage before the excited members of the League; he was imprisoned by them in the Bastille till after the death of Henry III. Under Henry IV his memories of the League led him to take the initiative in the condemnation of certain theologians (e.g. Mariana, Bellarmine) whom he considered an obstacle to royal absolutism. These opinions of Harlay explain his attempt after the assassination of Henry IV, to implicate the Society of Jesus as responsible for that deed.

(2) Achille de Harlay

Baron de Sancy, b. in 1581; d. 29 November, 1646. He belonged to a younger branch of the house of Harlay. Bishop-elect of Lavaur he gave up the ecclesiastical state in 1601, on the death of his elder brother, to follow a military career. Marie de Medici, the queen regent, sent him in 1611 as ambassador to Constantinople, his mission being to protect the Jesuit establishments from Mussulman fanaticism. His secretary and dragoman, Deays, has left a journal in which de Sancy is represented as prodigal, debauched, and negligent of his duties, but an attentive study of his embassy gives quite another idea of him. At the end of 1617 he was the victim of a very annoying incident. The Turks, exasperated by the escape of the Polish prisoner Koreski, accused Sancy of having been his accomplice, put several of his secretaries to the torture, and held him prisoner for five days. In consequence of these events Sancy was recalled to France and the Turkish Government apologized to Louis XIII. At Constantinople, nevertheless, Sancy had been useful to the Jesuits, whom he defended against the vexatious proceedings of the Porte. He had also been helpful to science. Himself a polyglot, he applied himself to the discovery of rare manuscripts, and for this purpose sent to Egypt M. d'Orgeville, a doctor of the Sorbonne. Sancy was thus enabled to bring home, among other manuscripts, a Pentateuch in four languages¯Hebrew, Chaldean, Arabian, and Persian¯and several works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Having fallen ill in 1619, Sancy, who had known Bérulle at Constantinople, resolved to enter the Oratory. He later supported with his own money the houses of the Oratory at Dieppe, Troyes, Nantes, Clermont, and Paris, and figures among the twelve priests of the Oratory whom Henrietta of France, when she had become Queen of England, brought to London with her in 1625. It was to him that Bérulle, on leaving London, committed the spiritual direction of the queen. Sancy, who was certainly back in France at the end of 1628, seconded the policy of Cardinal Richelieu, and when in 1629 Richelieu thought of issuing his "Mémoires", he entrusted that charge to Sancy. The Italian historian, Vittorio Siri, quoting in his unedited "Memoire" passages found in exactly the same form in the "Mémoires" of Richelieu, says that he borrowed them from the "Historia manoscritta del vescovo di San Malo" (manuscript history of the Bishop of St-Malo). Robert Lavollé compared the manuscripts of the "Mémoires" of Richelieu and the autograph letters of Sancy, and found that the handwriting in both was the same. Sancy, who in fact became Bishop of St-Malo in 1631, was therefore the editor of the "Mémoires" of the celebrated cardinal. This discovery, made in 1904, has greatly increased his renown.

(3) Charlotte Harlay de Sancy

(1569-1652), sister of the foregoing, widow of the Marquis de Bléauté, assisted Madame Acarie to establish the Carmelites in France and was in 1604, under the name of Marie de Jésus, one of the first religious of the convent of Paris, of which she became prioress.

(4) François de Harlay

Born at Paris in 1585; died 22 March, 1653. He belonged to the branch of the Harlays which, by its union with the family of Marck-Bouillon, was allied with the princely houses of Europe. Abbot of St-Victor, he became in 1616 Archbishop of Rouen, and so remained until 1651, when he resigned in favour of his nephew. His episcopate was notable for the establishment in his archdiocese of a large number of religious houses, which aided the reform of the clergy, and also for the reform of the Benedictines, for which he manifested great zeal, and which he inaugurated in 1617 in the monastery of Jumièges. The Château de Gaillon, which Cardinal Georges d'Amboise had bequeathed to the Church of Rouen, became under the episcopate of Harlay a sort of centre for the study of the Scriptures and religious questions. It was the seat of an academy whose members were to consecrate themselves as apologists of St. Paul. It possessed also a printing-press which published some of Harlay's writings. Under Harlay, also, the library of the chapter of Rouen was opened to the public. Harlay took a successful part in certain polemics against the Protestants. In 1625 he published the "Apologia Evangelii regem", and in 1633 "Le mystère de l'Eucharistie expliqué par Saint Augustin avec un avis aux ministres de ne plus entreprendre d'alléguer Saint Augustin pour eux". His zeal against the Reformation extended beyond his archdiocese. He joined with Pierre de Marca in the re-establishment of Catholic worship in Béarn, where the Calvinists had made great progress. Even his most ill-disposed contemporaries¯like Mme des Loges, who said that Harlay's brain was a library upside-down, and Vigneul Marville, who spoke of his "well of knowledge so deep that it was impossible to see a drop"¯were compelled to recognize at least the prodigious erudition of this prelate.

(5) Françoise de Harlay-Chanvallon

The nephew of the foregoing; b. 14 August, 1625; d. at Conflans, 6 August, 1695. From Abbot of Jumièges, he became Archbishop of Rouen in 1651. St. Vincent de Paul was unfavourable to this appointment, concerning which Anne of Austria had consulted him, but one day, when the saint was absent from the council, Hardouin de Péréfixe, tutor of Louis XIV, put through the nomination. Desiring to play a political rôle, Harlay laboured to further the policy of Mazarin, and obtained from King Louis XIV Mazarin's recall from exile. In 1671 he became Archbishop of Paris, and each week Louis XIV discussed with Harlay and Père LaChaise the interests of the Church in Paris. In honour of Harlay the Archdiocese of Paris was made a ducal peerage for him and his successor. He possessed real talent as an orator, and played an important part in the assemblies of the clergy (see Assemblies of the French Clergy), notably in the Assembly of 1682, at which his influence was supreme. It was at his instigation that Le Tellier, Archbishop of Reims, was entrusted with the report on the conflict between the king and the pope concerning the monastery of Charonne, and decided that the pope should have secured information from the Archbishop of Paris. It was probably he who, early in 1685, blessed at Versailles the marriage of Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon. During his episcopate, in 1683, the foundation-stone was laid of the Séminaire des Missions Etrangères. Under him appeared the "Synodicon Parisiense", a collection of all the synods held by his predecessors, and it was at his command that the oratorian, Gérard Dubois, undertook to write the "Historia Ecclesiæ Parisiensis". The character of this prelate gave rise to much discussion, and unpleasant rumours were current concerning his death. "There are but two little trifles", wrote Mme de Sévigné, "which render praise of him difficult: his life and his death." Harlay's opposition of Jansenism and his active share in the religious policy of Louis XIV against the Protestants may have excited the eulogy of the "Gallia Christiana", Père Armand Jean, S.J., declares that "he administered his diocese with more show and cleverness than edification, that his attitude in the Assembly of 1682 was reprehensible, and that he was not less blameworthy in his private life".

For Achille de Harlay see: De la ValÉe, Eloge de M. de Harlay (Paris, 1624); Perrens, L'Eglise et l'Etat sous Henry IV et la régence de Marie de Medicis (Paris, 1873).¯For Achille de Harlay, Baron de Sancy: Batterel, Mémoires domestiques pour servir à l'histoire de l'Oratoire, ed. Ingold and Bonnardet (Paris, 1902), I, 178 sq.; Flamant, Revue d'Histoire diplomatique (1903), 533-40; LavollÉe Revue des études historiques (1904), 449-77; de Mun, Revue des questions historiques, LXXIV (1903), 163-72.¯For François de Harlay: Batiffol, Une réforme des Bénédictins sous Louis XIII in Revue de Paris (1903), V, 57-89.¯For François de Harlay-Chanvallon: Legendre, Vie de Harlay (Paris, 1720); Jean, Les évéques et archevéques de France depuis 1682 jusqu'en 1801 (Paris, 1891), 283-4.

Georges Goyau.

Charles-Joseph de Harlez de Deulin

A Belgian Orientalist, domestic prelate, canon of the cathedral of Liège, member of the Academic Royale of Belgium; b. at Liège, 21 August, 1832; d. at Louvain, 14 July, 1899. The family of de Harlez was an old and noble family of Liège. On completing his ordinary college course de Harlez devoted himself to the study of law in the University of Liège. His success in legal studies was considerable, and a brilliant doctorate examination brought his career at the law school to a close. His family connections and his own ability gave promise of a bright future, but, growing dissatified with the law, de Harlez soon abandoned the legal profession altogether. He then took up the study of theology, and in 1858 was ordained priest. After his ordination he was appointed director of the college of St-Quirin at Huy. In 1867 he was put in charge of a new arts' school which had been established for young ecclesiastics in connection with the University of Louvain. This position he held for four years. An old predilection for Oriental studies began then to make itself felt again in him. He was appointed to a professorship in the Oriental department of the University of Louvain in 1871 and devoted himself with intense energy to the study of the Zoroastrian Bible—the Zend-Avesta—of which he published an excellent translation (1875-77).

Spiegel had already translated the Avesta into German and Anqueil-Duperron had attempted a translation into French. The translation of de Harlez was a considerable addition to Avesta exegesis, and the second edition of the work, which appeared in 1881, is still most useful to the student of Old Persian. In the second edition there is a preface of much value both for philology and history. The relations of the Rig-Veda to the Avesta were not yet fully understood, and these relations de Harlez set himself to determine accurately. He did much for the understanding of Zoroastrianism by emphasizing the differences, in spite of many apparent agreements, of the Rig-Veda and Avesta. His view met with much opposition, but at last some of his most brilliant opponents—for instance Darmesteter—came round to his point of view. The second edition of his translation of the Avesta is in many respects his most important work.

In 1883 Mgr de Harlez turned to a new department—the language and literature of China. In this department he was chiefly attracted by the problems of the ancient Chinese religion. He shows everywhere in his works this same taste for the study of religious developments. To it ought probably to be traced the foundation of the "Muséon". This journal of which de Harlez was the chief founder and first chief editor, was intended to be devoted to the objective study of history generally and of religious history in particular. It was founded in 1881, and many of the most important of its early articles were contributed by de Harlez. Though he was editor of the "Muséon" and still a keen student of Iranian and Chinese, de Harlez had time for other work. He was all the time professor of Sanskrit in the university and produced a Sanskrit manual for the use of his students. Another department with which this untiring student made himself familiar was Manchu literature; and in 1884 he published at Louvain a handbook of the Manchu language. Besides all this work he frequently contributed learned papers to various periodicals. His influence on the University of Louvain was immense, and under him the school of Louvain Oriental studies was most popular and flourishing. The actual position of de Harlez in the scientific world is best indicated by the "Mélanges Charles de Harlez" (Leyden. 1896), a collection of more than fifty scientific articles written by scholars of all countries and creeds, presented to him on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his Louvain professorship. The "Mélanges" is a striking monument to his ability, energy, and love of truth.

Besides the works mentioned above de Harlez published the following important studies: "Manuel de la langue de l'Avesta" (Paris, 1879; 2nd ed., 1888); "Manuel du Pehlevi" (Paris, 1880); "Etudes éraniennes" (Paris, 1880); "La Bible dans l' Inde" (Paris, 1882); "Le texte originaire du Yih-King "; "Védisme, brahmanisme et christianisme" (Brussels, 1881); etc.

Annuaire de l'universite catholique de Louvain (1900), XI sqq., XXII sqq.; Bulletin de l' academie royale de Belgique (1899), pp. 599 sqq.; The Tablet (London, 22 July, 1899); Mélanges Charles de Harlez (Leyden, 1896); Bibliographie de l'univ. cath. de Louvain (1900), pp. 9,230 sqq.

PATRICK BOYLAN

Harmony

(Gr., harmonia; Lat., harmonia)

A concord of sounds, several tones of different pitch sounded as a chord; among the Greeks, the general term for music. Although it is probable that the notion and practice of harmony existed among the peoples of the North — the Scandinavians, Celts, and Britons — and that singing in two or more parts was in popular use much earlier, the principle was not applied to the chant of the Church, as far as we now know, until the ninth century. The first interval which was used simultaneously with the melodic note was the fourth below (See COUNTERPOINT). By doubling this interval in its upper octave, the interval of the fifth above the melodic note was formed, thus suggesting three-part harmony, which was introduced into practice later on. It was Hucbald de St-Amand (840-930) who systematized and gave a theoretic basis to this manner of performing the music of the Church (Organum). These added intervals were conceived as ornaments to the liturgical melody, and moved in parallel motion with it. The text syllables were applied to them in the same manner as they were to the original melody. When, in the eleventh century, one or more added (or organal) voices were beginning to be sung in contrary motion to that of the original melody, they would begin on the initial note of the melody, on its octave or on the fifth above, and at the end of the organum, or piece of music, return to their starting point, thus forming a final point of repose, consonance, or harmony. While, up to the twelfth century, the concept of harmony was restricted on the Continent to the simultaneous sounding of the intervals of the fourth below the melodic note with its octave above, in the British Isles — in their gymel (cantus gemellus) — they were using also the interval of the third both below and above the melodic note, and, by transposing the third below an octave higher, they created the so-called falso-bordone, faux-bourdon, false bass, or three-part harmony (inverted triad), as we know it to-day.

The interval of the third was not definitely recognized as a consonance, however, until the end of the fifteenth century. With the introduction in France, in the twelfth century, of the déchant (discantus), which consisted at first in the addition of one freely improvised melody to the cantus firmus, but which was soon increased to two or three, the idea of harmony made a further great advance. Contrary motion and rhythmical differentiation of the voices, as against the parallel motion and equal notes in all voices of the organum, gymel, and falso-bordone, now became the general practice, and the necessity arose of formulating rules governing the incipiency, movement, and return to the point of rest or consonance of the different voices of the composition. Thus the laws of counterpoint and a system of notation fixing the exact time-value of each note (mensuralism) came into existence. The necessity felt in music as in the other arts during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries for greater expansion and freer expression originated, developed, and perfected many new forms. Among these was the conductus, a composition in four-part harmony, the principal part being sung and the others generally played on instruments. Another form of composition, the motetus (prototype of our present day motet) consisting of a Gregorian theme with two or more added original melodies, the latter sometimes having differing texts, originated at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The motetus meant a considerable step toward the independence of the various voices or parts.

Another very important move takes place at this time in the definitive discarding of the practice of having the intervals of the fifth and octave move in parallel motion (Johannes de Muris, Normannus). With the striving for independence of the voices or parts goes hand in hand the desire for consonance (harmony) on the strong notes of the cantus firmus, even in the many secular forms which came into vogue at this period, e. g., caccia (chase), rondeau (round dance), until we have the perfected canon (first Netherland school), in which the various voices move with the greatest possible rhythmical variety without detriment to symmetry and meet in perfect consonance on the thetic tones of the cantus firmus. From now until the beginning of the seventeenth century, we witness the production of works (Roman school, Palestrina) in which the concept of harmony, or harmonious co-operation of many different parts, is more luminously exemplified than it has been at any time in the history of music. It must be borne in mind that up to this time the liturgical melody, based upon the diatonic scale, still dominated every field of musical creation, but especially the compositions destined to serve the Church. The melody, vehicle of the liturgical word, was the all-important factor and informing principle of the whole structure. Hence the compositions to liturgical texts of those days may be defined as a number of melodies giving expression to the text and harmonizing among themselves. Their flow is untrammelled and unrestrained, and harmony among them results from their flow incidentally. The diatonic character of the melodies or voices, vehicles and servants of the sacred text, imparts and preserves to the whole structure the elevation, serenity, nobility, objectivity, and universality, which characterize the works of the masters of this period. The temporary dissonances resulting from passing notes, suspensions, etc., are constantly being resolved into consonance (harmony, repose, peace), with which the composition also invariably ends. We have here a true image of the Christian's life with its constant change from sorrow to joy, its unceasing combat in working out its ultimate salvation. As the diatonic character of each voice is kept intact, except when chromatic alteration is necessary as a concession to harmony, the hearer never loses consciousness of the fact that the melodic (moving) principle is paramount, and that harmony (repose) is only a temporary result which he may enjoy but not permanently dwell upon.

The endeavour to throw off the supremacy of the liturgical melody with its diatonic character (which was then and is now the expression in music of the spirit of the Church par excellence), and to substitute for it a system better adapted to the expression of individual thought and feeling, began as early as the first part of the thirteenth century. It became known by the general name of ars nova. In the numerous instrumental and secular vocal forms which were developed at this time and later (ricercar, canzone, tiento, toccata, præambulum, capriccio, chanson, strambotto, madrigal), original melodies were often substituted for a cantus flrmus taken from the Gregorian chant. The harmonic element gradually gained ascendancy over the melodic in the whole field of production, and exercised an ever-growing influence over the general taste. It was through the Venetian school, founded by Adrian Willaert (1480 or 1490-1562) and continued principally by the two Gabrielis, Andrea and Giovanni, that this trend was applied to the music of the Church.

The custom introduced by Willaert, and imitated by many other masters of the time, of writing and performing works for two or more choruses, which would alternate and occasionally unite in brilliant harmonic climaxes, met with such general approval that it spread over all Italy, invaded Rome itself, and soon overshadowed the melodic or truly polyphonic form, so that it hastened the complete emancipation from the melodic principle as exemplified in the Roman school. With the Venetian masters the harmonic effect had become the chief aim instead of being a result incidental to the melodic co-operation of the parts. But this school enjoyed only a passing favour. It was only a reflex of a departing glory, the effect of a cause which had been removed. In the meantime, Gregorian chant, now poorly performed at best, gradually fell into almost complete disuse. The humanists, having lost the spirit of which it is the expression, decried it as inadequate, unsatisfactory, even barbarous, and advocated a return to Greek monody. In imitation of this, metrical poems were set to music for one voice with other voices or instruments as harmonic adjuncts. They insisted upon a style capable of expressing every individual feeling and every subjective state of the soul. In their writings they gave a philosophic basis for that which musicians had been practising more or less for generations, but which now gained supremacy. With Gioseffo Zarlino's (1517-1519) definition and introduction into practice of the dual nature of harmony, major and minor, a further step was made in the breach with the past.

The diatonic modes were now definitively replaced by the two modern tonalities, the major and minor keys. Composers no longer conceived their creations melodically but harmonically. The thoughts and emotions, suggested and engendered by the sacred text and expressed in the diatonic melody, yielded to the subjective psychic state, harmonically expressed, of the composer. Introspection took the place of contemplation. The concept of harmony was no longer limited to the consonance as formerly understood. The chromatic scale and chords built out of its elements found their way into use, and, with the introduction of the chord of the seventh (consisting of the tonic, third, fifth and seventh intervals of the scale) by Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) and the same master's further innovation of setting liturgical texts to what became known as the aria and the arioso forms, the abandonment of the former standard was complete. Secular forms, the oratorio, the opera, and purely instrumental music, now began that conquest of the mind and heart of man which we have witnessed since. This conquest was so rapid that as early as the end of the seventeenth century and for the next two hundred years the style in which even the greatest masters wrote for the Church was identical with that in which their secular works (operas, oratorios, symphonies) were composed. The beginning of the nineteenth century witnessed the last stage of the degradation of church music. Every form of subjective feeling found its way into the temple by means of music. Not only were comparatively few works to be heard anywhere which were expressive of the spirit of the liturgy, but even from the standpoint of art music written to liturgical texts had, with rare exceptions, fallen below the level of that composed for the theatre and concert hall. Gregorian chant was either entirely ignored or performed in a wretched manner. Being dominated by the spirit of the world, as expressed through the multiform voice of secular music, men had no longer any affinity with, or taste for, the simple diatonic chant.

A great change has taken place within the last fifty years. Three successive popes have urged and commanded the restoration of the chant of the Church to its rightful place. Learned men have made the Catholic world acquainted with its nature, form and spirit. Model performances of the chant in many places throughout the world have revealed to the faithful its beauty and revived a taste for it. The restoration of the chant signifies the restoration of the objective standard as against the subjective. Not only has the chant come into its own again, but, through the mighty labours of men animated by the spirit of the Church, the great productions of polyphony have been made accessible so that the present generation is enabled to study the harmonic structures which were reared upon the diatonic modes in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Within the last fifty years the diatonic modes have again become the basis for many works of polyphony which may be placed side by side with what is highest and best in the great period of the art. The musical world to-day presents a striking illustration of the present moral and mental state of mankind. The principle of cultivating harmony as an end in itself, rather than seeing in it the incidental result of harmonious co-operation of many independent voices, has borne its full fruit. The extreme modern development of secular music is but the legitimate offspring of the revolt against the diatonic principle; which revolt was the musical expression of the spirit of the Renaissance. Its strident and cacophonous dissonances are but the manifestation of modern moral and social disorder. In its luxuriant harmonic combinations modern sensuality finds its outlet and indulgence. Opposed to this, as expressive of the spirit of the Church, we have restored to its rightful supremacy as servant of the liturgical word, the diatonic melody, which in its turn, is served by harmony.

WOOLDRIDGE, Oxford History of Music (Oxford, 1901); COUSSEMAKER, Histoire de l'harmonie au moyen-âge (Paris, 1852); RIEMANN, Geschichte der Musiktheorie (Leipzig, 1898); JACOB, Die Kunst im Dienste der Kirche (Landshut, 1885).

JOSEPH OTTEN.

Harney

(1) William Selby Harney

Soldier, convert; b. near Haysboro, Tennessee, U.S.A., 27 August, 1800; d. at St. Louis, Missouri, 9 May, 1889. Appointed to U.S. army, 13 Feb., 1818, he served in the Black Hawk and Florida Indian wars, and with gallantry in the conflict with Mexico, after which he was made a brigardier-general. He then had command in the far west during the Sioux troubles of 1855 and there became the friend and admirer of the famous missionary, Father J.B. DeSmet, S.J., who was of great assistance to him in making peace. Having seized San Juan Island near Vancouver in 1858, a dispute with England over the Oregon boundary line followed his action. When the Civil War broke out he was in charge of the Department of the West at St. Louis, and while en route to Washington was captured and held prisoner for a short time by the Confederates. A brevet promotion as major-general for long and faithful services followed his retirement 1 August, 1863.

(2) John Milton Harney

Brother of foregoing, b. in Delaware, 9 March, 1789; d. at Somerset, Kentucky, 15 January, 1825. Their father, Thomas Harney, was an officer in the Revolutionary war. John Harney studied medicine and settled in Kentucky. After a visit to Europe he accepted an appointment in the navy and spent several years in South America. On his return he edited a paper, became a Catholic, joined the Dominicans, then beginning their mission in Kentucky, and died in their ranks. He was the author of a number of poems printed in various magazines.

REAVIS, The Life and Military Service of Gen. W.S. Harney (St. Louis, 1887); Encycl. of Am. Biog., s.v.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Francis Harold

Irish Franciscan and historical writer, d. at Rome, 18 March, 1685. He was for some time professor of theology in the Irish College at Prague; and afterwards went to Rome, where he spent the remaining years of his life in the Irish Franciscan College of St. Isadore, fulfilling the duties of librarian. In 1662 he published at Rome in two folio volumes an epitome of the "Annals" of his uncle Like Wadding, extending from 1208 to 1540, to which he prefixed a life of Wadding, dedicating it to Cardinal Francesco Barberini. This life was again published at Rome in 1731. He also wrote "Beati Thuribii Alphonsi Mogroveii archiepiscopi Limensis vita exemplaris", published at Rome in 1683. A copy of this work with the author's manuscript corrections is still preserved in the library of the Royal Irish Academy. His "Lima Limata conciliis, constitutionibus synodalibus et aliis monumentis . . . notis et scholiis illustrata", published at Rome in 1673, contains a collection of documents connected with the councils and other affairs of importance in the Church of Peru.

Ware-Harris, Writers of Ireland, II (Dublin, 1739-40), 200-01; Gilbert in Dict. Nat. Biog., XXIV.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Harold Bluetooth

(Blaatand)

Born 911; died 1 November, 985 or 986. He was the son of King Gorm the Old of Denmark and of Thyra, daughter of a noblemen of Schleswig (Sunderjylland) who is supposed to have been kindly disposed towards Christianity. His mother must have implanted in the child's soul the first germs of faith which his father, a devout servant of Wotan, did his utmost to destroy. The latter's invasion of Friesland in 934 involved him in war with the German King, Henry I. Having been vanquished, he was forced to restore the churches which he had demolished as well as to grant toleration to his Christian subjects, and he died one year later, bequeathing his throne to Harold. Bishop Unni of Bremen, accompanied by Benedictine monks from the Abbey of Corvey, preached the gospel in Jutland (Jylland) and the Danish isles, and soon won the confidence of the young ruler, although he did not succeed in persuading him to receive baptism. Harold sought to shut the Germans out of his kingdom by strengthening the "Danawirk"–a series of ramparts and fortifications that existed until the latter half of the nineteenth century; moreover, as absolute quiet prevailed throughout the interior, he was even able to turn his thoughts to foreign enterprises. Again and again he came to the help of Richard the Fearless of Normandy (in the years 945 and 963), while his son conquered Semland and, after the assassination of King Harold Graafeld of Norway, he also managed to force the people of that country into temporary subjection to himself. Meanwhile the new religion had become more and more deeply rooted among the Danes. Even a few members of the nobility (such as Frode, Viceroy of Jutland) embraced the faith and soon episcopal sees were established (Schleswig, Ribe, Aarhus). However the prominent part the Germans had in these achievements as well as the lofty idea of the Roman Empire then prevailing led Otto I, the Great, to require Harold to recognize him as "advocatus", or lord protector of the Danish church, and even as "Lord Paramount". It is easy to understand why the indignant king of the Danes replied to this demand with a declaration of war, and why the "emperor" sought to force his "vassal" into subjection. The devastating expeditions, which were pushed as far as the Lÿmfjord, enabled the emperor to beat down all opposition (972), and to compel Harold not only to conclude peace but to accept baptism. Henceforth paganism steadily lost ground. The Bishopric of Odense was established at Fünen (Fyen) in 980; the sacrificial grove at Lethra (on Zealand), which, until then, had been from time to time the scene of many human sacrifices, was deserted. King Harold removed his royal residence to Roeskilde and erected there a wooden church dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Later (in the eleventh century) it was replaced by a basilica which in turn was soon torn down. Since about the year 1200 its site has been occupied by the Gothic cathedral (dedicated to St. Lucius), the burial place of the kings of Denmark. Christian houses of worship were also built in many other places during Harold's reign; in these German and Danish priests preached the gospel of the crucified and risen Saviour. There is no doubt that Harold professed Christianity at that time: it is also true that he contributed to its spread. But his moral conduct in many respects distinctly violated the Divine commandments. Consequently many people looked on the plots that were directed against the sovereignty and life of the ageing prince by his own son (Svend) as a punishment from Heaven. Although baptized, the latter joined forces with Palnatoke, the most powerful chieftain on Fünen, who was leader of the heathen party. The fortunes of war varied for a time, but finally Harold was slain on 1 November, 985 or 986. His remains were buried in the cathedral at Roeskilde, where his bones are still preserved, walled up in one of the pillars of the choir.

See Denmark ; also Kobke, De danske Kirkebygninger (2nd ed., Copenhagen, 1908).

Pius Wittmann

Harpasa

A titular see of Caria, suffragan of Stauropolis. Nothing is known of the history of this town, situated on the bank of the Harpasus, a tributary of the Mæander. It is mentioned by Ptolemy (V, ii, xix), by Stephanus Byzantius, by Hierocles (Syneed., 688), and by Pliny (V, xxix). According to Pliny, there was in the neighbourhood a rocking-stone which could be set in motion by a finger-touch, whereas the force of the whole body could not move it. Aarpas Kalehsi, in the vilayet of Smyrna, preserves the old name. Harpasa appears in the lists of the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" until the twelfth or thirteenth century. Lequien (Or. Christ., I, 907) mentions only four bishops: Phinias, who took part in the Council of Ephesus, 431; Zoticus, represented at Chalcedon by the prespyter Philotheos, 451; Irenæus, an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon; Leo, in Constantinople at the Photian Council of 879.

Fellows, Discoveries in Lycia, 51; Leake, Asia Minor, 249.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Thomas Morton Harper

Priest, philosopher, theologian and preacher. Born in London 26 Sept., 1821, of Anglican parents, his father being a merchant of good means in the City; d. 29 Aug., 1893. He was educated first at St. Paul's School, London; then at Queen's College, Oxford. Having taken his B.A. degree, he subsequently received orders in the Anglican Church, in which he worked for five years as a curate. His first mission was at Barnstaple in Devonshire. Here he manifested High Church proclivities and took a vigorous part in ecclesiastical controversies in the local press. Getting into collision with his bishop on some points of doctrine, he left Devonshire and purchased a small proprietary chapel in a poor district in Pimlico, London. But his ritualistic views and practices here again brought him into conflict with his diocesan—Blomfield, Bishop of London. He was obviously drifting steadily towards the Catholic Church. The final impulse came oddly enough, from the perusal of an attack on the Jesuit Order in a volume entitled "One Year in the Noviceship of the Society of Jesus" by Andrew Steinmetz. Harper's logical instinct discerned the intrinsic discrepancies of the book and the feebleness of the argument as a whole. Within half a year he was received into the Catholic Church, and some months later, in October, 1852, he entered the Society of Jesus. He passed through his noviceship and philosophical studies in Belgium. His four years' theological course was divided between the English Jesuit Theological College, St. Beuno's in Wales, Rome, and Louvain. Ordained priest in 1859, he was appointed professor of theology the following year at St. Beuno's College. Two years later he was transferred to the chair of logic and general metaphysics at St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst. A man of highly-strung nervous disposition and intense mental application, his health made frequent changes necessary. He returned after a short time to teach theology at St. Beuno's and subsequently worked on the mission for some years, achieving a high reputation as a preacher. During the last half-dozen years of his life he suffered from prolonged attacks of mental prostration, the malady at times assuming an acute form.

He possessed considerable powers of abstract thought, with a remarkable talent for metaphysical reasoning. Indeed, excessive subtlety impaired his efficiency both as lecturer and writer, leading him to devote disproportionate time and space to obscure ontological questions of minor significance, and consequently to leave unfinished the treatment of more important philosophical issues. A vigorous controversialist, he was personally of a most amiable and childlike disposition. His chief literary works were: "Peace through the Truth, or Essays on Subjects connected with Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon", I (London, 1869), II (1874); "The Metaphysics of the School", 3 vols. (London, 1879-1884). In addition to these he published several smaller works in booklet form. Amongst them were the following: "On Modern Principles"; "God the True the Good and the Beautiful"; "Manchester Dialogues"; "Lectures on Papal Infallibility". He also wrote a series of articles on Newman's "Grammer of Assent", shortly after its appearance. But the penchant for metaphysical rather than psychological analysis which characterized Harper's mind rendered him not very sympathetic with that remarkable work. Though possessed of considerable literary gifts he adhered to the method rather of anglicizing the scholastic terminology than translating the concept of the Schoolmen into the language of modern philosophical literature.

MICHAEL MAHER

Venerable William Harrington

English martyr; b. 1566; d. 18 February, 1594. His father had entertained Campion at the ancestral home, Mount St. John, early in 1581. Though the family did not persevere in the Faith, the youngest son never forgot Campion's example. He went abroad, first the seminary at Reims, then to the Jesuits at Tournai (1582-1584) and would have joined the order had not his health broken down and forced him to keep at home for the next six or seven years. In February, 1591, however, he was able to return once more to Reims, and, having been ordained, returned at midsummer 1592. Next May he fell into the hands of the persecutors, and nine months later suffered at Tyburn, after having given proofs of unusal constancy and noblemindedness in prison, at the bar, and on the scaffold. It was, we may suspect, this very heroism, which induced a posthumous calumniator, Friswood or Fid Williams, an apostate of evil life, to say that he had had a child by her before he was a priest (see Harsnet, cited below). If the charge had stood alone, it might have been difficult to refute it now. Fortunately for us, Fid had joined to it many other base and certainly untenable accusations, both against him and also against the rest of the clergy and the whole Catholic body. Her assertions must therefore be everywhere suspected, and in Harrington's case entirely rejected, as Father Morris (cited below) clearly proves. It is also noteworthy considering the frequency with which foul accusations were made in those days, that this is the only one against an English martyr remaining on record.

The Month, April, 1874, 411-423; HARSNET, Declaration of egregious Popish Impostures, whereunto are annexed the confessions of the parties themselves (London, 1603), 230-232; Academy (London, 19 Feb., 1876), 165; MORRIS, Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers (London, 1875), 104-107; KNOX, Douay Diaries (London, 1878).

J.H. POLLEN

Joel Chandler Harris

Folklorist, novelist, poet, journalist; born at Eatonton, Georgia, U.S.A., 1848; died at Atlanta, Georgia, 3 July, 1908. Chiefly known for his stories of negro folk-lore which created an original department in American literature, he spent most of his life in journalistic work.

Of humble parentage and meagre education, he knew and loved as a boy "fields, animals, and folk" better than books. Apprenticed in 1862 to a Plantation editor, whose library was open to journalism in a grove, worked on various Louisiana and Georgia papers, and from 1876 to his retirement in 1890 was on the staff of the Atlanta Constitution. "The Tar Baby", contributed by accident (1877), found him his vocation. His knowledge of nature and the negro, acquired unconsciously in "the plantation", ripened as he wrote, resulting in a series of volumes whereof "Bre'r Rabbit" the hero, "Bre'r Fox", the villain, and other animals, with Mr. Sun, Sister Moon, Uncle Wind, and Brother Dust are the dramatic personae. "Uncle Remus" a wise old negro, is the narrator, "Miss Sally" the guardian spirit, "the little boy" a breathless listener. Wit, humour, homely wisdom, and kindly sympathy, combined with unrivalled knowledge of negro dialect and character, make "Uncle Remus, His Songs and Sayings" (1881), "Nights with Uncle Remus" (1883), "Uncle Remus and His friends (1893), "Little Mr. Thimblefinger" (1894), "Mr. Rabbit at Home" (1895) unique among folk-stories, distinctively American, and interesting to "children of all ages". They were translated into twenty-seven languages, and their author, popularly named "Uncle Remus", was lost in the narrator. But apart from his Uncle Remus's tales Harris ranks high as a novelist. "Mingo" (1884), "Free Joe" (1887), "Daddy Jake the Runaway" (1889), "Balam and his Master" (1891), "Aaron", "Aaron in the Wildwoods" (1893), and the "Chronicle of Aunt Minervy Ann" disclose a sympathy and intimate acquaintance with slave and master possessed by no other writer, and point to the wisest solution of the race problem.

Of his forty volumes he prized most "Sister Jane" and "Gabriel Tolliver", stories of his native Shady Dale, and written in his later years. They are his most finished work and the best record of his life and thoughts. The "Uncle Remus Magazine", founded in 1906, contains many a wise essay flavoured with the originality, whimsical humour, gentle charity, and purity of thought and expression that characterized all he wrote: "a homely, kind philosophy that uplifts the mind and grips the heart".

His favourite reading -- the Bible, Newman, Faber, à Kempis, and Sheehan -- his mental honesty, and the example of his wife, a cultured Canadian Catholic (the Mary Bullard of "Gabriel Tolliver"), to whom he credited his mental growth and the best that was in him, had long convinced him of Catholic truth. But a sensitive modesty that shunned notoriety and crowds, and confined him to the society of his family, restrained him from seeking baptism till 20 June 1908, a few weeks before his death. He died with the sole regret that he had so long deferred his entrance into the Catholic Church.

The universal tribute paid him showed that he had grown into the heart not only of the South, but of the nation. Atlanta has purchased his residence, "The Wren's Nest", and his "Snapbean Farm" to transform them into "Uncle Remus Park" as a monument to his memory.

The Messenger (Sept. 1908); Uncle Remus Home Magazine (1906-1909); The World' Best Literature; Dictionary of American Authors, ed. ADAMS; American Authors, ed. FOLEY. See also Literary Digest; Current Literature; Atlanta Constitution; Georgian Journal; Macon Telegraph; Savanah News; all for July, 1908.

MICHAEL KENNY

Diocese of Harrisburg

(Harrisburgensis.)

Established 1868, comprises the Counties of Dauphin, Lebanon, Lancaster, York, Adams, Franklin, Cumberland, Perry, Juniata, Mifflin, Snyder, Northumberland, Union, Montour, and Columbia, in the State of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., an area of 8000 square miles. Lycoming and Center Counties were also included within its original boundaries, but the two were taken from it in 1901, when the Diocese of Altoona was formed. In 1868 the boundaries of the Diocese of Philadelphia were curtailed for the third time by the creation of the Dioceses of Harrisburg, Scranton, and Wilmington. There were then within the Harrisburg limits a Catholic population estimated at 25,000, for whose care there were only a score or so of priests and about as many churches and chapels

As first bishop the Rev. Jeremiah F. Shanahan was consecrated 12 July, 1868. He was the head of the preparatory seminary at Philadelphia when he was selected to govern the new diocese; he was born 13 July, 1834, at Silver Lake, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and ordained priest 3 July, 1859. Progress was slow, as the people were poor. Bishop Shanahan died 24 Sept., 1886, at Harrisburg. Thomas McGovern, the second bishop, was born in 1832 at Swanlinbar, Co. Cavan, Ireland, and ordained priest 27 December, 1861, at Philadelphia. He was consecrated at Harrisburg, 11 March, 1888, and died there, 25 July, 1898. After his death an administrator had charge of the diocese for nearly a year. At that time the churches had increased to fifty and the priests to fifty-five. John Walter Shanahan, third bishop, and a brother of the first incumbent of the see, was consecrated 1 May, 1899. Born in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, in 1846, he was ordained, 2 January, 1869, and when appointed bishop was superintendent of schools at Philadelphia.

Statistics

Religious in the diocese include Franciscans and Fathers of the Holy Ghost; Sisters of Mercy, Sister-Servants of the Immaculate Heart, Sisters of St. Joseph, of the Blessed Sacrament, of Notre Dame, of the Holy Cross, of Charity (Emmitsburg, Maryland; and Mount-Saint-Vincent-on-the-Hudson), of Christian Charity, of the Third Order of St. Francis, of St Francis, O.M.C., Felician Sisters, O.S.F. Priests number 86 (6 regulars), ecclesiastical students, 24: churches with resident priests, 63, missions, 15; parish schools, 36; pupils, 8000; orphan asylums,2, inmates 110; hospitals, 2: Catholic population 57,000. The mining regions have attracted Poles, Slavs, Austrians, Italians, Greeks, and Lithuanians, for whom separate congregations are provided with priests of their own nationalities.

Catholic Directory (1909); The Catholic (Pittsburg); The Catholic Standard and Times (Philadelphia); files; Reuss, Biog. Cycl. Cath. Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898)

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

James Harrison

Priest and martyr; b. in the Diocese of Lichfield, England, date unknown; d. at York, 22 March, 1602. He studied at the English College at Reims, and was ordained there in September, 1583. In the following year he went on the English mission, where he laboured unobtrusively. In the early part of 1602 he was ministering to Catholics in Yorkshire and was resident in the house of a gentleman of the name of Anthony Battie (or Bates). While there, he was arrested by the pursuivants, together with Battie was tried at York and sentenced to death for high treason. The only charge against Harrison was that he performed the functions of a priest, and that against Battie was merely that he had entertained Harrison. The judge left York without fixing the date of execution, but Harrison was unexpectedly informed on the evening of 21 March that he was to die the next morning. With Battie, he was hanged, drawn, and quartered. The English Franciscans at Douai had his head as a relic for many years.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eny. Cath., s. v.; CHALLONER, Memoirs, I; Douay Diaries; Dodd-Tierney, Church History, II.

C.F. WEMYSS-BROWN

William Harrison

Third and last archpriest of England, b. in Derbyshire in 1553; d. 11 May, 1621. He was educated at Douai (1575-77). He went to Rome as a deacon and, after his ordination, took the mission oath at the newly founded English College (23 April, 1579). He laboured in England from 1581 to 1587, when he went to study civil and canon law at Paris. Early in 1591 he undertook the direction of the small school founded by Father Persons, S.J., at Eu in Normandy. When this School was broken up by war, in 1593, he went back to Reims as procurator to the English College and, having returned to Douai when the college was restored there, took his doctorate in divinity, in 1597, in that university, and was professor of theology at the English College until 1603. He then spent five years in Rome, where he gained wide experience in ecclesiastical affairs. In 1609 he returned to England, where, on the death of the archpriest, George Birkhead, in 1614, he was chosen to succeed him by Paul V (11 July, 1615). His policy was to restore peace between the secular clergy and the Jesuits while endeavouring to secure the independence of the former. To this end he aided Dr. Kellison, president of Douai, in lessening the influence of the Jesuits there. He also aimed at restoring episcopal government in England. His influence ultimately secured this, though he himself died just as envoy was setting out of Rome.

DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1739-42); SERJEANT, Account of the Chapter, ed. TURNBULL, (London, 1853); BERINGTON, Memoirs of Panzani (London, 1793), BUTLER, Hist. Memoirs of English Catholics (London,1819-22); KNOX, Douay Diaries (London, 1878); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; COOPER, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.

EDWIN BURTON

Harrowing of Hell

This is the Old English and Middle English term for the triumphant descent of Christ into hell (or Hades) between the time of His Crucifixion and His Resurrection, when, according to Christian belief, He brought salvation to the souls held captive there since the beginning of the world. According to the "New English Dictionary" the word Harrowing in the above connection first occurs in Aelfric's homilies, about A.D. 1000; but, long before this, the descent into hell had been related in the Old English poems connected with the name of Caedmon and Cynewulf. Writers of Old English prose homilies and lives of saints continually employ the subject, but it is in medieval English literature that it is most fully found, both in prose and verse, and particularly in the drama. Art and literature all through Europe had from early times embodied in many forms the Descent into Hell, and specimens plays upon this theme in various European literatures still exist, but it is in Middle English dramatic literature that we find the fullest and most dramatic development of the subject. The earliest specimen extant of the English religious drama is upon the Harrowing of Hell, and the four great cycles of English mystery plays each devote to it a separate scene. It is found also in the ancient Cornish plays. These medieval versions of the story, while ultimately based upon the New Testament and the Fathers, have yet, in their details, been found to proceed from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, the literary form of a part of which is said to date back to the second of third century. In its Latin form this "gospel" was known in England from a very early time; Bede and other Old English writers are said to show intimate acquaintance with it. English translations were made of it in the Middle Ages, and in the long Middle English poem known as "Cursor Mundi" a paraphrase of it is found.

EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY, The Middle English Harrowing of Hell and Gospel of Nicodemus, ed. HULME (London, 1908), in which will be found a full bibliography of the whole subject.

K.M. WARREN

Hartford

Diocese of Hartford, established by Gregory XVI, 18 Sept., 1843. When erected it embraced the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. As Providence was the most considerable city, the Bishop of Hartford resided there until 1872, when a new see was erected (see Diocese of Providence). As now constituted, the Diocese of Hartford is coextensive with the State of Connecticut. It has an area of about five thousand square miles and a Catholic population of 375,000, or one-third of the total population of Connecticut.

EARLY HISTORY

The vestiges of Catholic travellers and sojourners in the territory now embraced by the Diocese of Hartford are numerous. Irish immigrants were scattered throughout the colony, and they rendered notable service during the Pequot war of 1637. Their movements are chronicled in the governorship of Theophilus Eaton (1639-57). Their numbers became considerably augmented during the century which followed. In the War of Independence they took an important part, but they were deprived of the consolations of their religion. Throughout the Colonial period Spanish, Portuguese, and French sailors and adventurers landed at New London and the other ports of the State, and some remained to spend their lives and lose their faith among those by whom the Catholic Church was hated or feared. In the year 1756 four hundred Acadians were scattered throughout the State, but, bereft of priests, and plunged into a hostile atmosphere, they and their descendants made shipwreck of the faith so much cherished by their ancestors. Now and again priests visited Connecticut, coming either as emissaries or chaplains to the French troops, but they took no part in the upbuilding of the future diocese. The attitude of the white settlers was decidedly hostile to the Catholic Church, and the few confessors who persevered are lost in oblivion. Bishop Cheverus, of Boston (1810-23), and Bishop Fenwick, his successor, made occasional missionary journeys to Connecticut. At the request of the latter, the Rev. R. D. Woodley, of Providence, visited and ministered to the Catholics of the section during the earlier months of 1828. In August of that year the Rev. Bernard O'Cavanaugh was appointed first resident priest of the present Diocese of Hartford. His parish comprised the State of Connecticut, and he made Hartford his home. July, 1829, was a memorable month for the Catholics of the future diocese. On the 10th of that month Bishop Fenwick came to Hartford; on the 11th the first number of the "Catholic Press" appeared; on the evening of that day the visiting prelate preached to a fine concourse of people, and before departing answered an attack made upon the Catholics by the "Episcopalian Watchman". He also gave directions for the purchase of the old Episcopalian church which was subsequently moved to Talcott Street. Bishop Fenwick was pleased with the visit and wrote in his journal: "Splendid prospects for religion in Hartford". Father O'Cavanaugh laboured alone in Hartford until 1 July, 1830, when he was joined by the Rev. James Fitton. Father Fitton continued to serve in Connecticut, sometimes alone and sometimes with one or two assistants, for six years. On the erection of the diocese in 1843, there were but three resident priests in Connecticut. Hartford and New Haven had pastors, but Bridgeport was attended from the latter place. Father Fitton ministered to the Catholics in New London, going to them from Worcester, where he was then stationed.

BISHOPS OF HARTFORD

(1) WILLIAM TYLER was born at Derby, Vt., 5 June, 1806. He was from a family of converts. His parents, with their seven children, like the family of his maternal cousin, the Rev. Virgil Barber, renounced Protestantism for the Catholic Church, the future bishop embracing the Faith in his sixteenth year. Having completed his classical course at Mr. Barber's academy at Claremont, N.H., young Tyler became a member of the household of Bishop Fenwick in 1826. He was ordained three years later, and immediately distinguished himself for zeal on the missions of Massachusetts and Maine. He held the office of Vicar-General of Boston until his promotion to the Bishopric of Hartford. He was consecrated 17 March, 1844, and installed at Holy Trinity Church 14 April. At his advent the entire diocese contained 9937 Catholics, of whom only 4817 resided in Connecticut. At that time Hartford was a city of 13,000 inhabitants, and of these only 600 were adult Catholics. Providence, however, could boast of 23,000 inhabitants, 2000 of whom were adherents of the Catholic Faith. The bishop accordingly petitioned Rome to move his see from Hartford to Providence, where he took up his residence in June, 1844. So poor was the Diocese of Hartford at its inception that Bishop Kendrick of Philadelphia, in writing to the rector of the Irish College at Rome, was constrained to make the following complaint: "The unfortunate haste with which Little Rock and Hartford were made sees in a former council should make us pause when a new see is to be erected". The chief anxiety of the new bishop was to provide priests and care for the instruction of the young. His episcopal residence was a mere shanty, "which could be easily drawn by oxen from one end of Providence to the other". Bishop Tyler appealed successfully for priests to All Hallows College, Dublin; he likewise received substantial aid from the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, Lyons, France, and from The Leopold Society, Vienna. He attended the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore which convened 5 May, 1849. Never robust, his health was broken by consumption, and he petitioned the Fathers of the council to accept his resignation. They refused to accede to his wishes, but requested the Holy See to grant him a coadjutor in the person of the Very Rev. Bernard O'Reilly, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Buffalo. But it was a successor and not a coadjutor that the good bishop needed, for he was called to his reward 18 July, 1849. His episcopate covered five years. Bishop Fitzpatrick characterized him as "a man of saintly life consumed with true sacerdotal zeal".

(2) BERNARD O'REILLY was a native of Columkille County Longford, Ireland, where he was born in 1801. He made his classical studies before coming to America, and completed his course of theology at St. Mary's Baltimore. He was ordained in New York, 13 Oct. 1831. He began his priestly life in the metropolis, the city of Brooklyn being his out-mission. The future bishop distinguished himself by devoted heroism during the plague which swept over New York in 1832. He was later on transferred to Rochester, where he served with great success for fifteen years. On the erection of the Diocese of Buffalo, in 1847, Father O'Reilly was made vicar-general, and remained in that capacity until appointed Bishop of Hartford. He was consecrated at St. Patrick's church, Rochester, N.Y., 10 Nov., 1850. Dearth of priests was the chief anxiety which weighed upon him in his new field. "A short time since", he wrote in 1852, "our affliction was very great, when, from almost every section of the State, the faithful were asking for priests, and we had none to give them." On his accession there were but seven priests in Connecticut, and five churches. The zealous bishop at once opened a seminary in his own house, over which he placed the Rev. Hugh Carmody. The institution prospered, and the clerical body was considerably augmented. Two years after his consecration, Bishop O'Reilly visited Europe, and at All Hallows, Dublin, he secured several priests for his growing mission. Among these was a young man named Thomas Hendricken who laboured with distinction in Connecticut, and later on became the first Bishop of Providence. To provide for the education of the young, Bishop O'Reilly brought to his diocese the Sisters of Mercy, establishing them in his episcopal city in 1851. When Knownothingism was raging, a mob assembled to demolish their convent. The Bishop came to the rescue, making use of these words: "The Sisters are in their home; they shall not leave it for an hour. I shall protect them while I have life, and if needs be, register their safety with my blood." The mob was not prepared for such heroism. Intent upon the welfare of the young, Bishop O'Reilly went to Europe again in 1854 in order to secure the aid of the Christian Brothers. He sailed for home 23 Jan., 1856, on the ill-fated "Pacific". He perished with all hands on board. The activity of Bishop O'Reilly may be realized when it is recalled that during the six years of his episcopate he added to the equipment of the diocese 34 churches, 28 priests, 5 academies, 9 parochial schools, and 3 orphan asylums. At his death there were within the present limits of the Diocese of Hartford 27 churches, 26 priests, 2 academies, and 2 orphan asylums.

(3) FRANCIS PATRICK MCFARLAND was born at Franklin, Penn., 16 April, 1819. He studied at Mt. St. Mary's, Emmitsburg, Md., and was ordained by Archbishop Hughes in New York. After teaching for a year at Fordham College, he was made pastor of Watertown, N.Y. On 1 March, 1851, he was sent to preside over the parish of Utica. He was appointed Vicar-Apostolic of Florida 9 June, 1857. He declined the honour, and was made Bishop of Hartford in March, 1858. The same labours that consumed the energies of his predecessor confronted the new bishop: the building of churches and schools, the securing of priests and religious women. The devoted prelate multiplied himself, visiting all corners of his extensive diocese, preaching, lecturing, and examining every child whom he admitted to confirmation. He went to Rome in 1869 to attend the Vatican Council. His health failing, he asked to be relieved from the cares of his office, or to be granted a coadjutor. Neither request was granted. But, as a compromise, the diocese was divided, the State of Rhode Island being cut off. Dr. McFarland retained his title of Bishop of Hartford, and came to reside in his episcopal city in February, 1872. He immedediately addressed himself to the labour of erecting a cathedral, an episcopal residence, and a mother-house for the Sisters of Mercy, who were already engaged in educational work throughout the State. Two of these works he lived to complete. The third, the statly edifice of which the faithful of the Diocese of Hartford are so justly proud, was well started before his death. He departed this life 2 Oct., 1874, in the fifty-sixth year of his age and the seventeenth of his episcopate. He was a scholar and a man of rare sanctity.

(4) THOMAS GALBERRY was likewise born outside of the diocese, coming from Ireland with his parents at the tender age of three years. He was educated at Villanova College, and was called from the presidency of that institution to the See of Hartford in 1875. When notified of his elevation, he declined the honour, and begged the Holy See to relieve him of the burden. A mandamus was returned 17 Feb., 1876. He then proceeded to prepare for his consecration. On coming to Hartford he selected St. Peter's church for his procathedral, pushing forward the erection of the new edifice with energy. He set out for his ad limina visit in May, 1876. Returning in autumn, his health began to fail, but he ceased not to provide churches and schools, priests and religious teachers for his rapidly developing diocese. Seeking rest, he set out for Villanova College 10 Oct., 1878. On the way to New York he was stricken with a haemorrhage and died in the Grand Union Hotel a few hours later. During his episcopate "The Connecticut Catholic" was established, and since that memorable day, in 1876, the Diocese of Hartford has never been without a Catholic paper.

(5) LAWRENCE S. MCMAHON, the fifth Bishop of Hartford, though a native of St. John's, N.B., spent his childhood and youth in Cambridge, Mass. He entered Holy Cross College, Worcester, Mass., at the age of fifteen. He pursued his higher studies in France and Italy, and was ordained at Rome 21 March, 1860. He was serving as assistant at the cathedral at Boston when the 28th Massachusetts called from swamps of South Carolina for a chaplain. Father McMahon volunteered, and served with distinction until his health completely failed him. After the war he became pastor successively of Bridgewater and New Bedford. He was the first Vicar-General of the Diocese of Providence and was consecrated Bishop of Hartford 10 August, 1879. His great work in his new field was the erection and the adornment of St. Joseph's Cathedral. In ten years he collected more than $500,000, and on 8 May, 1892, he consecrated the splendid edifice free from all debt. While engaged in this work, he gave direction for the wise development of his diocese, organizing 18 new parishes, dedicating 70 churches, and establishing 16 parochial schools, as well as 16 convents. He died at Lakeville, 21 August, 1893, and was interred in the great cathedral to erect which he had laboured so hard and with such distinguished success.

(6) MICHAEL THERNEY was consecrated Bishop of Hartford 22 Feb., 1891. Born in Ireland, he spent his youth at Norwalk, in the diocese over which he was destined to preside with such fruit. After completing his studies at Bardstown, at Montreal, and at Troy, New York, he was ordained in May, 1866. Bishop McFarland immediately made the young priest his chancellor and the rector of his cathedral, which offices he held until his appointment as pastor of New London. After a year in that post he was transferred to Stamford, and three years later he was promoted to the rectorship of St. Peter's church, Hartford. Here, besides his parochial duties, he was charged with the responsible office of inspecting the erection of the new cathedral - a post for which he was admirably fitted by his aptitude for the technical details of the building art as well as by his experience at Providence, New London, and Stamford, where he was called upon successively to erect a school, to rebuild a church, and push to completion one of the stateliest ecclesiastical edifices in New England. Previously to the episcopate of Bishop Tierney, the resources at the disposal of the bishop were mainly absorbed in the erection of the cathedral, and it happened that there were within the confines of the State but few charitable institutions. The new bishop felt the need of a preparatory college for boys destined for the priesthood, and proceeded to erect one in his episcopal city. The foundation flourished, and before his death, that is, during the first decade of its existence, St. Thomas's Seminary could boast of 100 students. Other charitable works established under Bishop Tierney's inspiration are St. Mary's Home for the Aged, St. John's Industrial School, the hospitals at Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Willimantic, and the numerous charitable enterprisis conducted by the Sisters of the Holy Ghost and the Little Sisters of the Poor. Bishop Tierney was a man of tireless activity. He multiplied himself, visiting every parish and every school-room in his diocese at least once a year. During his episcopate he confirmed 85,000 children and administered to every one of them the total-abstinence pledge. He was a patron of literature and established a diocesan missionary band to preach retreats to Catholics and non-Catholics. He died on 5 Oct., 1908, universally mourned.

PRESENT CONDITION OF THE DIOCESE

Within the limits of the State of Connecticut there are now at least 375,000 Catholics. They are ministered to by 350 priests. The number of parishes in the diocese (9 July, 1909) is 173; of these 121 are English-speaking churches, 13 French, 6 German, 8 Italian, 13 Polish, 4 Lithuanian, 2 Hungarian, 2 Slavonian, and 4 Ruthenian. There are 1250 religious women in the diocese. The religious orders of men represented are the Dominican Friars at New Haven, Franciscan Friers Minor at Winsted, Franciscan Conventuals at Bridgeport, Jesuits at South Norwalk, Missionaries of La Salette at Hartford and Danielson, Fathers of the Congregation of St. Charles at New Haven and Bridgeport, Vincentian Fathers at Derby and New Haven, Fathers of the Holy Ghost at Darien. The Brothers of the Christian Schools have a house at Hartford, and the Xaverian Brothers conduct an industrial school at Deep River. The Sisters of Mercey have 3 mother-houses in Connecticut: that at Hartford has 440 sisters affiliated to it. They conduct a high school and an academy at Hartford, and academy at Putnam, and furnish the teaching staff for St. Francis Orphan Asylum at New Haven, for St. Augustine's Preparatory School for Boys at West Hartford, and for 21 parochial schools throughout the diocese. A second at Meriden numbers 133 sisters teaching 4100 children. The sisters of this community conduct an academy for young ladies at Milford. The third mother-house is situated at Middletown. It has 90 sisters who are responsible for the education of 2100 children. The Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame conduct an academy at Waterbury, the Sisters of St. Dominic at New Haven, and the Sisters of Charity at Baltic.

O'DONNELL, History of the Catholic Church in New England (Boston, 1899); CLARKE, Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872); SHEA, The Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1888); The Catholic Transcript (Hartford, Conn.); The Connecticut Catholic Year Book (Hartford, Conn.).

T.S. DUGGAN

Ven. William Hartley

Martyr; b. at Wyn, in Derbyshire, England, of a yeoman family about 1557; d. 5 October, 1588. At eighteen he matriculated at St. John's, Oxford, where he became a chaplain. Being ejected by the vice-chancellor, Tobie Mathew, in 1579, he went to Reims in August, was ordained at Châlons, and returned to England in June, 1580. He was of great service to Fathers Persons and Campion in printing and distributing their books, but was eventually arrested, 13 August, 1581, and sent to Marshalsea Prison, London. Here he was detected saying Mass in a cell before Lord Vaux, and for this he was laid in irons (5 December, 1583). He was indicted for high treason, 7 February, 1584, but for some unknown reason, not tried. In January, 1585, he was sent into exile. He then spent some little time at Reims, recovering his health, and made a pilgrimage to Rome (15 April, 1586), before returning to his perilous mission. In September, 1588, he was arrested in Holborn, London, and, as his friend father Warford said, "being beset by the deceits of the heretics, incurred the suspicion of having apostatized. But the event showed how unjust the suspicion was; when he suffered at Tyburn he won the greatest credit for constancy. He was a man of the meekest disposition and naturally virtuous, modest, and grave, with a sober and peaceful look. His beard was blackish and his height moderate" ("Acts of English Martyrs", cited below, 272).

The Armada year was for Catholics both the time of worst bloodshed and of the greatest dearth of news, and this explains why we know but little of Hartley's companions. The first was a priest, the Venerable John Hewitt, son of a draper at York and a student at Caius College, Cambridge. He had once been in York prison, but was arrested in Grey's Inn Lane, London, 10 March, 1857, going under the name of Weldon, and died under that name; this had led several early martyrologists into the curious mistake of making him into two martyrs, Hewett dying at York, and Weldon at London. Hartley's second companion was the Venerable Robert Sutton, a tutor or schoolmaster, born at Kegworth in Leichestershire, who had practiced his profession in Paternoster Row, London. The fourth [sic] was John Harrison, alias Symons, who had carried letters from one priest to another. As he had before "been slandered to be a spy" we can guess why his fame suffered some obscurity. It is also hardly doubtful that his name, Harrison, was confounded with that of either Matthias or James Harrison, priests, who suffered martyrdom in 1599 or 1602 respectively. This perhaps explains why his name has fallen out of the process of the English martyrs, and in its place we find inserted that of Venerable Richard Williams, a "Queen Mary priest" who really suffered four years later.

The Month, January, 1879, 71-85; January, 1905, 19; Pollen, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891); Catholic Records Society (London, 1906, 1908), II, V; Jaeffreson, Middlesex County Records (London, 1886), II, 171, 180; Boase, Oxford registers, (Oxford, 1885-89), II, ii, 68; Challoner, Memoirs, I; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.

J.H. POLLEN

Georg Hartmann

Mechanician and physicist; b. at Eckoltsheim, Bavaria, 9 Feb. 1489; d. at Nuremberg, 9 April, 1564. He studied theology and mathematics, probably with Glareanus and Melanchthon. After travelling in Italy he settled down in Nuremberg in 1518 as mechanician. There he constructed a great many globes, astrolabes, sundials, and similar instruments. To him is attributed the discovery, in 1544, of the so-called dip or inclination of the magnetic needle. If a steel needle is carefully balanced on a horizontal axis and is then magnetized, it will be found to take an inclined position, the angle of dip depending on the locality. Later he became vicar of St. Sebaldus's church in Nuremberg. He published a number of papers on astrological subjects.

WOLF, Geschichte der Astronomie (Munich, 1877).

WILLIAM FOX

Hartmann von Aue

A Middle High German epic poet and minnesinger; died between 1210 and 1220. Little is known concerning his life; neither the place nor the date of his birth has been ascertained. He Was a Swabian knight in the service of the Lords of Aue, and was exceptionally well-educated for a layman of his time, being able to read and to write and possessing a knowledge of French and Latin, besides being well versed in the literature of his time. His life Was comparatively uneventful. The death of his liege lord, whom he mourns in tender verses, was the occasion of his joining a crusade, whether that of 1197, or the earlier one of 1189, is uncertain. He must have died shortly after 1210, for Gottfried von Strasburg in his "Tristan", composed about that year, speaks of him as still living, while Heinrich von dem Türlin in his "Krone", written between 1215 and 1220, mentions him as one deceased. Hartmann is the author of a number of lyric poems in the fashion of the age, dealing largely with Minne or love. More original than these Minnesongs are his crusading lyrics. He also wrote two büchelîn poetic epistles of an amatory nature; but his authorship of the second of these epistles is disputed. His fame rests on his four epics, "Erec", "Iwein", "Gregorius", and "Der arme Heinrich" (Poor Henry).

The "Erec", Hartmann's earliest work, composed about 1192, marks the introduction of the Arthurian romances into German literature. It was modelled on the French poem of Chrestien de Troyes, but considerably amplified and otherwise altered. Its fundamental motif is the conflict between Minne and knightly honour. Erec neglects his knightly duties in his devotion to his lovely bride Enite; when reproached by her, he makes her accompany him on an expedition which restores his tarnished prestige, but in the course of which Enite suffers the harshest treatment. In the end the lovers are reconciled. In the "Iwein", based on Chrestien's "Chevalier au Lion", the same motif is utilized, but here the hero, having neglected his wife for knightly adventures, is rejected by her and goes insane. After passing through many ordeals he regains her favour. In this poem the court epic is shown in its classic form. Less pretentious are the legendary epics. "Gregorius", based on a French poem of unknown authorship, is the story of a medieval Œdipus, who unwittingly marries his own mother, but atones for his enormities by most rigorous penance, and in the end is esteemed a saint and elected pope. "Der arme Heinrich" is a charming tale of womanly devotion. A poor maid offers herself as a sacrifice that her lord, who is smitten with leprosy, may be healed. But at the last moment the knight refuses the sacrifice; as a reward he is miraculously restored to health and the maiden becomes his wife. For this work the poet used a written source, probably a Latin chronicle, of which however nothing definite is known.

Hartmann was the favourite poet of courtly circles, whose ideals are most perfectly reflected in his works. The faultless form and polished diction of his epics made them the classic models for subsequent poets. A complete edition of Hartmann's works is that of Fedor Bech (2nd ed., 3 vols.) in "Deutsche Klassiker des Mittelalters", edited by Pfeiffer, IV-VI (Leipzig, 1887-1893). Selections were edited by P. Piper in Kürschner's "Deutsche National Litteratur". There is a separate edition of "Erec" by M. Haupt (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1871); of "Iwein" by Emil Henrici (Halle, 1891-93); of "Gregorius" by H. Paul (Halle, 1873); of "Der arme Heinrich" by H. Paul (3rd ed., Halle, 1904). Translations of the last-mentioned work into modern German were made by Simrock (2nd ed., Heilbronn, 1874), Bötticher (Halle, 1891), and Legerlotz (Bielefeld, 1904).

See the introductions to the editions above mentioned; also SCHÖNBACH, Ueber H. von Aue (Graz, 1894); PIQUET, Etude sur H. d'Aue (Paris, 1898).

ARTHUR F. J. REMY.

Vincenz Hasak

Historian, b. at Neustadt, near Friedland, Bohemia, 18 July, 1812; d. 1 September, 1889, as dean of Weisskirchlitz, near Teplitz. After completing his classical and theological studies at Leitmeritz, he became chaplain at Arnsdorf, a post he held for eighteen years. Thenceforth to his death he was pastor at Weisskirchlitz. While chaplain, he began to collect old books, paintings, and copper-plate engravings, also gems and shells. He succeeded in collecting a small but valuable museum, that excited the astonishment of all connoisseurs for the treasures it contained. His library attained to especial celebrity because of the copious collection of rare early printed books, e.g. the ten pre-Reformation German translations of the Bible. He also made a scientific use of his treasures, and wrote several books about them, notable contributions in his day to the knowledge of medieval German religious life and the German language. Especially worthy of mention are: "Der christliche Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des Mittelalters" (Ratisbon, 1868), a very valuable and authoritative work, treating of ninety-three printed books and manuscripts; "Dr. M. Luther und die religiöse Literatur seiner Zeit bis zum Jahre 1520)" (Ratisbon, 1881), a documentary description of the religious and moral conditions of the Middle Ages; also: "Die Himmelstrasse" (Ratisbon, 1882); and "Die letzte Rose, oder Eklärung des Vater Unser nach Markus von Weida" (Ratisbon, 1883), "Ein Vergissmeinnicht oder Von der heiligen Messe" (Ratisbon, 1884); finally, "Herbstblumen, oder christlicher Volksunterricht in der vorreformatorischen Zeit" (Ratisbon, 1885).

Historisch-polititsche Blatter, LXXXIX (1882), 645.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Lorenz Leopold Haschka

A poet-author of the Austrian national anthem; b. at Vienna, 1 Sept. 1749, d. there 3 Aug., 1827, was in his youth a member of the Society of Jesus. On the suppression of the Society (1773) he devoted himself, in secular life, to poetry, this was now to become his vocation and his means of livehood. His pupil, the wealthy Johann v. Alxinger, the most distinguished of Wieland's imitators, came to the assistance of the poor instructor. Haschka also found aid in the home of the poetess, Karoline Pichler. Unfortunately, the ex-Jesuit, under the influence of Josephinism, renounced for a time his principles: he became a freemason and wrote venomous odes against the papacy during the presence of Pius VI in Vienna, as well as against the religious orders. He returned, however, to his Catholic sentiments after the death of Joseph II, and was selected to compose a national anthem, which was first sung on 12 February, 1797, at the celebration of Emperor Francis's birthday. Haschka was given a position as assistant in the library of the university of Vienna and was made instructor in aesthetics in the newly founded Theresianum. He retired in 1824. As a poet, he belongs to the group of poet-musicians.

GIGITZ, Grillparzer Jahrbuch, 1907, 32-127 (really a biography; NAGEL AND ZEIDLER, Deutch-Oesterr. Literaturgesch. last volume, p. 331, 336; SOMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la C. de J.

N. SCHEID

Johann Simon (Joachim) Haspinger

A Tyrolese priest and patriot; b. at Gries, Tyrol, 28 October, 1776; d. in the imperial palace of Mirabell, Salzburg, 12 January, 1858. His parents were well-to-do country people, and destined their son for the priesthood. It was, however, only in 1703 after having devoted himself until his seventeenth year to farm work and mountain-climbing, that he entered the gymnasium at Bozen. While yet a mere youth, he found occasion to give proof of his intrepidity. In 1796 he joined a troop of volunteer marksmen, intended to assist the regular troops in defending their native soil against the army of the French Revolution, and, by capturing one of the enemy's officers, won the medal for bravery. He also took an active part in the engagements near Spinges in 1797, in consequence of which GeneraI Joubert was compelled to retire from the Pusterthal. Young Haspinger then resumed his studies and in 1799 attended for some time the University of Innsbruck. The almost immediate renewal of hostilities, however, did not permit the continuation of his studies. The fight in the Taufersthal saw him again among the foremost. Returning later to the university, he attended medical lectures for a few terms but in 1802 joined the Capuchin Order at Eppan, near Bozen, receiving Joachim as his name in religion. Ordained priest on 1 September, 1805, he laboured first at Schlanders in Vintschgau. During the Austro-Russian war against Napoleon, he served as chaplain among his fellow-countrymen, but even then could not altogether resist his inclination towards the soldier's life. On the unfortunate termination of the struggle begun under such fair auspices, Father Joachim retired to his cell at Schlanders.

The Peace of Presburg ceded Tyrol to Bavaria, whose Government, under the influence of atheistical reformers and visionaries, soon exasperated, by its inconsiderateness and brutality, the mountaineers, stanch in their fidelity to their God and to the imperial house. An especial bitterness was aroused by the detestable policy adopted towards the universally esteemed mendicant friars, who were dragged forcibly from their abodes and thrust like criminals, into the so called "Central Cloisters". Like the rest, Haspinger had to submit to this rough treatment, and took little pains to conceal his indignation. He was not long in getting into connection with Hofer (q.v.), the peasant patriot, to whom the Archduke John and others had entrusted the task of inciting Tyrol to rebel once more against France and its vassal States. So busily and successfully did the conspirators bestir themselves that at the beginning of April, 1809, the Austrian troops threw in their lot with the movement, and soon the whole country was in arms. On the morning of Whit-Sunday Haspinger announced from the pulpit at Klausen Hofers summons to rise, and by midday had formed, at Verdings, a company of picked marksmen and placed himself at their head. In the first battle on Mount Isel (28-29 May) he commanded the left wing of the peasant army, operating near Natters. Armed only with his stick, and reckless of danger, hour after hour he led attacks on the well-posted Bavarian troops and their artillery, without pausing to partake of food, until the enemy were dislodged and their battery captured. On the following day he marched victoriously to Innsbruck in company with Hofer, whose urgent representations alone suceeded in prevailing on Haspinger's religious superiors to allow him to remain with the patriotic defenders of the soil.

A little later he played an illustrious part in the contests in the Eisckthal (4-5 August), where his "stone batteries" proved fatal to hundreds of men and horses, and compelled the majority of the enemy to capitulate (the "Saxon ambush"). To "the redbearded Capuchin" (Pater Rothbart) also belongs the chief credit of blocking the way ot General Lefebre, who was advancing from Sterzing, forcing him to withdraw, and inflicting severe losses on his troops during their retreat. For the victory in the second battle on Mount Isel (15 August) the Tyrolese were again chiefly inflected to Haspinger, who once more led the left wing. Unfortunately, these successes seemed to intoxicate Haspinger, to whom everything now seemed possible, and who proceeded in all earnestness with preparations to carry the war beyond the frontiers, to incite to rebellion the populations of the Austrian Alps, and, if possible, to capture Napoleon and his army. However, after some early successes, his undisciplined followers were dispersed at Hallein. Although no one of calm judgment could have failed to recognize the futility of further prolonging the struggle, Haspinger would not hear of submission, and thus he became the evil genius of Hofer and of many other brave men. Even the adverse issue of the third battle on Mount Isel (1 November) did not bend his iron spirit; he took the field for the last time near Klausen, where his levies with indescribable valour vainly strove to prevent the enemy from penetrating to Bozen.

The whole country now fell rapidly into the hands of the allied French and Bavarians, and a price was set upon the heads of the insurgent leaders. Being thus compelled to take flight, Haspinger withdrew at first to Switzerland but later returned to his native mountains, and lay for some months in concealment at Tschengls. Danger again threatening him here, he once more sought shelter in Swiss territory and, under an assumed name worked for a whole year as an upholster's assistant. He then contrived to make his way through Upper Italy to Klagenfurt, where he could at last rest in safety. The emperor gave him necessary assistance from the privy purse until the Archbishop of Vienna assigned him to a good parish in Lower Austria. In 1816 he again performed important services for his country as a spy and agitator. He subsequently administered the parish of Frauenfeld until 1836, after which date he received a pension and resided at Hietzing, near Vienna. 1848, although he was then seventy-two years of age, he again took the field as chaplain to a company of Tyrolese riflemen enrolled at Vienna. It was then that he wrote on the muster roll: "Joachim Haspinger gibt Blut und Leben für Gott, Kaiser u. Vaterland" (Joachim Haspinger gives blood and life for God, emperor, and fatherland). The aged patriot naturally took no active part in the campaign, but he well knew how to fan into a flame the glowing spirits of his young comrades. On the successful termination of the war against the Piedmontese, he took up his residence at Vienna, whence he later removed to Salzburg, celebrating the golden jubilee of his priesthood in the latter city. The Emperor Frances Joseph, whose favour he enjoyed, placed at his disposal a splendid suite of apartments in the Mirabell palace, and there Haspinger met his end calmly and in a truly Christian manner. A battalion of Jäger, such as had escorted the remains of Hofer, accompanied those of Haspinger to Insbruck where he rests in the castle church beside Hofer and Speckbacher.

Haspinger and Speckbacher must be regarded as the heroic protagonists in the great drama enacted in Tyrol at the opening of the nineteenth century. Hofer's services consisted rather in organizing and guidng the insurrection, and, although a man of undoubted courage, he never equalled the personal prowness of his two companions. This difference was very clearly indicated by Haspinger himself when he wrote: "Hofer was more priest than soldier; I am more soldier than priest." The quondam religious and general, however, never failed to discharge his duties as a priest.

SCHALLHAMMER, Biogr. des J.Haspinger (Salzburg, 1856); HEIGEL, Haspinger in Allgem. deutsche Biog., X; HIRN, Die Erhebung Tirols im J. 1809 (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1909).

PIUS WITTMANN

John Rose Greene Hassard

An editor, historian; b. in New York, U.S.A., 4 September, 1836; d. in that city, 18 April, 1888. His parents were Episcopalians, his mother being a granddaughter of Commodore Nicholson of Revolutionary fame. He became a Catholic at the age of fifteen and, after graduating at St. John's College, New York, entered the diocesan seminary, intending to study for the priesthood. Ill-health, however, forced him to abandon this idea and turned to literature. He was the first editor of the "Catholic World Magazine", and assistant editor of the "Chicago Republican" and of the "American Cyclopedia", and joined the editorial staff of the "New York Tribune", on which paper his principal work was that of literary and musical critic. In the latter capacity he was one of the Wager school of modern music. His letters descriptive of the festivals at Bayreuth were among the first informative chapters in this department of music, where his critical judgement and cultivated taste did much for the advancement of the highest musical art. He had a peculiarly impartial mind, and in his writings displayed a remarkable purity of style and vigour of expression. Most of his literary life was spent as a journalist, but in addition to his work as such and his contributions to the magazines he wrote a very comprehensive life of Archbishop John Hughes of New York, and a short one of the Pope Pius IX. He also prepared a "History of the United States" in both extended and abridged forms for use in Catholic colleges and schools.

The Catholic Family Annual (New York, 1889); Freeman's Journal; Tribune (New York, April, 1888), Encycyl. of Am. Biog., s.v.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Peter Hasslacher

Preacher; b. at Coblenz, 14 August, 1810; d. at Paris, 5 July, 1876. He was one of that band of missionaries from the Society of Jesus whose fruitful labours throughout Germany, from Freiburg to Berlin and Danzig, reawakened and strengthened the country's Catholic forces after the stormy year of 1846. Hasslacher's youth was somewhat tempestuous. As a medical student in the university in Bonn, in 1831, he identified himself with the German student movement, which was looked upon as revolutionary; and he was compelled, in consequence, to undergo seven years confinement at Berlin, Magdeburg, and Ehrenbreitstein. During these years he underwent a spiritual change, and in particular, by studying the Fathers of the Church, stirred his mind with theological knowledge; after his liberation he entered, in the spring of 1840, the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, at St.-Acheul, France. He was ordained to the priesthood, on 1 Sept., 1844, and then preached with much success in the cathedral at Strasburg, until the year 1849. It was at this time that the popular missions were inaugurated in Germany; but Hasslacher's delicate health could not long withstand the physical exertions entailed; and this apparent difficulty and disadvantage led the zealous-heated missionary into the field of activity which was particularly his own, namely, the conference. This he himself explains in a detailed letter (Deutsches Ordensarchiv) written from Bad Ems to his provincial in 1860. He gave conferences in all the larger cities in the Rhine and Westphalia. His strength failing, he was sent in 1863 to conduct, in Paris, the St. Joseph's Mission for German Catholics; but even this labour became after ten years too much of a tax on his physical powers so that he was compelled to abandon it and to take up similar but lighter duties at Poitiers. After a year he was brought back, very ill, to Paris, where he died.

Hertkens, Erinnerungen an P. Hasslacher (Münster, 1879), with numerous letters and twenty-three sketches for lectures; the author makes use of Beda Weber, Cartons aus dem deutschen Kirchenleben (Mainz, 1858, 451 sqq.; Hasslacher's a letter on his lectures is not used in these works; many corrections and supplementary data, therefore, must be borne in mind in its connection; this criticism holds also for the articles in the Kirchenlex. and the Allgem. Deutsch. Biographie.

N. SCHIED

Hatred

Hatred in general is a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion.

• One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
• The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.

This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so. The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people. Of course, it is clear that this apparent zeal must not be an excuse for catering to personal spite or party rancour. Still, even when the motive of one's aversion is not impersonal, when, namely, it arises from the damage we may have sustained at the hands of others, we are not guilty of sin unless besides feeling indignation we yield to an aversion unwarranted by the by the hurt we have suffered. This aversion may be grievously or venially sinful in proportion to its excess over that which the injury would justify.

When by any conceivable stretch of human wickedness God Himself is the object of hatred the guilt is appallingly special. If it be that kind of enmity (odium inimicitiae) which prompts the sinner to loathe God in Himself, to regret the Divine perfections precisely in so far as they belong to God, then the offence committed obtains the undisputed primacy in all the miserable hierarchy of sin. In fact, such an attitude of mind is fairly and adequately described as diabolical; the human will detaches itself immediately from God; in other sins it does so only mediately and by consequence, that is, because of its inordinate use of some creature it is averted from God. To be sure, according to the teaching of St. Thomas (II-II:24:12) and the theologians, any mortal sin carries with it the loss of the habit of supernatural charity, and implies so to speak a sort of virtual and interpretive hatred of God, which, however, is not a separate specific malice to be referred to in confession, but only a circumstance predicable of every grievous sin.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Hatto

Archbishop of Mainz; b. of a noble Swabian family, c. 850; d. 15 May, 913. He was educated at the monastery of Ellwagen in Swabia, became a Benedictine monk at Fulda, was elected in 888 Abbot of Reichenau, and, a year later, also Abbot of Ellwangen. As abbot of these two imperial monasteries he exercised a great influence on the political affairs of Germany. On account of his deep insight, his energy, and his unselfish devotion to the royal throne, King Arnulf of Germany appointed him Archbishop of Mainz in September, 891. In 892 he presided over a synod at Frankfort, at which, the rights of the Archbishop of Cologne over the Diocese of Bremen were discussed by order of Pope Formosus. He likewise presided over the great politico-ecclesiastical assembly at Tribur (now Trebur), near Mainz, in May, 895 (Mansi, Coll. Conc. Ampl., XVIII, 129-166). When in 894 Pope Formosus called upon King Arnulf to defend him against Guido (or Wido) of Spoleto and his son Lambert, Hatto accompanied the King to Italy. He also accompanied him on a second expedition to Italy (from the autumn 895 to the spring 896), on which occasion he received the pallium from Pope Formosus at Rome.

In his far-reaching political Hatto was guided by the idea of a consolidated German kingdom with a strong king possessing the central authority. For this reason he was hated by the dukes who desired to break up the German nation into independent states. After the death of Arnulf in 899, the election of King Louis the Child, the six year old son of Arnulf, was chiefly due to Hatto, who with prudence and strength administered the affairs of the State during the short life of the young king (d. 911). The election of Conrad I, Duke of Franconia, as King of Germany was again the work of Hatto. During the remaining two years of his life Hatto was the chief councillor of Conrad I. Hatto has been greatly maligned by historians. His alleged implication in the "treacherous" capture of Duke Adalbert of Badenberg was probably and invention of his enemies, and the fable of the "Müusethurm", where he is said to have been eaten up by mice and rats in punishment for his hardheartedness during a famine, has no historical foundation. The same story is related of Hatto II, Archbishop of Mainz (968-970), and of many other persons.

Dammert, Hatto I Erzbischof von Mainz in Freiburger Program (1864, 1865); Heidemann, Hatto I, Erzb. Von Mainz (Berlin, 1865); Will, Regesten der Mainzer Erzbischöfe (Innsbruck, 1877), I. For the fable of the "Müusethurm": Baring-Gould, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages London, 1901), 447-470.

MICHAEL OTT

Edward Anthony Hatton

Dominican, apologist; b. in 1701; d. at Stourton Lodge, near Leeds, Yorkshire, 23 October, 1783—according to some authorities, 1781. He was probably the son of Edward Hatton, yeoman, of Great Crosby, Lancashire, who registered his estate as a Catholic non-juror in 1717, and whose family appears in the recusant rolls for many generations. He received his education in the Dominican college at Bornhem, near Antwerp, where he was professed, 25 May, 1722, taking the name in religion of Antoninus. Having filled the duties of teacher for several years, he was ordained priest and on 7 July, 1730, he left college for the mission work in his own country. He first officiated as chaplain, in turn, to several gentleman in Yorkshire, and in the year 1749 he went to assist Father Thomas Worthington, O.P, at Middleton Lodge, near Leeds. After the latter's death, which occurred on 25 February, 1753 (or 1754), Father Hatton was entrusted with the care of the mission. Shortly afterwards he was compelled to remove the mission to Stourton Lodge, where ultimately he succeeded in having a new chapel erected (1776), but a few miles distant from the of his former labours. Twice was Father Hatton appointed to the office of provincial of his order in England: on 21 May, 1754—until the year 1758; his second term of office lasted from 7 May, 1770, till 1774. In 1776 he began the mission at Hunslet, near Leeds, but did not live long to behold the unfolding of the work he had originated.

His writings include: "Moral and Controversial Lectures upon the Christian Doctrines and Christian Practice (By E.H.)". To this work neither place of publication nor date is assigned. "Memoirs of the Reformation of England; in two parts. The whole collected chiefly from Acts of Parliament and Protestant historians", published (London, 1826; 2nd ed., 1841) under the pseudonym of Constantius Archaeophilus. Hatton is also the author of "Miscellaneous Sermons upon some of the most important Christian Duties and Gospel Truths", 7 vols., MS.

OLIVER, Collections illustrative of the Dominican, Benedictine, and Franciscan Orders in England, in his Collections (London, 1857), 458; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. s.v.: REIGHT in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlez., s.v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; HURTER, Nomenclator.

P.J. MACAULEY

Hauara

A titular see of Palestina Tertia, suffragan of Petra. Peutinger's map locates a place of this name thirty-eight miles of Petra (see Clermont-Ganneau in "Revue biblique", N.S. III, 419-421). The city is also mentioned by Ptolemy (V, 16) and by the "Notitia dignitatum" (ed. Boecking, 79), which mentions the garrison of equites sagittarri indigenae. This Hauara, which is situated between Aila and Petra, is certainly distinct from the Hauara of Stephen of Byzantium, the leuke kome of the Greeks, a harbour of the Red Sea, but it has been impossible to discover its location. It is unknown even when it became a titular see, because it formerly had no bishop, and does not figure in any episcopal "Notitiae". It must not be confounded with Haura, a Jacobite see in Mesopotamia.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus, II, 1507.

S. VAILHÉ

Haudriettes

A religious congregation founded in Paris early in the fourteenth century by Jeanne, wife of Etienne Haudry, a private secretary of St. Louis, King of France. During a prolonged absence of her husband on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. James of Compostela, Jeanne, believing him dead, gathered under her roof a number of pious women, with whom she made a vow of perpetual chastity, and consecrated herself to a religious life devoted to the service of the poor. On his return in 1329, Etienne obtained for his wife a dispensation from her vow on condition that the pious association be permitted to retain his house and be endowed with a capital sufficient for the maintenance of twelve poor women. He also erected a chapel for the community, which was soon in possession of its own hospital, and rapidly increased in numbers. The statutes of the Haudriettes, as prescribed for them by Cardinal d'Ailly, were approved in 1414 by Cardinal Nicolò da Pisa, legate of John XXII, and later confirmed by several pontiffs. A gradual relaxation in the original fervour of the congregation caused a thorough reform to be instituted under Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld, Grand Almoner of France. Gregory XV placed the religious under the Rule of St. Augustine, the vow of poverty being added to those of chastity and obedience and monastic observance and the recitation of the Office of the Blessed Virgin imposed. In 1622 the mother-house was transferred to the Saint-Honoré, where a new monastery and church were built, the latter being dedicated to the Assumption of Our Lady, from which the religious were thenceforth called Daughters of the Assumption. The congregation was not restored after the Revolution.

HEIMBUCHER, Orden und Kongregationen der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1908); HELYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux in MIGNE, Encyc. Theol.

F.M. RUDGE

Jean-Barthélemy Hauréau

Historian and publicist; b. at Paris, 1812; d. there, 1896. He was educated at the Louis le Grand and Bourbon colleges in his native city, and won high honours at his public examination. After graduating he became a journalist, and soon was a contributor to several democratic papers: "La Tribune", "Le National", "Le Droit", "La Revue du Nord". In 1838 he took the chief editorship of the "Courrier de la Sarthe" and was appointed librarian of the city of Le Mans, which position he retained until 1845, when he was dismissed on account of comments of his on the daring speech of the Mayor of le Mans to the Duke of Nemours. He returned to Paris and once more became one of the editors of "Le National". In 1848 the department of la Sarthe sent him to the Constituent Assembly, but his political career was neither long nor remarkable. In the same year he had been appointed keeper of the manuscripts at the Bibliotheque Nationale, but he resigned in 1851 in order to protest against the coup d'état of Louis Napoleon. In 1861 the Association of Advocates chose him as its librarian and in 1862 he became a member of the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. From 1871 to 1882 he was director of the Imprimerie Nationale. While Hauréau was not always sound in his philosophical views, he died as a good Catholic, after receiving the sacraments of the Church.

Hauréau was a voluminous writer. He contributed the "Pharsale" of Lucan and the "Facétie sur la mort de Claude" of Seneca, two translations, to the collection of Latin classics of Nisard. Besides writing numerous articles for political and historical cyclopedias, he published a number of important works on history and philosophy:—"Critique des hypothèses métaphysiques de Manès, de Pélage et de l'idéalisme transcendental de saint Augustin" (Le Mans, 1840); "Histoire littéraire du Maine" (Paris, 1843-52), "Manuel du Clergé" (Paris, 1844), "Histoire de la Pologne" (Paris, 1846); "Charlemagne et sa cour" (Paris, 1854); "François Ier et sa cour" (Paris, 1855); "Hugues de saint-victor" (Paris,1859); "Singularités historiques et littéraires" (Paris, 1861); "Histoire de la philosophie scolastique" (Paris, 1872-80), the best-known of his works, "Le commentaire de Jean Scot Erigène sur Martinus capella" (Paris, 1861), etc. He is also the author of vols. XIV and XV of "Gallia Christiana" (Paris, 1856-1865).

VAPEREAU, Dictionnaire universel des contemporains (Paris, 1893); Revue des questions historique." (Paris, 1896), 325; FRANK, Essais de critique philosophique (Paris, 1885).

P.J. MARIQUE

Hautecombe

(Altacomba, Altæcombæum)

A Cistercian monastery near Aix-les-Bains in Savoy, Diocese of Chambéry (formerly Geneva); founded about a. d. 1101 in a narrow valley (or combe) between hills near the Lake of Bourget by hermits from Aulpes, in the Lake of Geneva. About 1125 it was transferred to a site on the north-western shore of the lake under Mont du Chat, granted to it by Amadeus, Count of Savoy; and shortly afterwards it accepted the Cistercian Rule from Clairvaux. The first abbot was the saintly and learned Amadeus de Haute-Rive, afterwards Bishop of Lausanne. Two daughter-houses were founded from Hautecombe at an early date, one, Fossa-Nuova (afterwards called For Appio), in the Diocese of Terracina, in 1135, and the other, S. Angelo de Petra, close to Constantinople in 1214. Celestine IV and Nicholas III have been claimed as alumni of Hautecombe, but this is disputed by Janauschek, the historian of the Cistercian Order. The chief interest of Hautecombe, apart from the beauty of its situation, arises from its having been for centuries the burial-place of the Counts and Dukes of Savoy. Count Humbert III, known as "Blessed", and his wife Anne were interred there in the latter part of the twelfth century; and about a century later Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury (1245-1270), son of Count Thomas I, was buried in the sanctuary of the abbey church. He had come out from England with King Edward I to accompany him in a crusade, but died at the castle of St. Helena in Savoy. The last abbot, Anthony of Savoy, a son of Charles Emmanuel I, was interred there in 1673. The abbey was restored (in a debased style) by one of the dukes about 1750, but it was secularized and sold in 1792, when the French entered Savoy, and was turned into a china-factory. King Charles Felix of Sardinia purchased the ruins in 1824, had the church rebuilt and re-constructed, and restored it to the Cistercian Order. He and his queen (Maria Christina of Naples) are buried in the Belley chapel, which forms a kind of vestibule to the church. Some 300 statues and many frescoes adorn the interior of the church, which is 215 feet long, with a transept 85 feet wide. Most of the tombs are little more than reproductions of the medieval monuments.

Cibrario, Storia e descrizione della r. badia d'Altacomba (Turin, 1843-3); Jacqkuemont, descript. Hist. del'abbaye de Hautecombe (Chambéry, 1843); Chronica Abbati Alt cumbi, 1125-1421, ed. Promis in Monum. hist. patr script (1839), II, 672-7; Blanchard, Hist. de l'abbaye de Hautecombe in Mem. Soc. Savois. d'hist. d'archéol,XI (1867), 185-212; Barthélemy in Rev. des. soc. sav. (1875), II, 353-6; Cot, Notice sur l'abbaye royale de Hautecombe (Chambéry, 1836); Janauschek, Orig. Cisterc. (1877), I, 34,35; Lettres sur la royale abbaye de Hautecombe (Genoa, 1827); Coquet, L'Abbaye de Hautecombe in Ann. Soc. acad. archit. Lyon., VII, (1881-2), 89-103.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Jean de Hautefeuille

French physicist, b. at Orléans, 20 March, 1647; d. there, 18 October, 1724. He was the son of a baker and was brought up in humble circumstances. While a mere boy he attracted the notice of the Duchess of Bouillon and was aided by her in his studies. She proved a generous patroness to him during her life and left him a pension at her death. He travelled in her suite through England and Italy, and received several benefices from her, after his entrance into the ecclesiastical state. He was endowed with an inventive turn of mind, and gave much attention to the practical problems of mechanics and particularly of horology. One of his most important achievements in the improvement of timepieces was the proposal to employ a spiral spring with a balance wheel in place of a pendulum to control the mechanism. Huyghens and Hooke had also made the same suggestion, and each claimed the right of priority. To Huyghens, however, must he given the credit of perfecting the device, and the first watch provided with a hair spring is said to have been made under his direction. In acoustics Hautefeuille investigated the action of speaking trumpets, and wrote an essay on the cause of echoes which was crowned by the Academy of Bordeaux in 1718. He made improvements in lenses, and suggested a method of raising water by the explosive action of gun-powder. The phenomenon of the tides also excited his interest, and he invented an instrument called a thalassameter for their registration.

Though not without genius, Hautefeuille lacked the power of perfecting his inventions. He was too often inclined to publish his ideas prematurely and then abandon them to take up something new. The Paris Academy of Sciences attested the value and usefulness of many of his discoveries, but it never conferred on him the honour of electing him as a member. He was the author of a number of essays an a variety of subjects. Among them may be mentioned: "Explication de l'effet des trompettes parlantes" (1673); "Pendule perpétuelle, avec un moyen d'élever l'eau par la poudre à canon (1678); "L'art de respirer sous l'eau" (1692); "Nouvelle moyen de trouver la déclinaison de l'aiguille aimantée avec une grande précision" (1683); "Microscope micrométrique, gynomon horizontal, et instrument pour prendre les hauteurs des astres" (1703); "Problèmes d'horlogerie" (1719); "Nouveau système du flux et du reflux de la mer" (1719).

DELAUNAYE, in Biographie unverselle, XVIII; MONTUCLA, Hist. des math. (Paris, 1799), II, 421; POGGENDORP, Gesch. d. Physik (Leipzig, 1879).

HENRY M. BROCK

Hauteserre

(ALTESERRA).

(1) Antoine Dadin d'Hauteserre

Born 1602, died 1682; a distinguished French historian and canonist, dean of the faculty of law at the University of Toulouse. He had a familiar knowledge of the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers and the councils of the Church, and was held in the highest estimation by the French clergy. It was he who, at the request of two bishops, critically reviewed (1670) certain legal treatises concerning the appel comme d'abus and refuted them. He was the author of many important works on feudal and Roman law, the antiquities of Aquitaine, ecclesiastical and monastic antiquities, and the historical works of Gregory of Tours. Very noteworthy is his "Ecclesiasticae Jurisdictionis Vindictae" (Paris, 1707). His works appeared at Naples (16 vols., 1776-80).

Flavius Hauteserre

Younger brother of the above, died about 1670; professor of law at Poitiers, also a learned canonist and annotator (1630) of the early canonical collections of Fulgentius Ferrandus and Cresconius Afer.

JUGLER, Beitrage zur juristischen Biog. V (Leipzig, 1773-80), 51, 59; LAURIN in Kirchenlex., I, 638-640.

FRANCIS W. GREY

René-Just Haüy

Mineralogist; b. at Saint-Just (Oise), 28 Feb., 1743; d. at Paris, 3 June, 1822. His father was a poor weaver and he owed his early education to the monks of the Premonstratensian Abbey of saint-Just, who were struck by his talent and piety and his predilection for ecclesiastical chant. Their prior sent him to Paris, where he served for a time as chorister and then was admitted to the College of Navarre. After a successful course of study he was made one of the teaching staff. A few years later he was ordained priest and became Professor at the college of Cardinal Lemoine. Up to this time literature had been his chosen study but a friendship for one of his fellow-professors induced him to take up botany. His interest was, however, more powerfully awakened in mineralogy by some lectures of Daubenton which he happened to hear at the Jardin du Roi. The crystalline structure of minerals appealed to him more than their chemical or geological characteristics. It is said that while examining the crystal collection of Du Croisset, he had the misfortune to drop a fine specimen of calc-spar which broke into pieces. This accident proved the beginning of those exhaustive studies which made him the father of modern crystallography. He examined the fragments and was struck by the forms which they assumed. Many specimens were studied and he found that crystals of the same composition possessed the same internal nucleus, even though their external forms differed. He also established the law of symmetry and was able to show that the forms of crystal are perfectly definite and based an fixed laws.

The merit of his discoveries was early recognized by Daubenton and Laplace. They urged him to make them known to the Academy of Sciences, which admitted him membership. Besides his researches in crystallography, Haüy was also one of the pioneers in the development of pyro-electricity. After twenty years' service, he retired from his professorship at the college of Cardinal Lemoine, to devote himself exclusively to his favourite science. During the Revolution he suffered much in common with other ecclesiastics who refused to take the oath demanded of them. His papers were seized, has collection of crystals scattered, and he himself was imprisoned at the Seminaire de Saint-Firmin. Nothing, however, could disturb his equanimity. He continued his studies as before, and it was only with difficulty that his colleague and former pupil, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, could induce him to accept the release he had procured for him. In 1794 he was appointed curator of the Cabinet des Mines, and in the same year he became professor of physics at the Ecole Normale. After the death of Dolmieu he was appointed to the chair of mineralogy at the Museum of Natural History, in Paris, where he lectured with much success and materially increased the collections. After the Restoration he was deprived of his professorship and spent his last days in poverty. His courage and cheerfulness, however, never deserted him. His life was simple and his character lofty, and he ever remained faithful to his priestly duties. Few teachers have so thoroughly gained the affection of their students and the esteem and homage of their contemporaries. Napoleon held him in admiration and made him honorary canon of Notre Dame and one of the first members of the Legion of Honour.

Haüy was the author of many important works, the chief being "Essai d'une Théorie sur la Structure des Cristaux" (Paris, 1784); "Exposition raisonnée de la Théorie de l'Electricité et du Magnetisme" (Paris, 1787) "Traité de Minéralogie" (Paris, 1801); "Traité élémentaire de Physique" (Paris, 1803); "Traité de Cristallographie" (Paris, 1817).

CUVIER, Recuil des Eloges historiques lus dans les seances publiques de l'Institut royal de France (Paris, 1827), III, 123 -175; Walsh, Catholic Churchmen in Science (Philadelphia, 1906).

HENRY M. BROCK

Valentin Haüy

Founder of the first school for the blind, and known under the endearing name of "Father and Apostle of the Blind"; b. at Saint-Just, in the department of Picardy, France, 13 November, 1745: d. at Paris, 19 March, 1822. He received his early education with his elder brother, Réne, at the abbey school of the Premonstratensians, not far from Saint-Just. Valentin never became a priest. After his preliminary studies he went to Paris, where he applied himself to calligraphy and to modern languages. These he taught for a time, to support himself, until he became attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an interpreter of state papers and foreign despatches. The inspiration to devote the remainder of his life to the education of the blind came to Haüy in 1771 after witnessing at a fair, in one of the suburbs of Paris, burlesque performance in which the blindness of sightless beggars was made the object of ridicule and general merriment. "I shall substitute truth for mockery", he said to himself; "I shall teach the blind to read and to write, and give them books printed by themselves." This was no empty boast. The inspiration to do for the blind what the Abbé de l'Epée was then doing for the deaf and dumb became an accomplished fact thirteen years later. In June, 1784 Haüy sought his first pupil at the church door of Saint-Germain des Pres. Francois Lesueur, who was a beggar and blind from birth, was then sixteen years old. Haüy prevailed upon him to give up begging by promising to support his parents. Before the fall of 1786 Haüy had made the discovery of what had only dimly been foreshadowed, the art of printing books in relief for the blind. This discovery, the undisputed triumph of Haüy's ingenuity, solved for all time the most difficult problem in the education of the blind and, with the foundation of the first school for the blind, led to a movement which has resulted in the social and intellectual rehabilitation of the blind througthout the whole civilized world. By 5 December, 1786, Haüy's pupils had embossed from movable letterpress type his "Essai sur l'éducation des aveugles" the first book ever published for the blind (see S.V., EDUCATION OF THE BLIND, V, 308). On 26 December of the same year, twenty-four of Haüy's pupils gave at Versailles in the presence of Louis XVI and the royal family an exhibition of their attainments in reading, writing, geography, arithmetic, handcraft work, and orchestral music. With the patronage of the king, Haüy had also secured for his school the approbation of the Academy of Science and Arts and the support of the Philanthropic Society. During the French Revolution and the subsequent disorganization of the Philanthropic Society, Haüy's school lacked its wonted support. Although the National Assembly, and later on the Convention, had declared it a national institution and had voted for it an annual subsidy, yet so scanty was the help accorded to it that it barely survived the Reign of Terror. In 1801, on a report to Napoleon from Chaptal, Minister of the Interior, the school was merged with the Hospice Quinze-Vingts. A year later, Napoleon relieved Haüy of the direction of the school and granted him a pension of 2000 francs. ln February, 1802, Haüy started a private school in the rue Sainte-Avoye. Through lack of funds, however, the "Musée des Aveugles", his new foundation, never attained much prominence. In 1806, on the invitation of Alexander I, Haüy left for St. Petersburg where he founded, in 1808, a school for the blind, on the model of the National Institution in Paris. On his way to Russia, Haüy had an interview at Charlottenburg with Frederick William III of Prussia. He prevailed upon the king to found an institution for the blind at Berlin, and to appoint Dr. Zeune as its first director. From his arrival at St. Petersburg, 9 Sept., 1806, until his departure, Haüy's devotion and zeal in doing for the blind of Russia what he had done for those of his own native country were put to many a severe test, and rewarded with but scanty gratitude. Weakened with age and infirmity, Haüy wished to die in France. He left St. Petersburg in 1817. On his return to Paris he went to live with his brother, the Abbé Haüy, in whose arms he peacefully expired.

The publications of Valentin Haüy are his "Essai sur l'éducation des aveugles" (Paris, 1786), and "Mémoire historique sur les télégraphes" (Paris, 1810).

DE LA SlZERANNE, Les aveugles par un aveugle (Paris, 1904); MELL, Encyktopadisches Handbuch des Blindenwesens (Leipzig, 1900); GUILBEAU, Histoire de l'instruction nationale des jeunes aveugles (Paris, 1907).

JOSEPH M. STADELMAN

Mathias Hauzeur

A Franciscan theologian, b. at Verviers, 1589; d. at Liège 12 November, 1676, for many years professor of theology. He was a prolific writer and left behind twenty works, while, as a keen controversialist, he attained great celebrity in consequence of his disputation with the Calvinist preacher Gabriel Hotton, which continued from 19 to 22 April, 1633, and, was brought by Hauzeur to such a successful conclusion that the Catholics throughout the vicinity lit bonfires to celebrate his triumph. He describes this controversy in his "Accusation et conviction du Sieur Hotton" (Liège, 1633), issued also in Latin under the title "Conferentia publica inter M. Hauzeur et G. Hotton" (ibid., 1633). Other important works of Hauzeur are: "Exorcismes catholiques du maling esprit hérétique etc." (ibid., 1634), directed against the same opponent; "Equulcus ecclesiasticus, aculeatus exorcismis XXlII etc." (ibid., 1635), against the Calvinist Samuel des Maretz; "Praejudicia augustissima D. Augustini pro verâ Christi Ecclesiâ" (ibid. 1634) of which he published a Synopsis in French. He then combined the last-named three works in including in the new volume the "Livre de ce grand Docteur S. Augustine du soing qu'il faut porter pour les morts" (Liège, 1636). He also issued a Flemish translation of Augustin's "De utilitate credendi" (ibid., 1636), but his writings against Jansenism remained unpublished. His chief title to remembrance rests on his two great works, "Anatomia totius Augustissimae Doctrinae S. Augustini, secundum litteram . . . . et spiritum" (2 vols., Augustae Eburonum 1643-45), and "Collatio Totius Theologiae inter Maiores nostros Alexandrum Halensem, S. Bonaventuram, Fr. Joannem Druns Scotum, ad mentem S. Augustini" (2 vols., Liège and Namur, 1652). This work is really a commentary on the second, third, and fourth books of the "Sentences". Like the majority of Hauzeur's works, it was issued from the private press of Franciscans. In reply to Boverius's "Annales Ord. Min. Capucc". Hauzeur wrote the "Apologia Analogica pro vero ordine et successore S. Francisci" (Aug. Eburorum, 1650, and 1653).

SBARALEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores Ord. Min. (Rome, 1806), 531; DIRKS, Histoire litteraire et bibliographique des Freres Mineurs de l'Observance en Belgique (Antwerp, 1885), 246-56.

MICHAEL BIHL

Havana

Diocese of Havana (San Cristóbal de la Habana) — Avanensis

The city of Havana is situated in longitude 82° 21' west of Greenwich; latitude 23° 8' north. The present jurisdiction of the See of Havana comprises the two provinces of Havana and Matanzas. This city, while the chosen residence of the Cuban bishops on account of the means of communication afforded by the port and the protection afforded by its fortifications against pirates and sea-rovers, was not always the episcopal see. That honour belonged for a brief period to Baracoa (1518), and then to Santiago de Cuba (1522). As early as the eighteenth century (1786), King Charles III, having first consulted the Spanish Ministry of the Indies (Supremo Consejo de Indias), projected a partition, taking into consideration the excessive size of the Cuban diocese, which then comprised, besides the island itself, the territories of Louisiana and Florida. Rome confirmed this project by a pontifical Decree (10 September, 1787). The duty of effecting the partition was committed to Don José de Tres-Palacios, and his discretion and ability were rewarded by his appointment as first Bishop of Havana. The diocese comprised, by the disposition then made, the provinces of Santa Clara, Matanzas, Havana, and Pinar del Río, in Cuba, as well as Florida and Louisiana. The cathedral of Havana was erected as such in 1789.

Tres-Palacios was a man distinguished for moral rectitude and talent. Born at Salamanca, he was a doctor of that university, and, while still young, emigrated to Santo Domingo, where his merits obtained for him the post of vicar-general. He left this charge to assume the episcopal dignity of Porto Rico, where his labours in the cause of reform were interrupted by the commission to divide the old Cuban diocese. The episcopacy of Tres-Palacios coincides historically with a period of renovation in the economic, intellectual, and political life of Cuba. That island will always recognize as a great benefactor Don Luis de las Casas y Arragorri (1790-1796), whose efforts for education and for the progressive development of all classes on the island were without precedent, and have since remained without parallel, but his policy was infected with a secularizing tendency, which Tres-Palacios viewed with disapproval and combated with firmness. In this was to be found the secret of the bishop's dissension with Governor las Casas. That Tres-Palacios was not an ambitious man is proved by his administration, the crowning event of which was the erection of New Orleans into a see independent of Havana. New Orleans accordingly took as its bishop Don Luis María Peñalvery Cárdenas, a native of Havana, who set out for the new diocese 7 March, 1796. Tres-Palacios died 16 October, 1799.

His successor, Don Juan José Díaz Espada y Landa, was a bishop whose memory is greatly cherished by the people. He spent the ample revenues of his bishopric for the benefit of education and the public health, and no charitable undertaking ever sought his help in vain. Espada seconded the efforts of the Patriotic Society for the increase of the number of schools. The college of St. Francis de Sales, the work of Don Evelino de Compostela, and the Beneficencia counted him among their generous benefactors. At his own expense he sent Dr. J. B. O'Gaban to Madrid to study in the Pestalozzian Institute the new pedagogical methods in order to introduce them into Cuba. The college of San Jose, commonly called San Ignacio, which had been under the direction of the Jesuits, and after their expulsion (1767) was known as the seminary of S. Carlos, was the favourite object of his efforts in the sense of higher, or university, teaching. It is true that his tendencies diverged somewhat from the prescription of the Council of Trent, but his work on the whole evidenced a burning zeal for the higher culture of his country. To this marked determination of his must be attributed the lofty conception which issued in the chairs of physics and chemistry established in the college and the laboratories attached to them. Not less famous, indeed, were the chairs of law and philosophy, the latter of which the priest Félix Varela illuminated with a brilliancy surpassed by none. Of all native Cubans Varela must be accounted the most worthy of the name of philosopher. His was a wide and comprehensive intelligence, influenced unduly by the school of Condillac, but not shut up within its narrow limits, the result being a thoroughly eclectic mind with decidedly positive preferences, which rendered him antagonistic to Scholasticism and put him out of harmony with metaphysics. The proof of this is his "Institutiones Philosophiae Eclecticae ad usum studiosae juventutis" (1812), as well as the "Miscellany" (Miscelánea, Etica y Elencos anuales). His life is linked with the history of the Diocese of New York, where for some years he devoted himself to missionary work, founded churches, and edited publications ["The Protestant Abridger and Annotator" (1830), and "The Catholic Expositor and Literary Magazine" (1841-43)], to say nothing of the defence of Catholicism which he called "Letters to Elpidius". He became (1837) Vicar-General of New York. Espada was his inspiration and his mentor. As a promoter of public sanitation, Havana owes to Espada the old cemetery which bears his name, and the drainage of the marsh lands which have since been converted into the beautiful Campo de Marte. Famous, too, is his pastoral on vaccination, in which he annihilates prejudices and recommends the clergy to become propagators of Jenner's beneficent discovery. Espada y Landa was born at Arroyave, Alava, in 1756; his death 13 August, 1832, was an event pregnant with sorrow for the whole island of Cuba.

Don Pedro Valera y Jiménez (d. 1833), Archbishop of Santo Domingo, and Fray Ramón Casaus y Torres, a Franciscan (d. 1845), governed the Diocese of Havana as administrators Apostolic. The latter had been successively Bishop of Oajaca in Mexico, and of Guatemala. The arrival in Cuba of Don Francisco Fleix y Solans (1846-64) marked the beginning of a period fertile in enterprises for the renewal of spiritual life in a people dominated by indifference and the feverish ambition of lucre. The seminary, decadent and estranged from the Tridentine spirit, was soon placed under a system more adequate to that formation of sacerdotal character which is the aim of its existence. Fleix y Solans built and restored eighty-six churches and chapels which had been ruined or damaged by the hurricane of 1846. He introduced the organ and plain chant in the more important country churches. But the achievement which reflects most credit upon his episcopacy is the restoration of the religious orders. With this end he obtained from Queen Isabella II (1852) a partial restitution of the property of the regulars, and with this, concurrently with the re-establishment to some extent of the older ones which had been suppressed by legal enactments, he introduced new institutes adapted to the new exigencies. Thus arose the Franciscans, the Jesuits, and the Escolapios. The Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul took possession of the college of St. Francis de Sales and, subsequently, of other colleges, asylums, charitable institutions, and hospitals. The Religious of the Sacred Heart also opened their academy, and the Lazarist Fathers arrived to take up the work of missions and the education of the clergy.

Two of the most influential educational institutions in the country have been the Royal College of Belén, under the direction of the Jesuits, and the Pious Schools of Guanabacoa under the Sons of St. Joseph Calasanctius (Piarists). To the former of these belongs, moreover, the glory of its observatory which began its existence in 1857 under the direction of the Rev. A. Cabré, S.J. This institution having already obtained a position of prominence in 1863, under Father Ciampi, then received its first magnetic instruments. Its career as a scientific institution continued somewhat languidly and with difficulty until, in 1870, the religious with whose name as that of an organizer the glory of Belén will ever be inseparably linked took charge of the observatory — Father Benito Viñes, S.J., a man of a patient and investigative turn of mind, whose observation not the minutest details escaped, while he formulated principles and deduced general laws. For twenty-three years (1870-93) he persevered in his charge, and not only augmented the apparatus of observation, acquiring exact modern instruments (1882), but, moreover, gained honourable distinction and preminums at the Exhibitions of Philadelphia (1876), Paris (1878), Barcelona (1888), etc. His predictions were regarded in Cuba as oracles, and ship-captians looked upon him as their official adviser. In 1877 he published his work on West Indian hurricanes (Apuntes Relativos á los Huracanes de las Antillas), which, complemented by his posthumous "Investigaciones", constitutes the most complete and original work on the subject in existence. He was succeeded by Father Gangoiti, S.J., who had been his assistant. The observatory eventually established a seismographic station and still maintains its scientific prestige and its practical utility. Another work too important and interesting to be passed without mention was the foundation of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (1858), which owed to Fleix y Solans both the encouragement of his approving words and the substantial means of support for thirty destitute persons. Fleix y Solans died Archbishop of Tarragona. Fray Jacinto Martínez, consecrated in the chapel royal of Madrid in 1865, arrived at Havana in the same year. A Capuchin who had been a missionary in Venezuela and Mexico, President of the Oratory of St Philip at Havana in 1847, parish priest of Matanzas in 1853, and secretary of the legation sent by Pius IX to the Far East, as bishop he ruled his diocese with inflexible firmness and with elevation of purpose in the midst of political turmoil and confusion. Martínez, who died at Rome in 1873, was the author of, among other works, "Pius IX and the Italy of One Day" (Pío IX y la Italia de un dia), "Catholic Vigils" (Veladas Católicas), a treatise on the glories of the Blessed Virgin, and an historical essay on the Middle Ages (Edad Media comparada con los tiempos modernos). His successor in the see, Dr. Apolinaris Serrano y Díaz (September, 1875 to June, 1876), joined to the ardent zeal of an apostle the sweetness of the holy Bishop of Geneva.

Of architectural monuments, the chief among the sacred edifices of Cuba is the Church of the Merced (1867), the work of Father Jerónimo Viladás, C.M. (d. 1883). With the rococo style much in evidence in its older portion (1792), its grave and simple lines nevertheless resemble the Doric more than any other order, and its combination of the massive with the ornate produce a profoundly religious impression. The Cathedral of Havana is the old church of St. Ignatius converted into a parish church by Morell de Santa Cruz, enlarged by Don S. J. Echevarría, transformed by the first bishop, Tres-Palacios, and adorned with much magnificence by Espada y Landa. The high altar of Carrara marble is the work of Banchini. The diocese has been governed successively by Don Ramón Fernández Piérola from 1880 to 1886; Don Manuel Santander y Frutos from 1887 to 1900, when he resigned. From 1900 to 1901 the administration was in the hands of Monsignor Donato Sbarretti y Tazza. Among the diocesan publications are "La Verdad Católica" (1858); "El Eco de San Francisco" (1883); "La Revista Católica" (1876); the "Boletín Eclesiastico" (1880). Ecclesiastical discipline has been regulated throughout the various periods since the erection of the bishopric by the synodal decrees made in 1682 by Don Juan García de Palacios, Bishop of Santiago, which were later reprinted and annotated by Espada y Landa (1814), and again, in 1844, by Fray Ramón Casaus y Torres. In 1888-89 a synod was held by Don Manuel Santander y Frutos, and its enactments are still in force. Pope Leo XIII by the Brief "Actum Praeclare" 20 February, 1903, subdivided the Diocese of Havana into those of Pinar del Río and Cienfuegos. Don Pedro Gonzalez Estrada, who at present (1909) governs the latter diocese, is the first bishop since the partition, which came into effect 5 April, 1903, under the administration of Monsignor Placide Louis Chapelle, Archbishop of New Orleans, acting as Delegate Apostolic Extraordinary for the Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico.

DE ARRATE, La Habana Descripta (Havana, 1876); VALDES, Historia de la Isla de Cuba, y en especial de la Habana (Havana, 1877); DE LA PEZUELA, Diccionario Geog. Estad. Hist. de la Isla deCuba (Madrid, 1863-66); SAN PEDRO, Legislacion Ultramarina (Madrid, 1866); La Verdad Catolica (Habana). current volumes to 1864; Revista de Cuba (1882), XI; ROSAINZ, Necropolis de la Habana (Havana, 1875); CALCAGNO, Diccionario Biografico Cubano (New York, 1878); RODRIGUEZ, Vida del Presbitero D. Felix Varela (New York, 1878); VINES, Apuntes relativos a los Huracanes de las Antillas (Havana, 1877); Album commemorativo del Quincuagesimo del Colegio de Belen (Havana, 1904); Quincuagesimo Aniversario de la Instalacion en la Habana de la Sociedad de S. Vicente de Paul (Havana, 1908); TRELLES, Ensayo de Bibliografia Cubana (Matanzas, 1907); a supplement to the last-mentioned was published in 1908.

JUAN ALVAREZ

Bernhard Havestadt

German Jesuit; b. at Cologne, 27 February, 1714; died at Münster after 1778. He entered the Lower-Rhenish province of the order on 20 October, 1732, and in 1746 went to Chile. He was one of the 102 German Jesuits who laboured on the Chilian mission between 1720-67, and in the twenty years of his sojourn in the country, spent mostly among the Araucanian Indians, his displayed remarkable energy and ability. With his splendid linguistic gifts, knowing more or less perfectly nine languages, he took up with enthusiasm the study of Chilidugu, which, in his opinion, "towered over all other languages as the Andes over all other mountains". The result of these studies appeared in a work of great linguistic importance: "Chilidugu, sive Res Chilenses, vel descriptio, status tum naturalis, tum civilis, cum moralis regni populique Chilensis, inserta suis, locis perfectæ ad Chilensem linguam manuductioni etc." (3 vols., Münster, 1777). This work was written in Germany after the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish colonies; it had been originally composed in Spanish, and was now issued in Latin. Besides a grammar and dictionary, it includes copious specimens of the native Chilian tongue, hymns, and valuable ethnographic notes, etc. The work was re-issued in two volumes by the well-known Americanist Dr. Julius Platzmann (Leipzig, 1883), under its original title, "Chilidugu sive tractatus linguæ Chilensis" (see Zarncke, "Literar. Centralblatt", 1883, col. 693).

Huonder, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäre (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 133; von Murr, journal (Nuremburg, 1776-90), I, 122 sqq.: Idem, Nachrichten aus verschiedenen Ländern der spanischen Amerika, II (Halle, 1810), 431 sqq.; Adelung und Vater, Mithridates (Berlin, 1806-17), III, 2, 404; Enrich, Hist. de la Comp. de Jésus en Chile, II (Barcelona, 1891), 213, 294, 352, and elsewhere; Zwölf Missionsspredigten . . . durch den Wolchrw. Herrn. Bernhardt Havestadt, chemaligen Missionarium aus der Gesell. Jesu (Cologne, 1778), which contains some bibliographical information.

A. HUONDER

Edward Hawarden

(HARDEN).

Theologian and controversialist, b. in Lancashire, England, 9 April, 1662; d. in London, 23 April, 1735. The loyalty to the Faith that came to be a heritage among the Hawardens is testified by their maintenance of domestic chapels in their residences in Appleton and Widnes throughout the period of persecution, as well as the frequent appearance of the name on the list of non-jurors and the recusant-rolls. Edward, after a brilliant course at the English College, Douai remained there as a classical tutor, and after his ordination (7 June, 1686), as professor of philosophy. In 1688 having taken the bachelor's degree at the University of Douai, he spent two months as tutor of divinity at Magdalen College, Oxford, which James II purposed making a seat of Catholic education, but the impending revolution forced him to return to Douai, where he soon proceeded D.D. and was installed in the chair of divinity. In 1702 he was persuaded by the all but unanimous desire of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of Douai to take part in the concurrence for one of the royal chair of divinity in the university, but the influence of a hostile minority secured the installation of another candidate by mandatory letters from the court. Shortly afterwards complaints were lodged at Rome that the Douai professors, Dr. Hawarden in particular, were propagating the errors of Jansenism, but official investigation completely exonerated all.

In 1707 Hawarden left Douai to take charge of the mission of Gilligate, Durham, and later Aldcliffe Hall, near Lancaster. The quaint brief entrees in the Tyldesley Diary give an idea of his daily life until the seizure of Aldcliffe Hall in 1717, after which he removed to London, probably on his appointment as controversy-writer. Dr. Hawarden received the thanks of the University of Oxford for his able defence of the Blessed Trinity in the famous conference with Dr. Samuel Clarke (1719). Among his works are: "The True Church of Christ, shewed by Concurrent Testimonies of Scripture and Primitive Tradition" (London, 1714); "The Rule of Faith truly stated in a new and easy Method" (London, 1721); "Charity and Truth or Catholicks not uncharitable in saying that none are saved out of the Catholick Communion, because the Rule is not Universal" (Brussels, 1728); "An Answer to Dr. Clarke and Mr. Whiston concerning the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (London, 1729); a collective edition of his works was published at Dublin in 1808.

SUTTON in Dict. Nat. Birg., s. v., GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Tyldesley Diary, ed. GILLOW AND HEWITSON (Preston, 1873); Douay Diaries, ed. KNOX: (1878).

F.M. RUDGE

Stephen Hawes

Poet; b. in Suffolk about 1474; d. about 1523. Very little is known of his life. He was educated at Oxford, and afterwards travelled and visited some foreign universities. He seems to have studied English literature as well as foreign languages, and on his return from abroad became groom of the chamber to Henry VII. According to Anthony a Wood's account, he was noted for his wit and his at memory, being able to repeat by heart many of the English poets, especially Chaucer and Lydgate. While attached to the court he wrote, about 1506, his best known poem, "The Passetyme of Pleasure", which went through several editions during the next half century. It is an allegory written, with the exception of a few heroic couplets, in the seven-line stanza known as rime royal, and consists of nearly six thousand lines in forty-five divisions or chapters.

The poem is an attempt to revive the type of medieval allegory which had its origin in the "Romaunt of the Rose" and which had almost passed away. Its matter, "an allegory of the life of a man", shows the poetics learning and some ingenuity in fashioning allegories detail. Its versification marks, on the whole, the extraordinary low ebb which poetry at this date had reached, though here and there stanzas of some charm appear. Hawes wrote also some shorter poems, amongest which are "The Example of Virtue", another allegory, "The Conversion of Swearers", an exhortation against swearing by the Body of Christ; and a coronation poem on the accession of Henry VIII. John Bale's remark upon the life of Hawes, virtutis exemplum, is agreed with by all who judge the poet from has writings.

Works

"The Passetyme of Pleasure", ed. Wright Percy Society (London, 1845); "The Conversion of Swearers", ed. Abbotsford Club (Edinburgh, 1865); "A joyful Medytacyon to All Englande of the Coronation of Henry VIII", ed. Abbotsford Club (Edinburgh, 1865). Dict. Nat. Biog. s. v.; Cambridge Hist. Eng. Lit.. (Cambridge, 1908), WOOD, Athenae (Oxford, 1848), I; See also the preface of the Abbotsford Club edition, above.

K.M. WARREN

Robert Stephen Hawker

Poet and antiquary; b. at Plymouth 3 December, 1803, d. there 15 August, 1875, son of Jacob Stephen Hawker, M. D., who took orders soon after the birth of his son Robert and became vicar of Stratton, Cornwall. He was educated at Liskeard Grammar School, and, at the age of sixteen, placed with a solicitor at Plymouth. But the law was distasteful to him, and his aunt bore the expense of sending him to Cheltenham Grammar School. Here he published, in 1821, "Tendrils", a small book of poems not of much literary value. In 1823 he went to Pembroke College, Oxford, and within a year married Charlotte I'ans, a Cornish lady twenty vears older than himself, a marriage that brought him much happiness. He continued (though with a change of college) his undergraduate life at Oxford, and in 1827 won the Newdigate prize for a poem on Pompeii. He took his degree in 1828 and Church of England orders in 1831. After filling a curacy at N. Tamerton in Cornwall, he was appointed, in 1834, vicar of Morwenstow, a parish with a dangerous rocky coast on the north-east of the same country. Here until his death he lived all active life as the pastor of a sea-faring population, and gave liberally of his means to the parish. Amongst other things he restored the church and parsonage, established a school, and set on foot, when rural dean, periodical synods of the surrounding clergy. From the many wrecks round the coast of his parish he succoured escaped sailors and buried the washed-up bodies of those who were drowned. Beyond these activities he was all enthusiastic student of the history and legends of the Cornish people which he embodied in many prose essays as well as in his poems. He was a true poet, though, in the judgment of the best critics, he just missed being a great one. From 1832, when he put forth his first important piece of work, "Records of the Western Shore", until the end of his life he produced a long series of romantic and religious poems, the finest of which is the "Quest of the San Graal", and the most famous the "Ballad of Trelawney". His religious views as embodied in his preaching and in these poems were those of the Tractarians. In 1863 his wife died, and his loneliness became extreme. In 1864 he married again, a Polish lady, Pauline Anne Kuczynski, by whom he had three daughters. Hawker's impulsive and artistic temperament led him into continual acts of generosity as well as of imprudence which kept him pecuniarly embarrassed. These difficulties increased as years went on doubtless undertermined his health, which began to fail in 1873. On his death-bed, 14 August, 1875, he was received into the Catholic Church. He had always possessed Catholic instincts and from some of his letters it is fairly clear that he had been gradually turning more and more towards Rome in later years. His reception caused a hot debate in the press concerning the question of his previous loyalty to the Anglican Church, a debate which has never since quite ceased. His "Cornish Ballads and other Poems" was re-edited by Byles (London, 1904), and his prose works by Goodwin (London, 1893).

COURTNEY in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; BYLES, Life and Letters of R. S. Hawer (London, 1905); GILLOW, Bilb. Dict. of Eng. Cath., s. v.

K.M. WARREN

Sir Henry Hawkins

Raised to the peerage as Lord Brampton, eminent English lawyer and Judge, b. at Hitchin, Hertfordshire, 14 September, 1817; d. at London, 12 October, 1907. He was the eldest son of John Hawings, solicitor of Hitchin. Educated at Bedford School, he was articled to an uncle, a country solicitor, but, "hating the drudgery of an attorney's office", he went to London, studied at the Middle Temple, and was called to the Bar in May, 1843. Without either money or influence to help him, he made his mark as an advocate by sheer hard work, and in 1858 became a Queen's Counsel. He was engaged in many famous lawsuits, including the great Tichborne case, in which his cross-examination of the leading witnesses for the false claimant of the estates completely exposed the fraudulent nature of the claim. He then successfully conducted the prosecution of the claimant. He was appointed a judge of the Queen's Bench and was knighted in November, 1875. Next year he married a Catholic lady, Jane Louisa, daughter of H. F. Reynolds of Hulme, Lancashire. The decisions of Judge Hawkins were noted for their combination of sound law and shrewd common sense. Stern where his duty required it, he was kindly and merciful to mere human weakness, and was opposed to long or vindictive sentences. His kindly disposition was also shown in his love of animals, and he was strongly opposed to vivisection. His country education made him find his recreation in outdoor sports; he was often seen at the races, though he did not bet, and was a prominent member of the Jockey Club. He retired from the Bench in 1898, and the next year was raised to the peerage, taking his title from Brampton, Huntingdonshire, where he had some property. Among his many friends was Cardinal Manning. "He never tried to proselytize me", wrote Lord Brampton, "he left me to my own free uncontrolled and uncontrollable action. My reception into the Church of Rome was purely of my own free choice and will, and according to the exercise of my own judgment. I thought for myself and acted for myself or I should not have acted at all. I have always been and am satisfied that I was right." He was received into the Church by Cardinal Vaughan in the summer of 1898. Three years after, in reply to an inquiry, he wrote "it was the result of my deliberate conviction that the truth—which was all I sought—lay within the Catholic Church. I thought the matter out for myself, anxiously and seriously, uninfluenced by any human being, and I have unwavering satisfaction in the conclusion at which I arrived." In thanksgiving for his conversion he founded the beautiful chapel of Sts. Gregory and Augustine in the new cathedral of Westminster; altogether he contributed some 10,000 pounds to the building of the cathedral. He left no heir to his title.

HARRIS, ed., Reminiscences of Sir Henry Hawkins, Lord, Brarnpton (London, 1904), II, reprinted in Nelson's Shilling Library (1908); IDEM, Illustrations in Advocacy (4th ed.), gives an account of the Tichborne case.—His conversion is noticed in BAUPERT, Roads to Rome (3d ed., 1908).

A. HILLIARD ATTERIDGE

Hay

(1) Edmund Hay

Jesuit, and envoy to Mary Queen of Scots, b. 1540?; d. at Rome, 4 Nov., 1591. he was the son of Peter Hay of Megginch (castle still standing), the bailie of Errol, and related to the earl of that title. In 1562 (being already a B. D., probably of Paris University), he was selected to accompany Father Nicolas de Gouda (Floris), S. J., on his mission (June to September, 1562) from Pius IV to Mary Queen of Scots, then lately returned to Scotland, Hay practically took charge of the mission, and conducted de Gouda amid many dangers to the queen's presence in a small room at Holyrood, while the majority of the court were hearing a Calvinistic sermon; and he acted as interpreter during the important meeting, a full account of which will be found in de Gouda's report (Pollen, "Papal Negotiations", 113-161). Before they returned to the continent, Hay had persuaded a small band of young men to accompany him and to offer themselves to the Society. They comprised William Crichton, Robert Abercromby (the future chaplain of Queen Anne of Denmark), James Tyrie, James Gordon, and two others, all of whom did splendid service for their country in later years. Hay made his studies at Rome with rapidity and distinction. Sent to Innsbruck in 1564, he became confessor to the archduchesses of Austria, and gained such favour that he was with difficulty removed to Paris to become rector of Clermont college. He was already regarded as the probable head of the Scottish mission, and was commissioned to report to Rome on the varying fortunes of that country and its queen. In 1566, St. Pius V resolved to send Bishop, afterwards Cardinal, Laureo to Mary as nuncio, and Hay was to accompany him. Hay started first (6 November) with the Piedmontese envoy Du Croc to see what could be done. Their object was to induce the queen to break with Murray, Lethington, and the other Protestant ministers, whose conduct in the violent scenes that accompanied the murder of Rizzio showed that they were not only faithless, but capable of appalling crime.

On 14 January, 1567, the momentous interview took place. The last Catholic sovereign of Scotland was receiving the last envoys from Rome to Holyrood. If they had the inspiration to say exactly the right thing, and to urge it with sufficient skill, her whole future might have changed. Unfortunately, Laureo had ordered Hay to ask for the execution of the treacherous ministers, and this was demanding more than Mary was at all likely to grant. She answered that "she could not stain her hands with her subjects' blood". Before the envoys could return, the queen's refusal became relatively unimportant in consequence of the murder of Darnley (10 February): a crime carried out with the connivance, if not the full consent, of that party in Mary's council from whose influence Father Hay had wished her to free herself. He was in Edinburgh at the time, and his reports, being those of a friendly, well-informed witness, cannot but be considered of the greatest importance in regard to Mary's guilt or innocence. Like other representative Catholics, who were at that moment in touch with the circumstances of the case, he took a view adverse to Mary, and afterwards significantly described her as "peccatrix". Back in Paris, 15 March, 1567, Hay was soon appointed provincial of France, till 6 September, 1574, during the difficult years that covered the conflict between the University of Paris and Father Maldonatus. He was next rector of the college of Pont-à-Mousson, till 1581. He then returned again to Paris and filled the responsible post of consultor to the Province. In 1585, he was sent back the third time to Scotland with Father James Gordon, but was forced to return after two of three years, so harsh was the persecution. He was once more placed in high office, called to Rome, and chosen "assistant" for Germany and France, but his health was undermined by the severity of his missionary life, and he soon died.

(2) John Hay

Kinsman and contemporary of Edmund, of the family of Hay of Dalgetti; b., 1546; d. at Pont-à-Mousson, 1608; a well-known scholar, professor, and writer. When a student he fell into consumption and was spitting blood. While going to consult a doctor in Strasburg, in 1576, he found that a Protestant (? Ambrose, Pape of Wittenberg), was challenging Catholics to disputation and that no one would appear against him. The Scot promptly entered the lists and soon defeated his adversary. He then returned to Scotland for a while, and was completely restored by his native air. He was afterwards stationed at Tournon, where he carried on long and vigorous polemics against the Huguenots at La Rochelle, especially with Jean de Serres, and in later life he published Latin translations of Jesuit letters from the missions.

Pollen, Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots (Scotland Hist. Soc., Edinburgh, 1901); Forbes-Leith, Narratives of Scottish Catholics (London, 1889); Prat, Maldonat at l'Université de Paris (Paris, 1856); Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., IV (Brussels, 1896), 161-165.

J.H. POLLEN

George Hay

Bishop and writer, b. at Edinburgh, 24 Aug., 1729; d. at Aquhorties, 18 Oct., 1811. His parents were Protestant, his father having been a non-juring Episcopalian, sentenced to banishment for his adherence to the Stuarts in 1715. Destined for a medical career, young Hay began his studies at Edinburgh university, and when barely sixteen found himself summoned, after the battle of Prestonpans, to attend the wounded soldiers on the battlefield. He afterwards followed the army of Charles Edward for some months; but before the decisive fight at Culloden illness compelled him to return to Edinburgh. He was later arrested for having participated in the rising, and taken to London, where he was kept in custody for twelve months. Here a Catholic bookseller named Neighan gave him his first insight into Catholic teaching, and on his return to Scotland he studied Gother's well-known work, "The Papist Represented and Misrepresented". An introduction to Father Seaton, a Jesuit missionary at Edinburgh, was followed by a prolonged course of instruction, and Hay was received into the Catholic Church, making his first communion 21 Dec., 1749.

Debarred by the penal laws from graduating or receiving his medical diploma, he accepted an appointment as surgeon on a trading vessel bound for the Mediterranean. While in London, on his way to join his ship, he became acquainted with the illustrious Bishop Challoner. The result of their intercourse was that May determined to enter the priesthood, and on the arrival of his vessel at Marseilles, Hay journeyed to Rome, where he studied in the Scots' College for nearly eight years. Among his fellow-students was the future Cardinal Erskine. In April, 1758, he was ordained priest by Cardinal Spinelli, and on his return to Scotland was appointed to assist Bishop Grant in the important district of the Enzie, in Banffshire. In 1766 Bishop Grant succeeded Bishop Smith as Lowland Vicar Apostolic, and soon afterwards procured the appointment of Hay as his coadjutor. He was consecrated on Trinity Sunday, 1769, and thenceforward for nearly forty years sustained practically the whole burden of the vicariate.

Of strong constitution and untiring energy, as well as sterling piety and zeal, he did an immense work for religion in Scotland during this period. The stress of his ministerial labours did not prevent him from doing much active literary work. He published the first English Catholic Bible printed in Scotland; but the work which secured his own reputation as a religious writer was his complete cycle of Catholic doctrine entitled "The Sincere, Devout, and Pious Christian" published 1781-86, and still recognized as a work of standard value. Bishop Hay's own life was a perfect example of that ordered devotion and assiduous labour which he inculcated in his writings, and his calm and equable temperament was proof against the many trials and difficulties inseparable from his position as a Catholic prelate under the penal laws. The Scottish Catholics, numbering at this time some 25,000, were, through the operation of these iniquitous statutes, in a condition little better than that of slaves or outlaws. Bishop Hay's efforts to procure some relief for his co-religionists aroused a storm of fanatical fury, and in February, 1779, the chapel and house which he had recently built in Edinburgh were burned by the mob. Very inadequate compensation for this outrage was made by the magistrates, and the outbreak of the Gordon Riots in England, in 1780, further delayed the long-hoped-for relief. In 1793, however, Bishop Hay had the satisfaction of seeing his flock released by Act of Parliament from the most oppressive of the penal laws. He had meanwhile laboured not only for the Church at home, but also to improve the condition of the national colleges at Rome and Paris. His great object, in regard to the college at Rome, was to have it placed under the control of Scottish superiors. His efforts on behalf of the institute in Paris were interrupted by the French Revolution, in which it was entirely swept away. The bishop's last public work was the foundation of a new seminary at Aquhorties, in Aberdeenshire, and here, after transferring, with the sanction of Pius VII, the entire government of the Lowland District to his coadjutor, Bishop Cameron, he died, deeply regretted, at the age of eighty-three.

STOTHERT, Life of Hay in Gordon, Scotichronicon, IV; STRAIN, Memoir in his ed. of Hay's Works, I; MACPHERSON, History of Scottish Missions; BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Irelend, and Scotland, II, III (Rome, 1876); Archives of Propaganda: Scozia, passim; Scots Magazine, XL, XLI; BELLESHEIM, Hist. of the Cath. Church in Scotland. IV (Edinburgh, 1890); Catholic Magazine and Review, 276-282.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Johann Michael Haydn

A younger brother of Franz Joseph Haydn; born at Rohrau, Austria, 14 September, 1737; died at Salzburg, 10 August, 1806. In 1745, Michael Haydn entered the choir of the Cathedral of St. Stephen, in Vienna, where his brother Joseph had been active as soprano soloist since 1740. By the order of the choir-master, Johann Adam Karl Reuter, Joseph was entrusted with the musical education of his younger brother. They were together in the choir for three years. When Joseph's soprano voice gave out, Michael succeeded him as soloist, remaining with St. Stephen's choir until 1755. In 1757 he was called to Grosswardein to serve Archbishop Sigismund as choir- master of his cathedral, and in 1762 he accepted the position of orchestra conductor to the Prince-Archbishop Hieronymus of Salzburg, later assuming also the duties of organist at the church of St. Peter, at Salzburg, which was presided over by the Benedictines. The latter he subsequently exchanged for similar duties at the cathedral. Although Michael Haydn retained these honourable positions to the end of his days, i.e. for almost forty- four years, during the first years of his incumbency his services were not quite satisfactory to his employers, nor did they call forth the approval of his contemporaries, among whom were Leopold Mozart and his great son Wolfgang. Neither his musical activities nor his personal conduct were edifying to those around him. But his wife, the court singer, Maria Magdalena Lipp, daughter of the cathedral choir-master, was a person of extraordinary piety and austerity of life, and she seems to have wrought such a change in her husband that his slothfulness and inertia gave place to wonderful activity and industry.

As was the custom among composers in his day, and by virtue also of his function as conductor and organist, Haydn wrote in every form of composition, but by predilection on liturgical texts. To the musical interpretation of these he undoubtedly devoted his best efforts. We can form an idea of his great productivity (which, however, does not equal his brother's) when we consider that he wrote twenty-four masses, four so-called German masses (consisting of five or six numbers to be sung during low Mass), two requiems, one hundred and fourteen graduals, sixty-seven offertories, litanies, vespers, cantatas, oratorios, and several operas. Among his instrumental works are thirty symphonies, serenades, marches, minuets, string quartettes, and fifty preludes for the organ. Michael Haydn had an aversion to seeing his works in print, and most of his productions remained in manuscript. His style might be called eclectic. His tendency was to unite the salient traits and characteristics of contemporary masters who wrote for the Church. While he gave to everything he wrote a certain personal stamp, his individuality and depth of conception were not sufficiently pronounced to preserve many of his works to posterity. Some of his organ compositions are contained in B. Kothe's "Handbuch fur Organisten", and the same author's "Praludienbuch". Kothe's collection "Musica Sacra", Seiler's "Laudate Dominum" and "Sammlung leicht ausfuhrlicher Kirchenmusik", published by the Caecilienverein of Salzburg, contain some of his vocal works. A complete collection of the unpublished works of Michael Haydn is preserved in the library of the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter, at Salzburg.

WOOLDRIDGE, Oxford History of Music, V (Oxford, 1904); JAHN, W. A. Mozart, II (Leipzig, 1867); MENDEL, Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon (Berlin, 1875).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Franz Joseph Haydn

Born of staunch Catholic parents at Rohrau, Austria, 1 April, 1732; died at Gumpendorf, Vienna, 31 May, 1809. He began his great musical career in the choir-school of St. Stephen's, Vienna. For nine years he was a chorister there, and yielded his place as solo-boy to his younger brother Michael when the inevitable signs of change appeared in his voice. During these years he manifested an extraordinary passion for music, availing himself of every opportunity to improve his knowledge of the art. He was enabled to pursue his musical studies. At this time he came under the influence of Emanuel Bach, Dittersdorf, and Porpora, who may be said to have been his principal masters, although the credit of his remarkable achievements must be given rather to his own incessant industry than to any particular instruction. The year 1756 found Haydn so well informed in the various branches of his art that he began to be ranked among the first music-masters of Vienna. In 1759 he accepted the appointment of vice-capellmeister to Count Morzin, a Bohemian nobleman, who maintained an orchestra at his country-house. His contract with this prince brought him into the daily necessity of composing "divertimenti" for the orchestra, thus affording a splendid opportunity for the study of instrumentation. It was at this time that Haydn made the mistake of contracting a loveless marriage with Maria Anna Keller. Had he been more prudent in the choice of a spouse, perhaps his after life might have been free from the suspicions which his relations with other women justify. By temperament he was deeply religious, and gave back to Almighty God, in his compositions for the services of the Church, the talent with which he was so richly endowed.

In 1761 he became vice-capellmeister at Eisenstadt, and in 1766 went as capellmeister with Prince Nicholaus to his new palace at Esterház. His life during these years was of singular steadiness of purpose. The duties of his position were most arduous, involving the necessity of providing daily orchestral recitals, two operatic performances and at least each week one concert. He received a salary of one hundred pounds annually. In 1785 he joined the Freemasons to please his friend Mozart, who was an ardent member; and it is not clear how long he remained in that society. Upon the occasion of his two visits to London (1791 and 1794) he was hailed as the greatest musician of the day, and received marked attention from royalty. The University of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Music. His career in London was brilliant, and his successes signal. Salomon's orchestra was the vehicle he chose to introduce his compositions to the English public, and the twelve symphonies performed under his direction created a profound impression. He left London in 1795, and in January, 1797, moved to Gumpendorf, Vienna, where he died.

As a composer, Haydn will always be spoken of with reverence. He was the founder of the Viennese school of composition. His career began at the time when the accepted conventions of the Palestrinesque school of counterpoint had been abandoned as the last word in music. A craving for more liberty of style and greater breadth of conception was felt among the musicians of Haydn's day, and, catering to the growing taste, he built up a school of composition which became so popular, through his contributions and those of Mozart and Beethoven, that history has made it the starting point of modern composition. He has been hailed as the "father of instrumentation", the "inventor of the symphony", the "creator of modern chamber music". His instrumental compositions include 125 symphonies, 31 concertos, 77 quartets, 30 trios, and more than 300 compositions for wind and string instruments. His contributions to ecclesiastical music comprise 14 Masses, 1 Stabat Mater, 2 Te Deums, and 34 offertories and anthems. Haydn's "Masses" have been particularly popular, especially in Germany, and have many features which recommend them, but the reform of Church music instituted by Pope Pius X has equivalently debarred them from use at liturgical services, in some instances on account of the alterations and repetitions effected in the text, and in others because of the operatic character of the music itself, which Mendelssohn is reported to have styled "scandalously gay". In the field of vocal writing Haydn was not notably successful; his solos are not on the same level as his other works, but his three and four part songs are generally accorded the same high appreciation given to his more pretentious efforts. In opera, he cannot be said to have achieved any remarkable success. Although he contributed over twenty compositions to the operatic repertoire, not one of them or all of them together made the impression so widely felt at the hearing of his oratorios. His best known operas are "Acide e Galatea" and "Orfeo". The works which have made Haydn's name immortal are his oratorios, not so much because of their intrinsic merit musically, but because of the appeal they have made to popular taste. The composition of the "Creation" was suggested to Haydn by Salomon as the crowning effort of his great career. It was received enthusiastically in Vienna, London and Paris, and until a quarter of a century ago it divided popularity with the masterpieces of Handel. The other well-known oratorios of Haydn are "The Seasons", the "Seven Last Words of Christ", the "Return of Tobias".

POHL, Mozart and Haydn (Vienna, 1867); HADOW, A Croatian composer (1897); MASON, Beethoven and his Forerunners (1904); HADOW, The Viennese Period in Oxford History of Music, V (1904); POHL in GROVE, Dictionary of Music and Musicians, s.v. (New York, 1906).

WILLIAM J. FINN

Ven. George Haydock

English martyr; born 1556; executed at Tyburn, 12 February, 1583-84. He was the youngest son of Evan Haydock of Cotton Hall, Lancashire, and Helen, daughter of William Westby of Mowbreck Hall, Lancashire; was educated at the English Colleges at Douai and Rome, and ordained priest (apparently at Reims), 21 December, 1581. Arrested in London soon after landing, he spent a year and three months in the strictest confinement in the Tower, suffering from the recrudescence of a severe malarial fever first contracted in the early summer of 1581 when visiting the seven churches of Rome. About May, 1583, though he remained in the Tower, his imprisonment was relaxed to "free custody", and he was able to administer the Sacraments to his fellow-prisoners. During the first period of his captivity he was accustomed to decorate his cell with the name and arms of the pope scratched or drawn in charcoal on the door or walls, and through his career his devotion to the papacy amounted to a passion. It therefore gave him particular pleasure that on the following feast of St. Peter's Chair at Rome (16 January) he and other priests imprisoned in the Tower were examined at the Guildhall by the recorder touching their beliefs, though he frankly confesses it was with reluctance that he was eventually obliged to declare that the queen was a heretic, and so seal his fate. On 5 February, 1583-4, he was indicted with James Fenn, a Somersetshire man, formerly fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the future martyr William Deane (q.v.), who had been ordained priest the same day as himself, and six other priests, for having conspired against the queen at Reims, 23 September, 1581, agreeing to come to England, 1 October, and setting out for England, 1 November. In point of fact he arrived at Reims on 1 November, 1581. On the same 5 February two equally ridiculous indictments were brought, the one against Thomas Hemerford, a Dorsetshire man, sometime scholar of St. John's College, Oxford, the other against John Munden, a Dorsetshire man, sometime fellow of New College, Oxford, John Nutter, a Lancashire man, sometime scholar of St. John's College, Cambridge, and two other priests. The next day, St. Dorothy's Day, Haydock, Fenn, Hemerford, Munden, and Nutter were brought to the bar and pleaded not guilty.

Haydock had for a long time shown a great devotion to St. Dorothy, and was accustomed to commit himself and his actions to her daily protection. It may be that he first entered the college at Douai on that day in 1574-5, but this is uncertain. The "Concertatio Ecclesiae" says he was arrested on this day in 1581-2, but the Tower bills state that he was committed to the Tower on the 5th, in which case he was arrested on the 4th. On Friday the 7th all five were found guilty, and sentenced to death. The other four were committed in shackles to "the pit" in the Tower, but Haydock, probably lest he should elude the executioner by a natural death, was sent back to his old quarters. Early on Wednesday the 12th he said Mass, and later the five priests were drawn to Tyburn on hurdles; Haydock, being probably the youngest and certainly the weakest in health, was the first to suffer. An eyewitness has given us an account of their martyrdom, which Father Pollen, S.J., has printed in the fifth volume of the Catholic Record Society.

He describes Haydock as "a man of complexion fayre, of countenance milde, and in professing of his faith passing stoute". He had been reciting prayers all the way, and as he mounted the cart said aloud the last verse of "Te lucis ante terminum". He acknowledged Elizabeth as his rightful queen, but confessed that he had called her a heretic. He then recited secretly a Latin hymn, refused to pray in English with the people, but desired that all Catholics would pray for him and his country. Whereupon one bystander cried "Here be noe Catholicks", and another "We be all Catholicks"; Haydock explained "I meane Catholicks of the Catholick Roman Church, and I pray God that my bloud may encrease the Catholick faith in England". Then the cart was driven away, and though "the officer strock at the rope sundry times before he fell downe", Haydock was alive when he was disembowelled. So was Hemerford, who suffered second. The unknown eyewitness says, "when the tormentor did cutt off his members, he did cry, `Oh! A!'; I heard myself standing under the gibbet". As for Fenn, "before the cart was driven away, he was stripped of all his apparell saving his shirt only, and presently after the cart was driven away his shirt was pulled of his back, so that he hung stark naked, whereat the people muttered greatly". He also was cut down alive, though one of the sheriffs was for mercy. Nutter and Munden were the last to suffer. They made speeches and prayers similar to those uttered by their predecessors. Unlike them they were allowed to hang longer, if not till they were dead, at any rate until they were quite unconscious. Haydock was twenty-eight, Munden about forty, Fenn, a widower, with two children, was probably also about forty, Hemerford was probably about Haydock's age; Nutter's age is quite unknown.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., III, 202; cf. III, 265; V, 142, 201; CATHOLIC RECORD SOCIETY, publications (London, 1905-), II, V, passim, III, 12-15; IV, 74; FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S.J., VI (London, 1875-1883), 74, 103; BRIDGEWATER, Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae (Trier, 1588), passim; WAINEWRIGHT in CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY's pamphlets: George Haydock; James Fenn; John Nutter; Two English Martyrs; POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891), 252, 253, 304.

J.B. WAINEWRIGHT

George Leo Haydock

Priest and Biblical scholar; b. 11 April, 1774, at Cottam, near Wood Plumpton, Lancashire; d. 29 Nov, 1849, at Penrith, Cumberland. At an early age he was placed in a school kept by the Rev. Robert Banister at Mowbreck Hall, near Kirkham, and in 1785 entered the English College of Douai. In the beginning of the French Revolution he escaped from Douai, August, 1793, in company with his brother Thomas and one of the minor professors. He stayed for a short while at Old Hall Green, near Ware, Hertfordshire, but went to his home at the Tagg on 3 November, 1794, where he remained until January, 1796, when he rejoined some of his Douai companions in the college at Crook Hall, Durham. After being ordained priest on 22 September, 1798, he held the offices of general prefect and master of all the schools under poetry till 26 January, 1803, Receiving 5 pounds (25 dollars) for his five years' work. Next he took charge of the poor mission at Ugthorpe, Yorkshire, and in July, 1816, the mission of Whitby, whence he was removed on 22 September, 1830, to the mission at Westby Hall, Lancashire, owing to a misunderstanding with his superiors. On 19 August, 1831, he was forbidden to say Mass by Bishop Penswick, whereupon he retired for the succeeding eight years to the Tagg, devoting himself to study. In 1832 he twice appealed to the Propaganda, but both his letters were intercepted and sent to the bishop; after his third appeal in 1838, his faculties were restored on 18 November, 1839, and he was appointed to the mission at Penrith where he spent his last ten years. Father Haydock's chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Reims in 1582, and at Douai in 1609; Bishop Challoner's text of 1750 was the basis of the work, but in the New Testament Dr. Troy's edition of 1794 is largely followed. The notes are partly original, partly selected from other writers, those on the New Testament not having been compiled by Father Haydock. The edition appeared in Manchester, 1812-14; Dublin, 1812-13; Edinburgh and Dublin, 1845-8; New York, 1852-6. The other works published by Father Haydock are: "The Tree of Life; or the One Church of God from Adam until the 19th or 58th century" (Manchester, 1809); "Prayers before and after Mass proper for Country Congregations" (York, 1822); "A Key to the Roman Catholic Office" (Whitby, 1823); "A Collection of Catholic Hymns" (York, 1823); "Method of Sanctifying the Sabbath Days" (York, 1824). Besides his published books, Father Haydock left a number of works in manuscript, five volumes of "Douay Dictates"; four volumes of "Psalms and Canticles in the Roman Office"; several volumes of "Biblical Disquisitions"; a treatise on "The Various Points of Difference between the Roman and the Anglo-Catholic Churches"; etc. The pecuniary risks of the press deterred him from publishing these works.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath. (London and New York, 1888), s.v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; see also GILLOW, Haydock Papers; COTTON, Rhemes and Douay, 406; WHITTLE, Preston, II, 336; HARDWICK, Preston, 656; SUTTON, Lancashire Authors.

A.J. MAAS

Haymo

(Or Haimo).

A Benedictine bishop of the ninth century; d. 26 March, 853. The exact date and place of his birth are unknown. When a youth, he entered the Order of St. Benedict at Fulda, where the celebrated Rabanus Maurus was one of his fellow-students. He went together with him to the Monastery of St. Martin at Tours to profit by the lessons of its great teacher, Alcuin. After a brief sojourn at Tours, both friends came back to the Benedictine house at Fulda, and spent there most of their life previous to their promotion to the episcopal dignity. Haymo became chancellor to the monastery, as is proved by his records of its transactions, which are still extant. It is indeed probable that owing to his great learning he was also entrusted with the teaching of theology in the same monastery; yet there is no positive proof that such was actually the case. He had been living for only a short while in the Benedictine monastery at Hersfeld, perhaps as its abbot, when in the last weeks of 840 he was nominated to the Bishopric of Halberstadt. Hearing of Haymo's promotion, Rabanus Maurus, his old friend, gave him at great length -- in a work entitled "De Universo" and divided into 22 books -- advice that would help him in the discharge of the episcopal office. And it is in compliance with Rabanus's suggestions, that Haymo stood aloof from the Court of King Louis the German, did not entangle himself in the affairs of the State, preached often, and lived solely for the welfare of his diocese. The only public assembly which he attended was the Council of Mainz, held in 847 for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical rights and immunities.

Although a certain number of works have been wrongly ascribed to Haymo of Halberstadt, there is no doubt that he was a prolific writer. Most of his genuine works are commentaries on Holy Writ, the following of which have been printed: "In Psalmos explanatio"; "In Isaiam libri tres"; "In XII Prophetas"; "In Epistolas Pauli omnes"; "In Apocalypsim libri septem". As might be naturally expected from the exegetical methods of his day, Haymo is not an original commentator; he simply repeats or abridges the Scriptural explanations which he finds in patristic writings. As a pious monk, and a faithful observer of Rabanus's recommendations, he sets forth almost exclusively the moral and mystical senses of the sacred text. He is also the author of a rather elegant "Epitome" of Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History", of a large number of Sermons, and of a spiritual work, "De amore coelestis patriae". An extant passage from his writings, relating to the Holy Eucharist, shows that there is no substantial difference between his belief with regard to the Real Presence, and that of the other Catholic theologians. His works are contained in vols. cxvi-cxviii of Migne, Patr. Lat.

ELLIES DUPIN, Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique (2nd ed., Paris, 1697); ANTONIUS, Exercitatio de Vita et Doctrina Haymonis (Halle, 1704); MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B. (2nd ed., Venice, 1733); Annales O.S.B. (Lucca, 1739); DERLING, De Haymone Commentatio historica (Helmstadt, 1747); FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae Aetatis (Florence, 1858); CEILLIER, Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres et Ecclesiastiques (Paris, 1862).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Haymo of Faversham

English Franciscan and schoolman, b. at Faversham, Kent; d. at Anagni, Itlay, in 1243, according to the most probable opinion; Wadding gives 1244. He had already acquired fame as a lecturer in the University of Paris and also as a preacher when he entered the Order of the Friars Minor, probably in 1224 or 1225. Shortly after this he was appointed custos at Paris, in which capacity he seems to have attended the general chapter of the order at Assisi in 1230, and was one of the deputies sent by the chapter to Pope Gregory IX to petition for an explanation of certain points in the rule about which there had arisen some discussion in the order. The pope replied with the celebrated Bull "Quo elongati" of 28 September, 1230. After this chapter Haymo probably came to England, for from a mention of him in the "Patent Rolls Henrici III" he seems to have been at Oxford in 1232, probably as a lecturer in the Franciscan school there. In 1233 he was one of the Friars Minor sent by the Holy See to Constantinople to negotiate for the reunion of the Latin and Greek Churches. He led a peculiarly active life, for during these years he not only lectured at Oxford, but also at Tours, Bologna, and Padua. He was, moreover, employed by Gregory IX in revising the Breviary of the Roman Curia, and the edition published in 1241 of this Breviary (which afterwards was ordered to be used in all the Roman churches and eventually, with some modification, became the Breviary of the whole Catholic Church) was chiefly the work of Haymo (cf. trans. of Batiffol, "Hist. of the Roman Breviary", p. 213). In 1239 he took part in the general chapter of the order held at Rome when the notorious Brother Elias was deposed from the office of general. From Eccleston's account of this chapter it appears that Haymo was one of the chief spokesmen against Elias. He also brought about the degradation of Gregory of Naples, a lieutenant of Elias and a nephew of the pope. After the deposition of Elias, Albert of Pisa, Provincial of England, was elected general, and Haymo succeeded him in the English provincialate. Albert, however died during the first year of his generalate, and Haymo was then elected to the supreme office in the order. According to Wadding, Haymo was elected general in 1239, but this is an evident error. Eccleston expressly says that Haymo, while Provincial of England, gave the habit of the order to Ralph of Maidstone, Bishop of Hereford; but Ralph only resigned his bishopric on December 17, 1239; Haymo, therefore, could not have been elected general of the order until 1240.

Haymo at once set about rectifying the disorders caused among the friars by Elias. The latter had increased the number of provinces in the order to seventy-two, "after the manner of the seventy-two disciples", says Eccleston, and because he wished to rival the Dominicans, who had divided their order into twelve provinces in honor of the twelve Apostles. Haymo reduced the number of provinces. As Elias had found his chief supporters amongst the lay brothers, whom he had attached to his person by promoting them to high places, Haymo decreed that in future no lay brother should be appointed superior except when there were no priests to fill the office. He also defined the rights of superiors, and set their jurisdiction within definite bounds. Although very zealous for the poverty of the rule, he yet was aware of the disadvantages of depending too much on alms and preferred that the friars should live by their own labours; hence, when Provincial of England, he obtained in several places larger grounds for the friars, that they might cultivate the land and so supply themselves with food, in order that they might not have to beg. On his death-bed, says Eccleston, he was visited by Innocent IV; but Innocent IV was at Anagni only from 25 June til the middle of October, 1243, and during the whole of 1244 was resident at Rome. Haymo's epitaph reveals the repudiation in which he was held. It runs:

As a schoolman he was styled, in the fashion of the time,Speculum honestatis. Besides his lectures on the Sentences he left a treatise on the ceremonies of the Mass and a book of sermons.

Thomas of Eccleston, De Adventu FF. MM. in Angliam (of which an English translation has been published); Chronica XXIV Gen. in Analecta Franciscana, III, 246-261; Wadding, Annales ad an. 1239, 1244; Wadding and Sbaralea, Scriptores Ord. FF. MM., s.v.

FATHER CUTHBERT

Lajos Haynald

Cardinal, Archbishop of Kalocsa-Bács in Hungary; b. at Szécsény, 3 October, 1816; d. at Kalocsa, 3 July, 1891. Having completed his studies in the secondary schools, he entered the Emericianum at Pozsony (Presburg) in 1830, remaining there for one year. He studied philosophy at Nagyszombat (Tyrnau) in 1831, theology at Vienna in 1833; entered Holy orders on 15 October, 1839, and received the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1841. After a brief period spent in the care of souls, he became professor of theology at the seminary at Gran in 1842. The prince-primate, Kopácsy, appointed him his secretary in 1846, but before he had entered upon the duties of that office, dispatched him abroad to study the training of pastors and ecclesiastical administration. Haynald probably was the first Hungarian to study such subjects in foreign countries. He applied himself to these questions with especial diligence in Paris, where he passed most of the time that he spent on his mission. On his return he was appointed chancellor-director to the prince-primate, early in 1848. When the Hungarian parliament proclaimed the independence of Hungary on 14 April, 1849, Haynald refused to publish this declaration. The consequence was that he lost his position, whereupon he returned to his birth-place Szécsény. At the close of the Revolutionary War he was restored to his office; on 15 September, 1851, he was appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Transylvania, Nicholas Kovács, whom he succeeded on 15 October, 1852. On the publication of the October diploma, in 1860, Haynald became one of the champions of the union of Transylvania with Hungary. His political opinions and activity thereupon brought him into conflict with the Viennese Government. Count Francis Nádasdy, head of the Transylvanian Chancellery, accused Haynald of disloyalty. Haynald went to Vienna and presented a memorial in which he set forth his political views. Notwithstanding this, the dissensions between the Government and Haynald continued, and resulted in Haynald's resignation in 1864. Pius IX summoned him to Rome and appointed him titular Archbishop of Carthage.

Until 1867 he laboured in Rome, where he did valuable work as a member of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. After the restoration of the Hungarian constitution, Haynald was appointed Archbishop of Kalocsa-Bács, in 1867, at the instance of Baron Joseph Eötvös. He played an important part in the Vatican Council of 1870, being, with George Strossmayer, Bishop of Diaková r, one of the foremost opponents of the dogma of Infallibility, although he submitted to the decree of the council. Leo XIII made Haynald a cardinal in 1879. As bishop and archbishop, he aimed chiefly to maintain ecclesiastical discipline and to raise the standard of studies in the public schools. His pious bequests amounted to nearly five millions of gulden. While still a young priest he devoted himself earnestly to the study of botany and made a large collection of plants and of books, which subsequently came into the possession of the Hungarian National Museum. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences made him an honorary member in recognition of his scientific work.

A. ALDÁSY

Cornelius Hazart

Controversialist, orator, and writer, b. 28 October, 1617, at Oudenarde in the Netherlands; entered the Society of Jesus, 24 Sept., 1634; d. 25 October, 1690, at Antwerp. He was ordained priest, 6 April, 1647, at Louvain, where he had already the reputation of perfectus orator; was professed on 1 Nov., 1651; and preached during a period of thirty-six years, for a time at Dunkirk and Brussels, permanently at Antwerp. Hazart's life, apart from the duties of his pastoral office, was almost exclusively taken up with the struggle against the Calvinists of the Low Countries. There were times when his activities extended beyond the frontiers of his native country, as was shown by his "Epistola ad Langravium Hassiæ-Rheinfeldtium". This conflict was waged in part from the pulpit. He delivered at the church of the professed house at Antwerp, a series of sermons on controverted questions, and some of these he preached in the open market-place, before the numerous Calvinists who were assembled there for the festivities held in connection with church dedication services. His forte, however, lay rather in the domain of literary endeavour. Sommervogel enumerates about ninety writings of his, chiefly in the Dutch tongue. Among his larger systematized works it is worthwhile to note particularly the "Kerkelijke Historie van de geeheele wereldt" (Universal Church History), 4 vols. (Antwerp, 1667-71). This, although somewhat antiquated, perhaps, as a mission and church history, remains, nevertheless, serviceable to this day; it was translated into high German and added to by other Jesuits, under the title "Kirchengeschichte, das ist katholiches Christendum, durch die ganze Welt verbreitet". All of Hazart's writings are apologetic and polemical in character. They treat of Holy Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the invocation of the saints, the force of good works, auricular confession, extreme unction, purgatory, idolatry, the primacy and infallibility of the pope, the Roman catechism, in short, all of those questions which owing to the attacks of the preachers had become of more special present interest and concern. Next to Holy Writ, Hazart looked preferable to the Fathers of the first four centuries for his proofs. he was quick at refutation, and showed himself a tactician of the highest order, but had the faults of the polemical writers of those tumultuous times. In the case of Schuler, he contented himself with a "Vriendelyke t'saemen-spraek tuschen D. Joannes Schulen Predicant tot Breda ende P. C. Hazart" (A friendly colloquy between John Schuler, preacher of Breda, and P. C. Hazart). The estimation in which his books were held may be gleaned from the number of their new editions and of their translations into the German, from the retorts of his opponents, and from the fact that many of his writings, such as "Triomph de pausen van Roomen" (Triumph of the Roman Pontiffs) gave rise to voluminous literature.

Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, IV, 181-97.

N. SCHIED

George Peter Alexander Healy

An American portrait and historical painter, b. at Boston, 15 July, 1808; d. at Chicago, 14 June 1894. His father was an Irish captain in the merchant marine, and "the Celtic strain ran bright and lovable through the temperament of the son' (Isham). The eldest of five children, Healy, early left fatherless, helped to support his mother. When sixteen years of age he began drawing, and at once fired with the ambition to be an artist. Miss Stuart, daughter of the American painter, aided him in every way, loaned him a Guido's "Ecce Homo", which he copied in colour and sold to a country priest. Later, she introduced him to Sully, by whose advice Healy profited much, and gratefully repaid Sully in the days of the latter's adversity. At eighteen, Healy began painting portraits, and was soon very successful. In 1834, he went to Europe, leaving his mother well provided for, and remained abroad sixteen years during which he studied with Baron Gros, came under the pervading influence of Couture, painted assiduously, and won (1840) a third class medal in the Salon. His "Franklin urging the Claims of the Colonists before Louis XVI" gained him a second-class gold medal at the Paris International Exhibition of 1855. This year, also, saw him in Chicago, where he remained until 1869, when he again visited the Continent, painting steadily, chiefly in Rome and Paris, for twenty-one years. His final return to Chicago was in 1892. Healy painted more portraits than any other American artist, and of more eminent men than any other artist in the world. Among his sitters were Pius IX (1871), Lincoln, Grant (1878) Cardinal McCloskey, Louis Philippe ("his royal patron"), Marshal Soult, Webster, Calhoun, Hawthorne, Prescott, Longfellow, Liszt, Gambetta, Thiers, Lord Lyons, and the Princess (now the queen) of Rumania. In one large historical work, "Webster's Reply to Hayne" (1851), now in Faneuil Hall, Boston, there are one hundred and thirty portraits. Healy was remarkably facile, enterprising, courageous, and industrious. "All my days are spent in my painting room" (Reminiscences). His style, essentially French, was sound, his colour fine, his drawing correct and his management of light and shade excellent. His likenesses, firm in outline, solidly painted, and with later glazings, are emphatic, rugged, and forceful. Healy was an honorary member of the National Academy of Design and wrote a delightful book: "Reminiscences of a Portrait Painter".

Among his principal works are: Lincoln (Corcoran Gallery), Bishop (later Cardinal) McClosky (bishop's residence, Albany), Guizot (1841, in Smithsonian Institution), Audubon (1838, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.), Comte de Paris (Met. Mus. Of Art, New York).

Isham, The History of American Painting (New York, 1905); Tuckerman, Book of the Artists New York, 1867); Clement and Hutton, Artists of the XIX Cent. (Boston, 1880); Healy, Reminiscences of a Portrait Painter (Chicago, 1894).

LEIGH HUNT

Tenebrae Hearse

The Tenebrae Hearse is the triangular candlestick used in the Tenebrae service. The name is derived, through the French herse, from the Latin herpex, which means a harrow, and is the same as that now used in connection with funeral processions. The funeral hearse was originally a wooden or metal framework, which stood over the bier or coffin and supported the pall. It was provided with numerous prickets to hold burning tapers, and, owing to the resemblance of these prickets to the spikes or teeth of a harrow, was called a hearse. Later on, the word was applied, not only to the construction above the coffin, but to any receptacle in which the coffin was placed. Thus it came to denote the vehicle in which the dead are carried to the grave. Likewise in the case of the Tenebrae hearse, the term was employed because the prickets were supposed to resemble the teeth of a harrow. The triangular candlestick for the Tenebrae dates back at least as far as the seventh century, being mentioned in an ordo of that period published by Mabillon. The number of candles, however, has varied at different times and in different places. Thus Amalarius of Metz speaks of a hearse of twenty-four candles; other references show that hearses of thirty, twelve, nine, and even seven candles were used. At the present day, the Tenebrae hearse is made to bear fifteen candles, all of which, according to the "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" (II, xxii, 4), should be of unbleached wax, though in some churches a white candle is used on the apex of the triangle. During the service, these candles are gradually extinguished, one at the end of each psalm, alternately on either side of the candlestick, beginning with the lowest. Since there are nine psalms in the Matins and five in the Lauds, only the highest candle of the triangle is left burning after the psalms have all been sung. As each of the last six verses of the Benedictus is chanted, one of the six candles on the altar, also of unbleached wax, is extinguished. Likewise, all other lights in the church are put out, except the candle on the summit of the triangle. This candle is then taken from its place, and hidden behind the altar, to be brought forth again, still lighted, at the conclusion of the service. The symbolism of the Tenebrae hearse and its candles is variously explained. The triangle itself is said to be a symbol of the Blessed Trinity; according to some the highest candle represents Christ, while the other fourteen represent the eleven Apostles and the three Maries; again we are told that the centre candle is a type of the Blessed Virgin, who alone believed in the Resurrection, while the gradual extinction of the others symbolizes the waning faith of the Apostles and Disciples. (See TENEBRAE.)

A good account of the Tenebrae hearse, with a discussion on the origin of the custom of gradually extinguishing the candles, may be found in THURSTON, Lent and Holy Week (London, 1904); ROCK, The Church of Our Fathers, ed. HART AND FRERE (4 vols., London, 1903), II, 399 sqq., describes and gives illustrations of the ancient funeral hearse. For the ceremony of extinguishing the candles and other lights, described above, see Caeremoniale Episcoporum (II, xxii, 4 sqq.). Cf. WISEMAN, Four Lectures on Holy Week (Baltimore, 1854); POPE, Holy Week in the Vatican (Boston, 1874); Handbook to Christian and Ecclesiastical Rome: Liturgy (London, 1897).

LEO A. KELLY

Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

The treatment of this subject is divided into two parts:

I. DOCTRINAL EXPLANATIONS

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is but a special form of devotion to Jesus. We shall know just what it is and what distinguishes it when we ascertain its object, its foundations, and its proper act.

(1) Special object of the devotion to the Sacred Heart

The nature of this question is complex and frequently becomes more complicated because of the difficulties arising from terminology. Omitting terms that are over-technical, we shall study the ideas in themselves, and, that we may the sooner find our bearings, it will be well to remember the meaning and use of the word heart in current language.

(a) The word heart awakens, first of all, the idea of a material heart, of the vital organ that throbs within our bosom, and which we vaguely realize as intimately connected not only with our own physical, but with our emotional and moral, life. Now this heart of flesh is currently accepted as the emblem of the emotion and moral life with which we associate it, and hence the place assigned to the word heart in symbolic language, as also the use of the same word to designate those things symbolized by the heart. Note, for instance, the expressions "to open one's heart", "to give one's heart", etc. It may happen that the symbol becomes divested of its material meaning that the sign is overlooked in beholding only the thing signified. Thus, in current language, the word soul no longer suggests the thought of breath, and the word heart brings to mind only the idea of courage and love. But this is perhaps a figure of speech or a metaphor, rather than a symbol. A symbol is a real sign, whereas a metaphor is only a verbal sign; a symbol is a thing that signifies another thing, but a metaphor is a word used to indicate something different from its proper meaning. Finally, in current language, we are constantly passing from the part to the whole, and, by a perfectly natural figure of speech, we use the word heart to designate a person. These ideas will aid us in determining the object of the devotion to the Sacred Heart.

(b) The question lies between the material, the metaphorical, and the symbolic sense of the word heart; whether the object of the devotion is the Heart of flesh, as such, or the love of Jesus Christ metaphorically signified by the word heart; or the Heart of flesh, but as symbol of the emotional and moral life of Jesus, and especially His love for us. We reply that worship is rightly paid to the Heart of flesh, inasmuch as the latter symbolizes and recalls the love of Jesus, and His emotional and moral life. Thus, although directed to the material Heart, it does not stop there: it also includes love, that love which is its principal object, but which it reaches only in and through the Heart of flesh, the sign and symbol of this love. Devotion to the Heart of Jesus alone, as to a noble part of His Divine Body, would not be devotion to the Sacred Heart as understood and approved by the Church, and the same must also be said of devotion to the love of Jesus as detached from His Heart of flesh, or else connected therewith by no other tie than that of a word taken in the metaphorical sense. Hence, in the devotion, there are two elements: a sensible element, the Heart of flesh, and a spiritual element, that which this Heart of flesh recalls spiritual element, that which this Heart of flesh recalls and represents. But these two elements do not form two distinct objects, merely co-ordinated they constitute but one, just as do the body and soul, and the sign and the thing signified. Hence it is also understood that these two elements are as essential to the devotion as body and soul are essential to man. Of the two elements constituting the whole, the principal one is love, which is as much the cause of the devotion and its reason for existence as the soul is the principal element in man. Consequently, devotion to the Sacred Heart may be defined as devotion to the adorable Heart of Jesus Christ in so far as this Heart represents and recalls His love; or, what amounts to the same thing, devotion to the love of Jesus Christ in so far as this love is recalled and symbolically represented to us by His Heart of flesh.

(c) Hence the devotion is based entirely upon the symbolism of the heart. It is this symbolism that imparts to its meaning and its unity, and this symbolism is admirably completed by the representation of the Heart as wounded. Since the Heart of Jesus appears to us as the sensible sign of His love, the visible wound in the Heart will naturally recall the invisible wound of this love. This symbolism also explains that the devotion, although giving the Heart an essential place, is but little concerned with the anatomy of the heart or with physiology. Since, in images of the Sacred Heart, the symbolic expression must dominate all else, anatomical accuracy is not looked for; it would injure the devotion by rendering the symbolism less evident. It is eminently proper that the heart as an emblem be distinguished from the anatomical heart: the suitableness of the image is favourable to the expression of the idea. A visible heart is necessary for an image of the Sacred Heart, but this visible heart must be a symbolic heart. Similar observations are in order for physiology, in which the devotion cannot be totally disinterested, because the Heart of Flesh toward which the worship is directed in order to read therein the love of Jesus, is the Heart of Jesus, the real, living Heart that, in all truth, may be said to have loved and suffered; the Heart that, as we feel ourselves, had such a share in His emotional and moral life; the Heart that, as we know from a knowledge, however rudimentary, of the operations of our human life, had such a part in the operations of the Master's life. But the relation of the Heart to the love of Christ is not that of a purely conventional sign, as in the relation of the word to the thing, or of the flag to the idea of one's country; this Heart has been and is still inseparably connected with that life of benefactions and love. However, it is sufficient for our devotion that we know and feel this intimate connection. We have nothing to do with the physiology of the Sacred Heart nor with determining the exact functions of the heart in daily life. We know that the symbolism of the heart is a symbolism founded upon reality and that it constitutes the special object of the devotion to the Sacred Heart, which devotion is in no danger of falling into error.

(d) The heart is, above all, the emblem of love, and by this characteristic, the devotion to the Sacred Heart is naturally defined. However, being directed to the loving Heart of Jesus, it naturally encounters whatever in Jesus is connected with this love. Now, was not this love the motive of all that Christ did and suffered? Was not all His inner, even more than His outward, life dominated by this love? On the other hand, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, being directed to the living Heart of Jesus, thus becomes familiar with the whole inner life of the Master, with all His virtues and sentiments, finally, with Jesus infinitely loving and lovable. Hence, a first extension of the devotion is from the loving Heart to the intimate knowledge of Jesus, to His sentiments and virtues, to His whole emotional and moral life; from the loving Heart to all the manifestations of Its love. There is still another extension which, although having the same meaning, is made in another way, that is by passing from the Heart to the Person, a transition which, as we have seen, is very naturally made. When speaking of a large heart our allusion is to the person, just as when we mention the Sacred Heart we mean Jesus. This is not, however, because the two are synonymous but when the word heart is used to designate the person, it is because such a person is considered in whatsoever related to his emotional and moral life. Thus, when we designate Jesus as the Sacred Heart, we mean Jesus manifesting His Heart, we mean Jesus manifesting His Heart, Jesus all loving and amiable. Jesus entire is thus recapitulated in the Sacred Heart as all is recapitulated in Jesus.

(e) In thus devoting oneself to Jesus all loving and lovable, one cannot fail to observe that His love is rejected. God is constantly lamenting that in Holy Writ, and the saints have always heard within their hearts the plaint of unrequited love. Indeed one of the essential phases of the devotion is that it considers the love of Jesus for us as a despised, ignored love. He Himself revealed this when He complained so bitterly to St. Margaret Mary.

(f) This love is everywhere manifest in Jesus and in His life, and it alone can explain Him together with His words and His acts. Nevertheless, it shines forth more resplendently in certain mysteries from which great good accrues to us, and in which Jesus is more lavish of His loving benefactions and more complete in His gift of self, namely, in the Incarnation, in the Passion, and in the Eucharist. Moreover, these mysteries have a place apart in the devotion which, everywhere seeking Jesus and the signs of His love and favours, finds them here to an even greater extent than in particular acts.

(g) We have already seen that devotion to the Sacred Heart, being directed to the Heart of Jesus as the emblem of love, has mainly in view His love for men. This is obviously not that it excludes His love for God, for this included in His love for men, but it is above all the devotion to "the Heart that has so loved men", according to the words quoted by St. Margaret Mary.

(h) Finally, the question arises as to whether the love which we honour in this devotion is that with which Jesus loves us as Man or that with which He loves us as God; whether it is created or uncreated, His human or His Divine Love. Undoubtedly it is the love of God made Man, the love of the Incarnate Word. However, it does not seem that devout persons think of separating these two loves any more than they separate the two natures in Jesus. Besides, even though we might wish to settle this part of the question at any cost, we would find that the opinions of authors are at variance. Some, considering that the Heart of Flesh is connected with human love only, conclude that it does not symbolize Divine love which, moreover, is not proper to the Person of Jesus, and that, therefore, Divine love is not the direct object of the devotion. Others, while admitting that Divine love apart from the Incarnate Word is not the object of the devotion, believe it to be such when considered as the love of the Incarnate Word, and they do not see why this love also could not be symbolized by the Heart of flesh nor why, in this event, the devotion should be limited to created love only.

(2) Foundations of the devotion

The question may be considered under three aspects: the historical, the theological, and the scientific.

(a) Historical foundations

In approving the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the Church did not trust to the visions of St. Margaret Mary; she made abstraction of these and examined the worship in itself. Margaret Mary's visions could be false, but the devotion would not, on that account, be any less worthy or solid. However, the fact is that the devotion was propagated chiefly under the influence of the movement started at Paray-le-Monial; and prior to her beatification, Margaret Mary's visions were most critically examined by the Church, whose judgment in such cases does not involve her infallibility but implies only a human certainty sufficient to warrant consequent speech and action.

(b) Theological foundations

The Heart of Jesus, like all else that belongs to His Person, is worthy of adoration, but this would not be so if It were considered as isolated from this Person and as having no connection with It. But it not thus that the Heart is considered, and, in his Bull "Auctorem fidei", 1794, Pius VI authoritatively vindicated the devotion in this respect against the calumnies of the Jansenists. The worship, although paid to the Heart of Jesus, extends further than the Heart of flesh, being directed to the love of which this Heart is the living and expressive symbol. On this point the devotion requires no justification, as it is to the Person of Jesus that it is directed; but to the Person as inseparable from His Divinity. Jesus, the living apparition of the goodness of God and of His paternal love, Jesus infinitely loving and amiable, studied in the principal manifestations of His love, is the object of the devotion to the Sacred Heart, as indeed He is the object of the Christian religion. The difficulty lies in the union of the heart and love, in the relation which the devotion supposes between the one and the other. Is not this an error long since discarded? If so, it remains to examine whether the devotion, considered in this respect, is well founded.

(c) Philosophical and scientific foundations

In this respect there has been some uncertainty amongst theologians, not as regards the basis of things, but in the matter of explanations. Sometimes they have spoken as if the heart were the organ of love, but this point has no bearing on the devotion, for which it suffices that the heart be the symbol of love, and that, for the basis of the symbolism, a real connection exist between the heart and the emotions. Now, the symbolism of the heart is a fact and every one feels that in the heart there is a sort of an echo of our sentiments. The physiological study of this resonance may be very interesting, but it is in no wise necessary to the devotion, as its foundation is a fact attested by daily experience, a fact which physiological study confirms and of which it determines the conditions, but which neither supposes this study nor any special acquaintance with its subject.

(3) The proper act of the devotion

This act is required by the very object of the devotion, since devotion to the love of Jesus for us should be pre-eminently a devotion of love for Jesus. It is characterized by a reciprocation of love; its aim is to love Jesus who has so loved us, to return love for love. Since, moreover, the love of Jesus manifests itself to the devout soul as a love despised and outraged, especially in the Eucharist, the love expressed in the devotion naturally assumes a character of reparation, and hence the importance of acts of atonement, the Communion of reparation, and compassion for Jesus suffering. But no special act, no practice whatever, can exhaust the riches of the devotion to the Sacred Heart. The love which is its soul embraces all and, the better one understands it, the more firmly is he convinced that nothing can vie with it for making Jesus live in us and for bringing him who lives by it to love God, in union with Jesus, with all his heart, all his soul, all his strength.

II. HISTORICAL IDEAS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEVOTION

(1) From the time of St. John and St. Paul there has always been in the Church something like devotion to the love of God, Who so loved the world as to give it His only-begotten Son, and to the love of Jesus, Who has so loved us as to deliver Himself up for us. But, accurately speaking, this is not the devotion to the Sacred Heart, as it pays no homage to the Heart of Jesus as the symbol of His love for us. From the earliest centuries, in accordance with the example of the Evangelist, Christ's open side and the mystery of blood and water were meditated upon, and the Church was beheld issuing from the side of Jesus, as Eve came forth from the side of Adam. But there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries, any worship was rendered the wounded Heart.

(2) It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart. Through the wound in the side of the wound Heart was gradually reached, and the wound in the Heart symbolized the wound of love. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or were its first votaries. To St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and the author of the "Vitis mystica" it was already well known. We cannot state with certainty to whom we are indebted for the "Vitis mystica". Until recent times its authorship had generally been ascribed to St. Bernard and yet, by the late publishers of the beautiful and scholarly Quaracchi edition, it has been attributed, and not without plausible reasons, to St. Bonaventure ("S. Bonaventurx opera omnia", 1898, VIII, LIII sq.). But, be this as it may, it contains one of the most beautiful passages that ever inspired the devotion to the Sacred Heart, one appropriated by the Church for the lessons of the second nocturn of the feast. To St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1302) it was a familiar devotion which was translated into many beautiful prayers and exercises. What deserves special mention is the vision of St. Gertrude on the feast of St. John the Evangelist, as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the Saviour's she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked John if, on the night of the Last Supper, he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. John replied that this revelation had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its love ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877).

(3) From the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, the devotion was propagated but it did not seem to have developed in itself. It was everywhere practised by privileged souls, and the lives of the saints and annals of different religious congregations, of the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carthusians, etc., furnish many examples of it. It was nevertheless a private, individual devotion of the mystical order. Nothing of a general movement had been inaugurated, unless one would so regard the propagation of the devotion to the Five Wounds, in which the Wound in the Heart figured most prominently, and for the furtherance of which the Franciscans seem to have laboured.

(4) It appears that in the sixteenth century, the devotion took an onward step and passed from the domain of mysticism into that of Christian asceticism. It was constituted an objective devotion with prayers already formulated and special exercises of which the value was extolled and the practice commended. This we learn from the writings of those two masters of the spiritual life, the pious Lanspergius (d. 1539) of the Carthusians of Cologne, and the devout Louis of Blois (Blosius; 1566), a Benedictine and Abbot of Liessies in Hainaut. To these may be added Blessed John of Avila (d. 1569) and St. Francis de Sales, the latter belonging to the seventeenth century.

(5) From that time everything betokened an early bringing to light of the devotion. Ascetic writers spoke of it, especially those of the Society of Jesus, Alvarez de Paz, Luis de la Puente, Saint-Jure, and Nouet, and there still exist special treatises upon it such as Father Druzbicki's (d. 1662) small work, "Meta Cordium, Cor Jesu". Amongst the mystics and pious souls who practised the devotion were St. Francis Borgia, Blessed Peter Canisius, St. Aloysius Gonzaga, and St. Alphonsus Rodriguez, of the Society of Jesus; also Venerable Marina de Escobar (d. 1633), in Spain; the Venerable Madeleine St. Joseph and the Venerable Marguerite of the Blessed Sacrament, Carmelites, in France; Jeanne de S. Mathieu Deleloe (d. 1660), a Benedictine, in Belgium; the worthy Armelle of Vannes (d. 1671); and even in Jansenistic or worldly centres, Marie de Valernod (d. 1654) and Angélique Arnauld; M. Boudon, the great archdeacon of Evreux, Father Huby, the apostle of retreats in Brittany, and, above all, the Venerable Marie de l'Incarnation, who died at Quebec in 1672. The Visitation seemed to be awaiting St. Margaret Mary; its spirituality, certain intuitions of St. Francis de Sales, the meditations of Mère l'Huillier (d. 1655), the visions of Mother Anne-Marguerite Clément (d. 1661), and of Sister Jeanne-Bénigne Gojos (d. 1692), all paved the way. The image of the Heart of Jesus was everywhere in evidence, which fact was largely due to the Franciscan devotion to the Five Wounds and to the habit formed by the Jesuits of placing the image on their title-page of their books and the walls of their churches.

(6) Nevertheless, the devotion remained an individual or at least a private devotion. It was reserved to Blessed Jean Eudes (1602-1680) to make it public, to honour it with an Office, and to establish a feast for it. Père Eudes was above all the apostle of the Heart of Mary; but in his devotion to the Immaculate Heart there was a share for the Heart of Jesus. Little by little the devotion to the Sacred Heart became a separate one, and on 31 August, 1670, the first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated with great solemnity in the Grand Seminary of Rennes. Coutances followed suit on 20 October, a day with which the Eudist feast was thenceforth to be connected. The feast soon spread to other dioceses, and the devotion was likewise adopted in various religious communities. Here and there it came into contact with the devotion begun at Paray, and a fusion of the two naturally resulted.

(7) It was to Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690), a humble Visitandine of the monastery at Paray-le Monial, that Christ chose to reveal the desires of His Heart and to confide the task of imparting new life to the devotion. There is nothing to indicated that this pious religious had known the devotion prior to the revelations, or at least that she had paid any attention to it. These revelations were numerous, and the following apparitions are especially remarkable: that which occurred on the feast of St. John, when Jesus permitted Margaret Mary, as He had formerly allowed St. Gertrude, to rest her head upon His Heart, and then disclosed to her the wonders of His love, telling her that He desired to make them known to all mankind and to diffuse the treasures of His goodness, and that He had chosen her for this work (27 Dec., probably 1673); that, probably distinct from the preceding, in which He requested to be honoured under the figure of His Heart of flesh; that, when He appeared radiant with love and asked for a devotion of expiatory love -- frequent Communion, Communion on the First Friday of the month, and the observance of the Holy Hour (probably June or July, 1674); that known as the "great apparition" which took place during the octave of Corpus Christi, 1675, probably on 16 June, when He said, "Behold the Heart that has so loved men . . . instead of gratitude I receive from the greater part (of mankind) only ingratitude . . .", and asked her for a feast of reparation of the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi, bidding her consult Father de la Colombière, then superior of the small Jesuit house at Paray; and finally, those in which solemn homage was asked on the part of the king, and the mission of propagating the new devotion was especially confided to the religious of the Visitation and the priests of the Society of Jesus. A few days after the "great apparition", of June, 1675, Margaret Mary made all known to Father de la Colombière, and the latter, recognizing the action of the spirit of God, consecrated himself to the Sacred Heart, directed the holy Visitandine to write an account of the apparition, and made use of every available opportunity discreetly to circulate this account through France and England. At his death, 15 February 1682, there was found in his journal of spiritual retreats a copy in his own handwriting of the account that he had requested of Margaret Mary, together with a few reflections on the usefulness of the devotion. This journal, including the account and a beautiful "offering" to the Sacred Heart, in which the devotion was well explained, was published at Lyons in 1684. The little book was widely read, even at Paray, although not without being the cause of "dreadful confusion" to Margaret Mary, who, nevertheless, resolved to make the best of it and profited by the book for the spreading of her cherished devotion. Moulins, with Mother de Soudeilles, Dijon, with Mother de Saumaise and Sister Joly, Semur, with Mother Greyfié, and even Paray, which had at first resisted, joined the movement. Outside of the Visitandines, priests, religious, and laymen espoused the cause, particularly a Capuchin, Margaret Mary's two brothers, and some Jesuits, among the latter being Fathers Croiset and Gallifet, who were destined to do so much for the devotion.

(8) The death of Margaret Mary, 17 October 1690, did not dampen the ardour of those interested; on the contrary, a short account of her life published by Father Croiset in 1691, as an appendix to his book "De la Dévotion au Sacré Cœur", served only to increase it. In spite of all sorts of obstacles, and of the slowness of the Holy See, which in 1693 imparted indulgences to the Confraternities of the Sacred Heart and, in 1697, granted the feast to the Visitandines with the Mass of the Five Wounds, but refused a feast common to all, with special Mass and Office, the devotion spread, particularly in religious communities. The Marseilles plague, 1720, furnished perhaps the first occasion for a solemn consecration and public worship outside of religious communities. Other cities of the South followed the example of Marseilles, and thus the devotion became a popular one. In 1726 it was deemed advisable once more to importune Rome for a feast with a Mass and Office of its own, but, in 1729, Rome again refused. However, in 1765, it finally yielded and that same year, at the request of the queen, the feast was received quasi officially by the episcopate of France. On all sides it was asked for and obtained, and finally, in 1856, at the urgent entreaties of the French bishops, Pope Pius IX extended the feast to the universal Church under the rite of double major. In 1889 it was raised by the Church to the double rite of first class. The acts of consecration and of reparation were everywhere introduced together with the devotion. Oftentimes, especially since about 1850, groups, congregations, and States have consecrated themselves to the Sacred Heart, and, in 1875, this consecration was made throughout the Catholic world. Still the pope did not wish to take the initiative or to intervene. Finally, on 11 June, 1899, by order of Leo XIII, and with the formula prescribed by him, all mankind was solemnly consecrated to the Sacred Heart. The idea of this act, which Leo XIII called "the great act" of his pontificate, had been proposed to him by a religious of the Good Shepherd from Oporto (Portugal) who said that she had received it from Christ Himself. She was a member of the Drost-zu-Vischering family, and known in religion as Sister Mary of the Divine Heart. She died on the feast of the Sacred Heart, two days before the consecration, which had been deferred to the following Sunday. Whilst alluding to these great public manifestations we must not omit referring to the intimate life of the devotion in souls, to the practices connected with it, and to the works and associations of which it was the very life. Moreover, we must not overlook the social character which it has assumed particularly of late years. The Catholics of France, especially, cling firmly to it as one of their strongest hopes of ennoblement and salvation.

JEAN BAINVEL

Congregations of the Heart of Mary

I. Sisters of the Holy Heart of Mary

Founded in 1842 at Nancy, by Mgr Menjaud, Bishop of Nancy and Toul, for the purpose of instructing young girls in various trades, and protecting their virtue. The statutes, drawn up by the Abbé Masson, provide that the congregation shall own nothing but the houses which they occupy; that everything over and above shall go to the maintenance of poor children and the decoration of altars. The devotion of Perpetual Adoration was instituted in the mother-house.

II. Sister-Servants of the Holy Heart of Mary

Founded at Paris, in 1860, by Père Delaplace, and Marie-Jeanne Moisan, for the Christian education of children, and the visitation and care of the sick in hospitals and in their own homes. This congregation is particularly flourishing in Canada, where about 140 sisters have charge of about 2500 children. There are six communities in the United States.

III. Daughters of the Holy Heart of Mary

Founded by Mgr Kobès, at Dakar, Senegambia, 24 May, 1858, for native women. In touch as they are with the customs and dialects of their country, they render invaluable services in teaching, visiting various mission stations, caring for the sick, and preparing catechumens for baptism. Their immunity from yellow fever enables them to care for the Europeans stricken during epidemics. In the Vicariate of Senegambia are six communities with about forty sisters.

IV. Congregation of the Holy and Immaculate Heart of Mary

Founded, at the desire of the Synod of Pondicherry, by Père Dupuis for the Christian education of young Indian girls. The native prejudice against the education of their women was gradually overcome and the congregation now counts over 200 religious, in charge of orphanages, pharmacies, and schools. Most of the sisters have government certificates of proficiency in the various grades.

V. Sisters of the Holy and Immaculate Heart of Mary

Founded in July, 1848, at Pico Heights, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. In the Diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles the sisters number about 110, and have charge of about 700 children and 60 orphans, in 1 college, 5 academies, and 1 orphan asylum.

VI. Daughters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

The name taken by an association of ladies in charge of the home for incurables at Rennes, on their organization into a religious community in 1841. The home had been in existence since 1700, had withstood the rigours of the Revolution, and had never been without a band of devoted women, bound only by the ties of charity, and tacitly rendering obedience to the oldest of their number.

VII. Sister-Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Founded at Quebec in 1859 by Mgr Turgeon, Archbishop of Quebec, and Mme Marie Roy, in religion Sister Marie du Sacré-Coeur (d. 1885), to shelter penitent girls, and provide Christian education for children. The congregation now numbers about 400 members in the United States and Canada in charge of 26 establishments, 152 penitents, and about 5500 children.

VIII. Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Founded at Monroe, Michigan, U.S.A., 28 November, 1845, by the Rev. Louis Gillet, C.SS.R., for the work of teaching. In 1856 an independent mother-house was established at Villa Maria, Westchester County, Pennsylvania, and later a third at Scranton, Pennsylvania. The members of this congregation are in charge of academies, normal schools, parochial schools, and asylums in eleven dioceses, and number about 1200 sisters.

IX. Missionary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

(The Claretians).

Founded at Vich, Spain, in 1848, by [Saint] Antonio María Claret (d. 1870). They have charge of a mission on the Fernando Po, and are also stationed at Corisco and Annabon in Western Africa.

[ Note: The founder of the Claretians, Antonio Maria Claret y Clara (1807-70), Archbishop of Santiago, Cuba, and Confessor to Queen Isabella II of Spain, was canonized by Pope Pius XII in 1950; his feast day is 24 October.]

X. Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

(Also called the Congregation of Scheutveld).

Founded in 1863 by Ven. Théophile Verbiest (d. 1865), a former military chaplain, for mission work in heathen countries. Father Verbiest's desire to consecrate himself to the life of a missionary seemed on the point of fulfilment when the Treaty of Peking (1861) opened China to his zeal and that of the little band who desired to accompany him. On seeking ecclesiastical permission, however, they were commissioned by Cardinal Barbaro, Prefect of the Propaganda, to begin their work by founding a seminary in Belgium to supply priests for foreign missions, and laid the foundations of the Scheutveld College, 28 April, 1863, in the Field of Scheut, a short distance from Brussels. In September, 1863, missionaries set forth for Mongolia. The Scheutveld priests have faced severe perils, as, for instance, the Boxer rebellion in China, involving the massacre of Bishop Hamer, Vicar Apostolic of South-Western Mongolia, seven missionaries, and 3000 Christians; the even greater decimation of their numbers by the Congo climate, not to mention the persecution of the missionaries and the negro colonies established by them. The congregation now numbers over 300 members in charge of the Vicariates Apostolic of Central, Eastern, and South-Western Mongolia, and in China the Vicariate of Northern Kan-su and the Prefecture Apostolic of Southern Kan-su, where in all about 155 Fathers have charge of about 51,600 Catholics, 20,000 catechumens, 250 churches and chapels, and 263 schools, with an attendance of 6000; in Africa, in the Vicariate Apostolic of Belgian Congo and the Prefecture of Upper Kassai, 52 priests and 20 lay brothers are over about 15,000 Catholics, 29,300 catechumens, 38 churches and chapels, and 28 schools, attended by 2300 children. In connection with their missions the Fathers have opened a number of benevolent institutions, for example the hospital at St-Trudhon, Upper Kassai, for those afflicted with sleeping sickness. Their activity in ransoming and educating negro children is reaping a rich harvest. The organ of the congregation is "Missions en Chine et au Congo".

XI. Sisters of the Most Pure Heart of Mary

Founded at Vienna, in 1843, by Barbara Maix (d. 1873), and in 1848 established in Brazil, where, in addition to the mother-house at Porto Alegre, they have nine institutions, chiefly orphan asylums.

XII. Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary

Founded in 1848 by Jean Gailhac at Béziers in the Diocese of Montpellier, for the work of teaching and the care of orphans. They were approved by Pius IX and Leo XIII, and have institutions in Ireland, England, Portugal, and the United States.

HEIMBUCHER, Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908); PIOLET, Missions catholiques francaises (Paris, 1899-1903); HELYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1859). For XI see Kath. Missionen (1875), 117 sqq.; VERMEERSCH, La question congolaise (Brussels, 1906).

F.M. RUDGE

Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

As in the article on devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, this subject will be considered under two heads:

• the nature, and
• the history of the devotion.

The Nature of the Devotion

Just as devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is only a form of devotion to the adorable Person of Jesus, so also is devotion to the Holy Heart of Mary but a special form of devotion to Mary. In order that, properly speaking, there may be devotion to the Heart of Mary, the attention and the homage of the faithful must be directed to the physical heart itself. However, this in itself is not sufficient; the faithful must read therein all that the human heart of Mary suggests, all of which it is the expressive symbol and the living reminder: Mary's interior life, her joys and sorrows, her virtues and hidden perfections, and, above all, her virginal love for her God, her maternal love for her Divine Son, and her motherly and compassionate love for her sinful and miserable children here below. The consideration of Mary's interior life and the beauties of her soul, without any thought of her physical heart, does not constitute our devotion; still less does it consist in the consideration of the Heart of Mary merely as a part of her virginal body. The two elements are essential to the devotion, just as soul and body are necessary to the constitution of man.

All this is made sufficiently clear in the explanations given elsewhere (see DEVOTION TO THE HEART OF JESUS), and, if our devotion to Mary must not be confounded with our devotion to Jesus, on the other hand, it is equally true that our veneration of the Heart of Mary is, as such, analogous to our worship of the Heart of Jesus. It is, however, necessary to indicate a few differences in this analogy, the better to explain the character of Catholic devotion to the Heart of Mary. Some of these differences are very marked, whereas others are barely perceptible. Devotion to the Heart of Jesus is especially directed to the Divine Heart as overflowing with love for men, and it presents this love to us as despised and outraged. In the devotion to the Heart of Mary, on the other hand, what seems to attract us above all else is the love of this Heart for Jesus and for God. Its love for men is not overlooked, but it is not so much in evidence nor so dominant. With this difference is linked another. The first, act of the devotion to the Heart of Jesus is the love eager to respond to love, in devotion to the Heart of Mary there is no first act so clearly indicated: in this devotion, perhaps, study and imitation hold as important a place as love. For, although this study and imitation are impregnated with filial affection, the devotion presents itself with no object sufficiently conspicuous to call forth our love, which is, on the contrary, naturally awakened and increased by the study and imitation. Hence, accurately speaking, love is more the result than the object of the devotion, the object being rather to love God, and Jesus better by uniting ourselves to Mary for this purpose and by imitating her virtues. It would also seem that, although in the devotion to the Heart of Mary the heart has an essential part as symbol and sensible object, it does not stand out as prominently as in the devotion to the Heart of Jesus; we think rather of the thing symbolized, of love, virtues, and sentiments, of Mary's interior life.

The History of the Devotion

The history of the devotion to the Heart of Mary is connected on many points with that to the Heart of Jesus; nevertheless, it has its own history which, although very simple, is not devoid of interest. The attention of Christians was early attracted by the love and virtues of the Heart of Mary. The Gospel itself invited this attention with exquisite discretion and delicacy. What was first excited was compassion for the Virgin Mother. It was, so to speak, at the foot of the Cross that the Christian heart first made the acquaintance of the Heart of Mary. Simeon's prophecy paved the way and furnished the devotion with one of its favourite formulae and most popular representations: the heart pierced with a sword. But Mary was not merely passive at the foot of the Cross; "she cooperated through charity", as St. Augustine says, "in the work of our redemption".

Another Scriptural passage to help in bringing out the devotion was the twice-repeated saying of St. Luke, that Mary kept all the sayings and doings of Jesus in her heart, that there she might ponder over them and live by them. A few of the Virgin's sayings, also recorded in the Gospel, particularly the Magnificat, disclose new features in Marian psychology. Some of the Fathers also throw light upon the psychology of the Virgin, for instance, St. Ambrose, when in his commentary on St. Luke he holds Mary up as the ideal of virginity, and St. Ephrem, when he so poetically sings of the coming of the Magi and the welcome accorded them by the humble Mother. Little by little, in consequence of the application of the Canticle of the loving relations between God and the Blessed Virgin, the Heart of Mary came to be for the Christian Church the Heart of the Spouse of the Canticles as well as the Heart of the Virgin Mother. Some passages from other Sapiential Books, likewise understood as referring to Mary, in whom they personify wisdom and her gentle charms, strengthened this impression. Such are the texts in which wisdom is presented as the mother lofty love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope. In the New Testament Elizabeth proclaims Mary blessed because she has believed the words of the angel; the Magnificat is an expression of her humility; and in answering the woman of the people, who in order to exalt the Son proclaimed the Mother blessed, did not Jesus himself say: "Blessed rather are they that hear the word of God and keep it", thus in a manner inviting us to seek in Mary that which had so endeared her to God and caused her to be selected as the Mother of Jesus? The Fathers understood His meaning, and found in these words a new reason for praising Mary. St. Leo says that through faith and love she conceived her Son spiritually, even before receiving Him into her womb, and St. Augustine tells us that she was more blessed in having borne Christ in her heart than in having conceived Him in the flesh.

It is only in the twelfth, or towards the end of the eleventh century, that slight indications of a regular devotion are perceived in a sermon by St. Bernard (De duodecim stellis), from which an extract has been taken by the Church and used in the Offices of the Compassion and of the Seven Dolours. Stronger evidences are discernible in the pious meditations on the Ave Maria and the Salve Regina, usually attributed either to St. Anselm of Lucca (d. 1080) or St. Bernard; and also in the large book "De laudibus B. Mariae Virginis" (Douai, 1625) by Richard de Saint-Laurent. Penitentiary of Rouen in the thirteenth century. In St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1302) the devotion had two earnest adherents. A little earlier it had been included by St. Thomas Becket in the devotion to the joys and sorrows of Mary, by Blessed Hermann (d.1245), one of the first spiritual children of St. Dominic, in his other devotions to Mary, and somewhat later it appeared in St. Bridget's "Book of Revelations". Tauler (d. 1361) beholds in Mary the model of a mystical, just as St. Ambrose perceived in her the model of a virginal soul. St. Bernardine of Siena (d.1444) was more absorbed in the contemplation of the virginal heart, and it is from him that the Church has borrowed the lessons of the Second Nocturn for the feast of the Heart of Mary. St. Francis de Sales speaks of the perfections of this heart, the model of love for God, and dedicated to it his "Theotimus".

During this same period one finds occasional mention of devotional practices to the Heart of Mary, e.g. in the "Antidotarium" of Nicolas du Saussay (d.1488), in Julius II, and in the "Pharetra" of Lanspergius. In the second half of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth, ascetic authors dwelt upon this devotion at greater length. It was, however, reserved to St. Jean Eudes (d. 1681) to propagate the devotion, to make it public, and to have a feast celebrated in honor of the Heart of Mary, first at Autun in 1648 and afterwards in a number of French dioceses. He established several religious societies interested in upholding and promoting the devotion, of which his large book on the Coeur Admirable (Admirable Heart), published in 1681, resembles a summary. Pere Eudes' efforts to secure the approval of an Office and feast failed at Rome, but, notwithstanding, this disappointment, the devotion to the Heart of Mary progressed. In 1699 Father Pinamonti (d. 1703) published in Italian his beautiful little work on the Holy Heart of Mary, and in 1725 Pere de Gallifet combined the cause of the Heart of Mary with that of the Heart of Jesus in order to obtain Rome's approbation of the two devotions and the institution of the two feasts. In 1729 his project was defeated, and in 1765 the two causes were separated, to assure the success of the principal one.

In 1799 Pius VI, then in captivity at Florence, granted the Bishop of Palermo the feast of the Most Pure Heart of Mary for some of the churches in his diocese. In 1805 Pius VII made a new concession, thanks to which the feast was soon widely observed. Such was the existing condition when a twofold movement, started in Paris, gave fresh impetus to the devotion. The two factors of this movement were first of all the revelation of the "miraculous medal" in 1830 and all the prodigies that followed, and then the establishment at Notre-Dame-des-Victoires of the Archconfraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, which spread rapidly throughout the world and was the source of numberless graces. On 21 July, 1855, the Congregation of Rites finally approved the Office and Mass of the Most Pure Heart of Mary without, however, imposing them upon the Universal Church.

Now there are at least three feasts of the Heart of Mary, all with different Offices:

• that of Rome, observed in many places on the Sunday after the Octave of the Assumption and in others on the third Sunday after Pentecost or in the beginning of July;
• that of Pere Eudes celebrated among the Eudists and in a number of communities on 8 February; and
• that of Notre-Dame-des-Victoires, solemnized a little before Lent.

However, no feast has as yet been granted to the entire Church.

JEAN BAINVEL

Ven. Henry Heath

English Franciscan and martyr, son of John Heath; christened at St. John's, Peterborough, 16 December, 1599; executed at Tyburn, 17 April, 1643. He went to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 1617, proceeded B.A. in 1621, and was made college librarian. In 1622 he was received into the Church by George Muscott, and, after a short stay at the English College at Douai, entered St. Bonaventure's convent there in 1625, taking the name of Paul of St. Magdalen. Early in 1643, he with much trouble obtained leave to go on the English mission and crossed from Dunkirk to Dover disguised as a sailor. A German gentleman paid for his passage and offered him further money for his journey, but, in the spirit of St. Francis, Heath refused it and preferred to walk from Dover to London, begging his way. On the very night of his arrival, as he was resting on a door step, the master of the house gave him into custody as a shoplifter. Some papers found in his cap betrayed his religion and he was taken to the Compter Prison. The next day he was brought before the Lord Mayor, and, on confessing he was a priest, was sent to Newgate. Shortly afterwards he was examined by a Parliamentary committee, and again confessed his priesthood. He was eventually indicted under 27 Eliz. c. 2, for being a priest and into the realm. At Tyburn he reconciled in the very cart one of the criminals that were executed with him. He was allowed to hang until he was dead.

CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II, 175; COOPER, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; GlLLOW., Bibl. Dict. Cath, III, 239.

J.B. WAINEWRIGHT

Heaven

This subject will be treated under seven headings:

I. NAME AND PLACE OF HEAVEN

The Name of Heaven

Heaven (Anglo-Saxon heofon, O.S. hevan and himil, originally himin) corresponds to the Gothic himin-s. Both heaven and himil are formed from himin by a regular change of consonants: heaven, by changing m before n into v; and himil, by changing n of the unaccented ending into l. Some derive heaven from the root ham, "to cover" (cf. the Gothic ham-ôn and the German Hem-d). According to this derivation heaven would be conceived as the roof of the world. Others trace a connection between himin (heaven) and home; according to this view, which seems to be the more probable, heaven would be the abode of the Godhead. The Latin coelum (koilon, a vault) is derived by many from the root of celare "to cover, to conceal" (coelum, "ceiling" "roof of the world"). Others, however think it is connected with the Germanic himin. The Greek ouranos is probably derived from the root var, which also connotes the idea of covering. The Hebrew name for heaven is thought to be derived from a word meaning "on high"; accordingly, heaven would designate the upper region of the world.

In the Holy Bible the term heaven denotes, in the first place, the blue firmament, or the region of the clouds that pass along the sky. Gen., i, 20, speaks of the birds "under the firmament of heaven". In other passages it denotes the region of the stars that shine in the sky. Furthermore heaven is spoken of as the dwelling of God; for, although God is omnipresent, He manifests Himself in a special manner in the light and grandeur of the firmament. Heaven also is the abode of the angels; for they are constantly with God and see His face. With God in heaven are likewise the souls of the just (II Cor. 5:1; Matt., v, 3, 12). In Eph., iv, 8 sq., we are told that Christ conducted to heaven the patriarchs who had been in limbo (limbus patrum). Thus the term heaven has come to designate both the happiness and the abode of just in the next life. The present article treats as heaven in this sense only. In Holy Scripture it is called:

• the kingdom of heaven (Matt., v, 3),
• the kingdom of God (Mark, ix, 46),
• the kingdom of the Father (Matt., xiii, 43),
• the kingdom of Christ (Luke, xxii, 30),
• the house of the Father (John, xiv, 2),
• city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebr., xii),
• the holy place (Hebr., ix, 12; D. V. holies),
• paradise (II Cor., xii, 4),
• life (Matt., vii, 14),
• life everlasting (Matt., xix, 16),
• the joy of the Lord (Matthew 25:21),
• crown of life (James, i, 12),
• crown of justice (II Timothy iv, 8),
• crown of glory (I Peter, v, 4),
• incorrup crown (I Cor., ix, 25),
• great reward (Matthew 5:12),
• inheritance of Christ (Eph., i, 18),
• eternal inheritance (Hebr., ix, 15).

The Location of Heaven

Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed?

Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Apoc., xxi). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the beaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject.

II. EXISTENCE OF HEAVEN

There is a heaven, i.e., God will bestow happiness and the richest gifts on all those who depart this life free from original sin and personal mortal sin, and who are, consequently, in the state of justice and friendship with God. Concerning the purification of those just souls who depart in venial sin or who are still subject to temporal punishment for sin, see PURGATORY. On the lot of those who die free from personal sin, but infected with original sin, see LIMBO (limbus pervulorum). On the immediate beginning of eternal happiness after death, or eventually, after the passage through purgatory, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. The existence of heaven is, of course, denied by atheists, materialists, and pantheists of all centuries as well as by those rationalists who teach that the soul perishes with the body -- in short, by all who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specific quality and the supernatural character of heaven, the doctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life.

We shall give a brief outline of the principal arguments. From these we shall, at the same time, see that the bliss of heaven is eternal and consists primarily in the possession of God, and that heaven presupposes a condition of perfect happiness, in which every wish of the heart finds adequate satisfaction.

• God made all things for His objective honour and glory. Every creature was to manifest His Divine perfections by becoming a likeness of God, each according to its capacity. But man is capable of becoming in the greatest and most perfect manner a likeness of God, when he knows and loves His infinite perfections with a knowledge and love analogous to God's own love and knowledge. Therefore man is created to know God and to love Him. Moreover, this knowledge and love is to be eternal; for such is man's capability and his calling, because his soul is immortal. Lastly, to know God and to love Him is the noblest occupation of the human mind, and consequently also its supreme happiness. Therefore man is created for eternal happiness; and he will infallibly attain it hereafter, unless, by sin, he renders himself unworthy of so high a destiny.
• God made all things for His formal glory, which consists in the knowledge and love shown Him by rational creatures. Irrational creatures cannot give formal glory to God directly, but they should assist rational creatures in doing so. This they can do by manifesting God's perfections and by rendering other services; whilst rational creatures should, by their own personal knowledge and love of God, refer and direct all creatures to Him as their last end. Therefore every intelligent creature in general, and man in particular, is destined to know and love God for ever, though he may forfeit eternal happiness by sin.
• God, in his infinite justice and holiness, must give virtue its due reward. But, as experience teaches, the virtuous do not obtain a sufficient reward here; hence they will be recompensed hereafter, and the reward must be everlasting, since the soul is immortal. Nor can it be supposed that the soul in the next life must merit her continuance in happiness by a continued series of combats; for this would be repugnant to all the tendencies and desires of human nature.
• God, in His wisdom, must set on the moral law a sanction, sufficiently appropriate and efficacious. But, unless each man is rewarded according to the measure of his good works, such a sanction could not be said to exist. Mere infliction of punishment for sin would be insufficient. In any case, reward for good deeds is the best means of inspiring zeal for virtue. Nature itself teaches us to reward virtue in others whenever we can, and to hope for a reward of our own good actions from the Supreme Ruler of the universe. That reward, not being given here, will be given hereafter.
• God has implanted in the heart of man a love of virtue and a love of happiness; consequently, God, because of His wisdom, must by rewarding virtue establish perfect harmony between these two tendencies. But such a harmony is not established in this life; therefore it will be brought about in the next.
• Every man has an innate desire for perfect beatitude. Experience proves this. The sight of the imperfect goods of earth naturally leads us to form the conception of a happiness so perfect as to satisfy all the desires of our heart. But we cannot conceive such a state without desiring it. Therefore we are destined for a happiness that is perfect and, for that very reason, eternal; and it will be ours, unless we forfeit it by sin. A natural tendency without an object is incompatible both with nature and with the Creator's goodness. The arguments thus far advanced prove the existence of heaven as a state of perfect happiness.
• We are born for higher things, for the possession of God. This earth can satisfy no man, least of all the wise. "Vanity of vanities", says the Scripture (Eccles., i, 1); and St. Augustine exclaimed: "Thou hast made us for Thyself (O God) and our heart is troubled till it rests in Thee."
• We are created for wisdom, for a possession of truth perfect in its kind. Our mental faculties and the aspirations of our nature give proof of this. But the scanty knowledge, that We can acquire on earth stands in no proportion to the capabilities of our soul. We shall possess truth in higher perfection hereafter.
• God made us for holiness, for a complete and final triumph over passion and for the perfect and secure possession of virtue. Our natural aptitudes and desires bear witness to this. But this happy goal is not reached on earth, but in the next life.
• We are created for love and friendship, for indissoluble union with our friends. At the grave of those we love our heart longs for a future reunion. This cry of nature is no delusion. A joyful and everlasting reunion awaits the just man beyond the grave.
• It is the conviction of all peoples that there is a heaven in which the just will rejoice in the next life. But, in the fundamental questions of our being and our destiny, a conviction, so unanimous and universal, cannot be erroneous. Otherwise this world and the order of this world would remain an utter enigma to intelligent creatures, who ought to know at least the necessary means for reaching their appointed end.
• Very few deny the existence of heaven; and these few are practically all atheists and epicureans. But surely it cannot be that all the rest have erred, and an isolated class of men such as these are not the true guides in the most fundamental questions of our being. For apostasy from God and His law cannot be the key to wisdom.

Revelation also proclaims the existence of heaven. This we have already seen in the preceding section from the many names by which the Bible designates heaven; and from the texts of Scripture, still to be quoted on the nature and peculiar conditions of heaven.

III. SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF HEAVEN AND THE BEATIFIC VISION

(1) In heaven the just will see God by direct intuition, clearly and distinctly. Here on earth we have no immediate perception of God; we see Him but indirectly in the mirror of creation. We get our first and direct knowledge from creatures, and then, by reasoning from these, we ascend to a knowledge of God according to the imperfect likeness which creatures bear to their Creator. But in doing so we proceed to a large extent by way of negation, i.e., by removing from the Divine Being the imperfections proper to creatures. In heaven, however, no creature will stand between God and the soul. He himself will be the immediate object of its vision. Scripture and theology tell us that the blessed see God face to face. And because this vision is immediate and direct, it is also exceedingly clear and distinct. Ontologists assert that we perceive God directly in this life, though our knowledge of Him is vague and obscure; but a vision of the Divine Essence, immediate yet vague and obscure, implies a contradiction. The blessed see God, not merely according to the measure of His likeness imperfectly reflected in creation, but they see Him as He is, after the manner of His own Being. That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise tbat nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868).

The Scriptural argument is based especially on I Cor., xiii, 8-13 (cf. Matt., xviii, 10; I John, iii, 2; II Cor., v, 6-8, etc.). The argument from tradition is carried out in detail by Petavius ("De. theol. dogm.", I, i, VII, c. 7). Several Fathers, who seemingly contradict this doctrine, in reality maintain it; they merely teach that the bodily eye cannot see God, or that the blessed do not fully comprehend God, or that the soul cannot see God with its natural powers in this life (cf. Suárez, "De Deo", l. II, c. 7, n. 17).

(2) It is of faith that the beatific vision is supernatural, that it transcends the powers and claims of created nature, of angels as well as of men. The opposite doctrine of the Beghards and Beguines was condemned (1311) by the Council of Vienne (Denz., n. 475 -- old, n. 403), and likewise a similar error of Baius by Pius V (Denz., n. 1003 -- old, n. 883). The Vatican Council expressly declared that man has been elevated by God to a supernatural end (Denz., n. 1786 -- old, n. 1635; cf. nn. 1808, 1671 -- old, nn. 1655, 1527). In this connection we must also mention the condemnation of the Ontologists, and in particular of Rosmini, who held that an immediate but indeterminate perception of God is essential to the human intellect and the beginning of all human knowledge (Denz., nn. 1659, 1927 -- old, nn. 1516, 1772). That the vision of God is supernatural can also be shown fromthe supernatural character of sanctifying grace (Denz., n. 1021 -- old, n. 901); for, if the preparation for that vision is supernatural. Even unaided reason recognizes that the immediate vision of God, even if it be at all possible, can never be natural for a creature. For it is manifest that every created mind first perceives its own self and creatures similar to itself by which it is surrounded, and from these it rises to a knowledge of God as the source of their being and their last end. Hence its natural knowledge of God is necessarily mediate and analogous; since it forms its ideas and judgments about God after the imperfect likeness which its own self and its surroundings bear to Him. Such is the only means nature offers for acquiring a knowledge of God, and more than this is not due to any created intellect; conseuqently, the second and essentially higher way of seeing God by intuitive vision can but be a gratuitous gift of Divine goodness. These considerations prove, not merely that the immediate vision of God exceeds the natural claims of all creatures in actual existence; but they also prove against Ripalda, Becaenus, and others (Recently also Morlias), that God cannot create any spirit which would, by virtue of its nature, be entitled to the intuitive vision of the Divine Essence. Therefore, as theologians express it, no created subsatance is of its nature supernatural; however, the Church has given no decision on this matter. Cf. Palmieri, "De Deo creante et elevante" (Rome, 1878), thes. 39; Morlais, "Le Surnaturel absolu", in "Revue du Clergé Français", XXXI (1902), 464 sqq., and, for the opposite view, Bellamy, "La question du Surnaturel absolu", ibid., XXXV (1903), 419 sqq. St. Thomas seems to teach (I, Q. xii, a. 1) that man has a natural desire for the beatific vision. Elsewhere, however, he frequently insists on the supernatural character of that vision (e.g. III, Q. ix, a. 2, ad 3um). Hence in the former place he obviously supposes that man knowsfrom revelation both the possibility of the beatific vision and his destiny to enjoy it. On this supposition it is indeed quite natural for man to have so strong a desire for that vision, that any inferior kind of beatitude can no longer duly satisfy him.

(3) To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the lift of glory (lumen gloriae). This was defined by the Council of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403); and it is also evident from the supernatural character of the beatific vision. For the beatific vision transcends the natural powers of the intellect; therefore, to see God the intellect stands in need of some supernatural strength, not merely transient, but permanent as the vision itself. This permanent invigoration is called the "light of glory", because it enables the souls in glory to see God with their intellect, just as material light enables our bodily eyes to see corporeal objects. On the nature of the light of glory the Church has decided nothing. Theologians have elaborated various theories about it, which, however, need not be examined in detail. According to the view commonly and perhaps most reasonably held, the light of glory is a quality Divinely infused into the soul and similar to sanctifying grace, the virtue of faith, and the other supernatural virtues in the souls of the just (cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 3rd ed., Rome, 1883, thes. 16). It is controverted among theologians whether or not a mental image, be it a species expressa or a species impressa, is required for the beatific vision. But by many this is regarded as largely a controversy about the appropriateness of the term, rather than about the matter itself. The more common and probably more correct view denies the presence of any image in the strict sense of the word, because no created image can represent God as He is (cf. Mazzella, "De Deo creante", 3rd ed., Rome, 1892, disp. IV, a. 7, sec. 1). The beatific vision is obviously a created act inherent in the soul, and not, as a few of the older theologians thought, the uncreated act of God's own intellect communicated to the soul. For, "as seeing and knowing are immanent vital actions, the soul can see or know God by its own activity only, and not through any activity exerted by some other intellect. Cf. Gutherlet, "Das lumen gloriae" in "Pastor bonus", XIV (1901), 297 sqq.

(4) Theologians distinguish the primary and the secondary object of the beatific vision. The primary object is God Himself as He is. The blessed see the Divine Essence by direct intuition, and, because of the absolute simplicity of God, they necessarily see all His perfections and all the persons of the Trinity. Moreover, since they see that God can create countless imitations of His Essence, the entire domain of possible creatures lies open to their view, though indeterminately and in general. For the actual decrees of God are not necessarily an object of that vision, except in as afar as God pleases to manifest them. Therefore finite things are not necessarily seen by the blessed, even if they are an actual object of God's will. Still less are they a necessary object of vision a long as they are mere possible objects of the Divine will. Consequently the blessed have a distinct knowledge of individual possible things only in so far as God wishes to grant this knowledge. Thus, if God so willed, a blessed soul might see the Divine Essence without seeing n It the possibility of any individual creature in particular. But in fact, there is always connected with the beatific vision a knowledge of various things external to God, of the possible as well as of the actual. All these things, taken collectively, constitute the secondary object of the beatific vision.

The blessed soul sees these secondary objects in God either directly (formaliter), or in as far as God is their cause (causaliter). It sees in God directly whatever the beatific vision discloses to its immediate gaze without the aid of any created mental image (species impressa). In God, as in their cause, the soul sees all those things which it perceives with the aid of a created mental image, a mode of perception granted by God as a natural complement of the beatific vision. The number of objects seen directly in God cannot be increased unless the beatific vision itself be intensified; but the number of things seen in God as their cause may be greater of smaller, or it may very without any corresponding change in the vision itself.

The secondary object of the beatific vision comprises everything the blessed may have a reasonable interest in knowing. It includes, in the first place, all the mysteries which the soul believed while on earth. Moreover, the blessed see each other and rejoice in the company of those whom death separated from them. The veneration paid them on earth and the prayers addressed to them are also known to the blessed. All that we have said on the secondary object of the beatific vision is the common and reliable teaching of theologians. In recent times (Holy Office, 14 Dec., 1887) Rosmini was condemned because he taught that the blessed do not see God Himself, but only His relations to creatures (Denz., 1928-1930 -- old, 1773-75). In the earlier ages we find Gregory the Great ("Moral.", l. XVIII, c. liv, n. 90, in P.L., LXXVI, XCIII) combating the error of a few who maintained that the blessed to not see God, but only a brilliant light streaming forth from Him. Also in the Middle Ages there are traces of this error (cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 2nd ed., thes. 15, p. 192).

(5) Although the blessed see God, they do not comprehend Him, because God is absolutely incomprehensible to every created intellect, and He cannot grant to any creature the power of comprehending Him as He comprehends Himself. Suárez rightly calls this a revealed truth ("De Deo", l. II, c. v, n. 6); for the Fourth Council of the Lateran and the Vatican Council enumerated incomprehensibility among the absolute attributes of God (Denz., nn. 428, 1782 -- old nn. 355, 1631). The Fathers defend this truth against Eunomius, an Arian, who asserted that we comprehend God fully even in this life. The blessed comprehend God neither intensively nor extensively -- not intensively, because their vision has not that infinite clearness with which God is knowable and with which He knows Himself, nor extensively, because their vision does not actually and clearly extend to everything that God sees in His Essence. For they cannot by a single act of their intellect represent every possible creature individually, clearly, and distinctly, as God does; such an act would be infinite, and an infinite act is incompatible with the nature of a created and finite intellect. The blessed see the Godhead in its entirety, but only with a limited clearness of vision (Deum totum sed non totaliter). They see the Godhead in its entirety, because they see all the perfections of God and all the Persons of the Trinity; and yet their vision is limited, because it has neither the infinite clearness that corresponds to the Divine perfections, nor does it extend to everything that actually is, or may still become, an object of God's free decrees. Hence it follows that one blessed soul may see God more perfectly than another, and that the beatific vision admits of various degrees

(6) The beatific vision is a mystery. Of course reason cannot prove the impossibility of such a vision. For why should God, in His omnipotence, be unable to draw so near and adapt Himself so fully to our intellect, that the soul may, as it were, directly feel Him and lay hold of Him and look on Him and become entirely immersed in Him? On the other hand, we cannot prove absolutely that this is possible; for the beatific vision lies beyond the natural destiny of our intellect, and it is so extraordinary a mode of perception that we cannot clearly understand either the fact or the manner of its possibility.

(7) From what has been thus far said it is clear that there is a twofold beatitude: the natural and the supernatural. As we have seen, man is by nature entitled to beatitude, provided he does not forfeit it by his own fault. We have also seen that beatitude is eternal and that it consists in the possession of God, for creatures cannot truly satisfy man. Again, as we have shown, the soul is to possess God by knowledge and love. But the knowledge to which man is entitled by nature is not an immediate vision, but an analogous pereeption of God in the mirror of creation, still a very perfect knowledge which really satisfies the heart. Hence the beatitude to which alone we have a natural claim consists in that perfect analogous knowledge and in the love corresponding to that knowledge. This natural beatitude is the lowest kind of felicity which God, in His goodness and wisdom, can grant to sinless man. But, instead of an analogous knowledge of His Essence He may grant to the blessed a direct intuition which includes all the excellence of natural beatitude and surpasses it beyond measure. It is this higher kind of beatitude that it has pleased God to grant us. And by granting it He not merely satisfies our natural desire for happiness but He satisfies it in superabundance.

IV. ETERNITY OF HEAVEN AND IMPECCABILITY OF THE BLESSED

It is a dogma of faith that the happiness of the blessed is everlasting. This truth is clearly contained in the Holy Bible (see Section I); it is daily professed by the Church in the Apostles' Creed (credo . . . vitam aeternam), and it has been repeatedly defined by the Church, especially by Benedict XII (cf. Section III). Even reason, as we have seen, can demonstrate it. And surely, if the blessed knew that their happiness was ever to come to an end, this knowledge alone would prevent their happiness from being perfect. In this matter Origen fell into error; for in several passages ot his works he seems to incline to the opinion that rational creatures never reach a permanent final state (status termini), but that they remain forever capable of falling away from God and losing their beatitude and of always returning to Him again. The blessed are confirmed in good; they can no longer commit even the slightest venial sin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purest love of God. That is, beyond doubt, Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility of sinning is physical. The blessed have no longer the power of choosing to do evil actions; they cannot but love God; they are merely free to show that love by one good action in preference to another. But whilst the impeccability of the blessed appears to be unanimously held by theologians, there is a diversity of opinion as to its cause. According to some, its proximate cause consists in this that God absolutely withholds from the blessed His co-operation to any sinful consent. The beatific Vision does not, they argue, of its very nature exclude sin directly and absolutely; because God may still displease the blessed soul in various ways, e.g., by refusing a higher degree to beatitude, or by letting persons whom that soul loves die in sin and sentencing them to eternal torment. Moreover, when great sufferings and arduous duties accompany the beatific vision, as was the case in the human nature of Christ on earth, then at least the possibility of sin is not directly and absolutely excluded. The ultimate cause of impeccability is the freedom from sin or the state of grace in which at his death man passes into the final state (status termini), i.e. into a state of unchangeable attitude of mind and will. For it is quite in consonance with the nature of that state that God should offer only such co-operation as corresponds to the mental attitude man chose for himself on earth. For this reason also the souls in purgatory, although they do not see God, are still utterly incapable of sin. The beatific vision itself may be called a remote cause of impeccability; for by granting so wondrous a token of His love, God may be said to undertake the obligation of guarding from all sin those whom He so highly favours, whether by refusing all co-operation to evil acts or in some other manner. Besides, even if the clear vision of God, most worthy of their love, does not render the blessed physically unable, it certainly renders them less liable, to sin. Impeccability, as explained by the representatives of this opinion, is not, properly speaking, extrinsic, as is often wrongly asserted; but it is rather intrinsic, because it is strictly due to the final state of blessedness and especially to the beatific vision. This is substantially the opinion of the Scotists, likewise of many others, especially in recent times. Nevertheless the Thomists, and with them the greater number of theologians, maintain that the beatific vision of its very nature directly excludes the possibility of sin. For no creature can have a clear intuitive view of the Supreme Good without being by that very fact alone irresistibly drawn to love it efficaciously and to fulfil for its sake even the most arduous duties without the least repugnance. The Church has left this matter undecided. The present writer rather inclines to the opinion of the Scotists because of its bearing on the question of the liberty of Christ. (See HELL under the heading Impenitence of the Damned.)

V. ESSENTIAL BEATITUDE

We distinguish objective and subjective beatitude. Objective beatitude is that good, the possession of which makes us happy; subjective beatitude is the possession of that good. The essence of objective beatitude, or the essential object of beatitude is God alone. For the possession of God assures us also the possession of every other good we may desire; moreover, everything else is so immeasurably inferior to God that its possession can only be looked upon as something accidental to beatitude. Finally, that all else is of minor importance for beatitude is evident from the fact that nothing save God alone is capable of satisfying man. Accordingly the essence of subjective beatitude is the possession of God, and it consists in the acts of vision, love, and joy. The blessed love God with a twofold love; with the love of complacency, by which they love God for His own sake, and secondly with the love less properly so called, by which they love Him as the source of their happiness (amor concupiscentiae). In consonance with this twofold love the blessed have a twofold joy; firstly, the joy of love in the strict sense of the word, by which they rejoice over the infinite beatitude which they see in God Himself, precisely because it is the happiness of God whom they love, and secondly, the joy springing from love in a wider sense, by which they rejoice in God because He is the source of their own supreme happiness. These five acts constitute the essence of (subjective) beatitude, or in more precise terms, its physical essence. In this theologians agree.

Here theologians go a step farther and inquire whether among those five acts of the blessed there is one act, or a combination of several acts, which constitutes the essence of beatitude in a stricter sense, i.e. its metaphysical essence in contradistinction to its physical essence. In general their answer is affirmative; but in assigning the metaphysical essence their opinions diverge. The present writer prefers the opinion of St. Thomas, who holds that the metaphysical essence consists in the vision alone. For, as we have just seen, the acts of love and joy are merely a kind of secondary attributes of the vision; and this remains true, whether love and joy result directly from the vision, as the Thomists hold, or whether the beatific vision by its very nature calls for confirmation in love and God's efficacious protection against sin.

VI. ACCIDENTAL BEATITUDE

Besides the essential object of beatitude the souls in heaven enjoy many blessings accidental to beatitude. We shall mention only a few:

• In heaven there is not the least pain or sadness; for every aspiration of nature must be finally realized. The will of the blessed is in perfect harmony with the Divine will; they feel displeasure at the sins of men, but without experiencing any real pain.
• They delight greatly in the company of Christ, the angels, and the saints, and in the reunion with so many who were dear to them on earth.
• After the resurrection the union of the soul with the glorified body will be a special source of joy for the blessed.
• They derive great pleasure from the contemplation of all those things, both created and possible, which, as we have shown, they see in God, at least indirectly as in the cause. And, in particular, after the last judgment the new heaven and the new earth will afford them manifold enjoyment. (See GENERAL JUDGMENT.)
• The blessed rejoice over sanctifying grace and the supernatural virtues that adorn their soul; and any sacramental character they may have also adds to their bliss.
• Very special joys are granted to the martyrs, doctors, and virgins, a special proof of victories won in time of trial (Apoc., vii, 11 sq.; Dan., xii, 3; Apoc., xiv, 3 sq.). Hence theologians speak of three particular crowns, aureolas, or glorioles, by which these three classes of blessed souls are accidentally honoured beyond the rest. Aureola is a diminutive of aurea, i.e. aurea corona (golden crown). (Cf. St. Thomas, Supp:96.)

Since eternal happiness is metaphorically called a marriage of the soul with Christ, theologians also speak of the bridal endowments of the blessed. They distinguish seven of these gifts, four of which belong to the glorified body -- light, impassibility, agility, subtility (see RESURRECTION); and three to the soul -- vision, possession, enjoyment (visio, comprehensio, fruitio). Yet in the explanation given by the theologians of the three gifts of the soul we find but little conformity. We may identify the gift of vision with the habit of the light of glory, the gift of possession with the habit of that love in a wider sense which has found in God the fulfilment of its desires, and the gift of enjoyment we may identify with the habit of love properly so called (halitus caritatis) which rejoices to be with God; in this view these three infused habits would he considered simply as ornaments to beautify the soul. (Cf. St. Thomas, Supp:95)

VII. ATTRIBUTES OF BEATITUDE

There are various degrees of beatitude in heaven corresponding to the various degrees of merit. This is a dogma of faith, defined by the Council of Florence (Denz., n. 693 -- old, n. 588). The Bible teaches this truth in very many passages (e.g., wherever it speaks of eternal happiness as a reward), and the Fathers defend it against the heretical attacks of Jovinian. It is true that, according to Matt., xx, 1-16, each labourer receives a penny; but by this comparison Christ merely teaches that, although the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, yet in the Kingdom of Heaven there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and that no one will receive a greater reward merely because of being a son of Judah. The various degrees of beatitude are not limited to the accidental blessings, but they are found first and foremost in the beatific vision itself. For, as we have already pointed out, the vision, too, admits of degrees. These essential degrees of beatitude are, as Suárez rightly observes ("De beat.", d. xi, s. 3, n. 5), that threefold fruit Christ distinguishes when He says that the word of God bears fruit in some thirty, in some sixty, in some a hundredfold (Matt., xiii, 23). And it is by a mere accommodation of the text that St. Thomas (Supp:96, aa. 2 sqq.) and other theologians apply this text to the different degrees in the accidental beatitude merited by married persons, widows, and virgins.

The happiness of heaven is essentially unchangeable; still it admits of some accidental changes. Thus we may suppose that the blessed experience special joy when they receive greater veneration from men on earth. In particular, a certain growth in knowledge by experience is not excluded; for instance, as time goes on, new free actions of men may become known to the blessed, or personal observation and experience may throw a new light on things already known. And after the last judgment accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth.

JOSEPH HONTHEIM

Hebrew Bible

As compared with the Latin Vulgate, the Hebrew Bible includes the entire Old Testament with the exception of the seven deuterocanonical books, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Machabees, and the deuterocanonical portions of Esther (x, 4 to end) and Daniel (iii, 24-90; xiii; xiv). So far as Jewish tradition testifies, these books end passages never belonged to the official Hebrew Bible, though Hebrew was the original language of Ecclesiasticus, most probably also of Baruch and I Machabees, and either Hebrew or the closely allied Aramaic, of Tobias, Judith, and the additions to Esther; also, according to some, the additions to Daniel. Even if several of these books were written in Aramaic, that fact alone would not account for their exclusion from the Hebrew Bible, since lengthy passages of Daniel (ii, 4, to vii, 28) and of Esdras (iv, 7, to vi, 18; vii, 12 to 26) are in that language. The Protestant versions adopt the contents of the Hebrew Bible only.

By its threefold division, which antedates the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, or Hagiographa, the Hebrew Bible differs considerably from the arrangement and order of the Septuagint, which have been adopted by the Vulgate and the Protestant versions. The Law contained the five books of Moses in the unvarying order of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Prophets comprised the four books of the Former Prophets, in the unvarying order of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; and the four books of the Latter Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Minor Prophets (all twelve counted as forming one book). The Writings comprised the remaining eleven books, the poetical works, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth, or Rolls (Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecelesiastes, Esther), and finally Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, Chronicles -- twenty-four books in all, though perhaps more frequently reckoned as twenty-two by counting Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremias. The above order is that of the printed Bibles, which, in the ease of the Latter Prophets and the Hagiographa, differs widely from that prescribed in the Babylonian Talmud, while no fixed order obtains in the manuscripts. In this arrangement the most noteworthy differences from the Vulgate are the classifying of the historical books as prophetical, the placing of the Latter Prophets before the Hagiographa, the ranking of Daniel not with the Prophets, but with the Hagiographa, and the grouping together of the five Rolls, which is a witness to the special favour they enjoyed of being read publicly on certain feasts. The Hebrew names for the sacred books of the Pentateuch differ from our own, which are derived from the Septuagint.

With the arrangement into books, the labours of the earliest editors seem to have ended; they made no further division into sections or chapters. The text at first was a close succession of consonantal letters without vowel-signs or spacing or punctuation to guide the reader; but Jewish scholars through many centuries of painstaking care have provided a most perfect system of helps to the intelligent reading of the Hebrew Bible. Words were separated at an early date, perhaps before Christ. This was imperative, as the letters were frequently combined in different ways. The Septuagint translation bears witness not seldom to a combination different from the Massoretic. Verse divisions, too, were made by the early scribes, who found this necessary not only to aid the reading, hut to guard against the intrusion of new verses. Uniformity did not obtain, however, as the Palestinian Jews, we are told, had shorter verses than the Babylonian. The present system is that of neither, but was partly a new arrangement elaborated by the Massoretes. The care taken is shown by the fact that every verse, in fact every letter, was counted by the scribes. Our chapter divisions were unknown to early Jewish scholars, who had their own divisions, according to sense, into the open and closed sections. A change in subject was marked by the open section, so called because of the vacant space showing its close, which was either the remainder of an unfilled line or a blank line succeeding a full line. The closed section began a minor break in thought, indicated only by a short interval of space, the new section recommencing on the same line, or after a brief interval at the beginning of the next line. In late manuscripts and in printed Bibles, the open section is indicated by the letter Pe in the vacant space preceding it, the closed section by the letter Samech.

The Christian division into chapters, invented by Archbishop Stephen Langton about the beginning of the thirteenth century, has gained an entrance into the Hebrew Bible. The beginning was made by Rabbi Solomon ben Ismael who first (c. A D. 1330) placed the numerals of these chapters in the margin of the Hebrew text. In printed Bibles this system made its first appearance in the first two Bomberg editions of 1518. Arias Montanus, in his Antwerp Bible of 1571, "broke up the Hebrew text itself into chapters and introduced the Hebrew numerals into the body of the text itself" (Ginsburg). This, though contrary to the Massoretic directions, is still followed in nearly all printed Bibles on account of its great usefulness. In most instances (617 out of 779) the chapter coincides with one or other of the Massoretic sections. In Bomberg's great Bible of 1547-8, Hebrew numerals were affixed to every fifth verse. It was in the above mentioned Antwerp Bible that the Arabic numerals for all the verses were first placed against them in the margin, though this had been done on a more limited scale in the "Basle Psalter" of 1563. A further division of the text was for liturgical purposes. It was the custom in Palestine to complete the Pentateuch in Sabbath readings every three years; the various sections into which the text was thus divided were called sedarim. The same name was applied to the sections from the Prophets and the Hagiographa appointed to be read at the same service. The length of a sedar may be judged approximately from the fact that the fifty chapters of Genesis are counted as forty-five sedarim, the forty chapters of Exodus as thirty-three sedarim. Instead of the triennial cycle, the Babylonian Jews had an annual cycle, and the Talmud divides the Law into fifty-four sections called Parashiyoth, one for each Sabbath of the interealary year. The corresponding readings from the Prophets were called Haphtaroth, or dismissals, because they were read before the close of the service (see BIBLE; CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES; CRITICISM, BIBLICAL; MANUSCRIPTs OF THE BIBLE; EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE; MASSORAH; VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE).

JOHN F. FENLON

Hebrew Language and Literature

Hebrew was the language spoken by the ancient Israelites, and in which were composed nearly all of the books of the Old Testament. The name Hebrew as applied to the language is quite recent in Biblical usage, occurring for the first time in the Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus, about 130 B.C. (hebraisti, rendered by the Vulgate verba hebraica). In Isaias, xix, 18, it is designated as the "language of Chanaan". In other passages (IV Kings, xvii, 26; Is., xxxvi, 11; II Esd., xiii, 24) it is referred to adverbially as the "Jews' language" (, ioudaisti, judaice). In later times the term "sacred language" was sometimes employed by the Jews to designate the Bible Hebrew in opposition to the "profane language", i.e. the Aramaean dialects which eventually usurped the place of the other as a spoken language. In New-Testament usage the current Aramaic of the time is frequently called Hebrew (hebrais dialektos, Acts, xxi, 40; xxii, 2; xxvi, 14), not in the strict sense of the word, but because it was the dialect in use among the Jews of Palestine. Among Biblical scholars the language of the Old Testament is sometimes termed "ancient" or "classical" Hebrew in opposition to the neo-Hebrew of the Mishna. With the exception of a few fragments, viz. one verse of Jeremias (x, 11), some chapters of Daniel (ii, 4b-vii, 28) and Esdras (I Esd., iv, 8-vi, 18; vii, 26), which are in Aramaic, all the protocanonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew. The same is true also of some of the deuterocanonical books or fragments (concerning Ecclesiasticus there is no longer any doubt, and there is a fair probability with regard to Dan., iii, 24-90; xiii; xiv; and I Mach.) and likewise some of the Apocrypha, e.g. the Book of Henoch, the Psalms of Solomon, etc. apart from these writings no written documents of the Hebrew language have come down to us except a few meagre inscriptions, e.g. that of Siloe discovered in Jerusalem in 1880, and belonging to the eighth century B.C. a score of seals dating from before the Captivity and containing scarcely anything but proper names, and finally a few coins belonging to the period of the Machabees.

Hebrew belongs to the great Semitic family of languages, the geographical location of which is principally in South-Western Asia, extending from the Mediterranean to the mountains east of the valley of the Euphrates, and from the mountains of Armenia on the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian Peninsula. The migrations of the southern Arabs carried at an early date a branch of the Semitic languages into Abyssinia, and in like manner the commercial enterprise of the Phoenicians caused Semitic colonies to be established along the northern coast of Africa and on some of the islands of the Mediterranean.

The Semitic languages may be divided geographically into four groups, viz. the southern: Arabic and Ethiopic; the northern, embracing the various Aramaen dialects; the eastern or Assyro-Babylonian; and the central or Chanaanitish, to which belong, together with Phoenician Moabitic, and other dialects, the ancient Hebrew and its later offshoots, neo-Hebrew and Rabbinic.

WRITING

The Hebrew alphabet comprises twenty two letters, but as one of these () is used to represent a twofold sound, there are equivalently twenty-three. These letters are all consonants, though a few of them () have secondary vowel values analogously with our w and y. From the writing found on pre-Exilic monuments, as well as from other indications, it is clear that in the earlier period of the history of the language the Hebrew letters were quite different in form from those with which we are now familiar, and whose use probably goes back to the close of the Captivity. The accompanying schema exhibits the letters of the alphabet in the current, so-called square, form, together with their approximate phonetic values, their names and probable signification and their value as numerals.

It will be noticed that five of the letters () have a different form when they stand at the end of a word, and that the letter Shin differs from Sin only by the position of the diacritical point. Hebrew, like Arabic and Syriac, is written from right to left. Words are never divided at the end of a line, the scribes preferring either to leave a blank space or to stretch out certain letters (, hence called dilatable) in order to fill out the line. Among the essential characteristics which Hebrew has in common with the other Semitic languages is the preponderating importance of the consonants over the vowels. Indeed so inferior was the role of the latter that originally, and so long as Hebrew remained a living language, no provision was made for the writing of the vowels other than by a sparing use of the four weak consonants above mentioned, which were occasionally employed to remove ambiguity by indicating certain vowel sounds. In Semitic generally the role of the vowels is quite secondary, viz. to modify the root idea expressed by the consonants, generally three in number, and indicate some of its derived meanings. For instance, the consonantal root , qtl, represents the notion of killing or smiting, and the varying vowels that may be associated with the consonants serve only to indicate different aspects of this signification; thus: qátal, "he killed"; qetól, "to kill"; qotel, active participle, "slaying", "slayer"; qatûl, passive participle, "slain", etc. This explains why the alphabet and writing of the ancient Hebrews, as well as those of the later Syrians and Arabs, consisted only of consonants, the educated reader being able to determine through practice, and from the general sense of the passage. The proper vowels to be supplied for each word. After the Christian Era, when, through the final dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of their cetnre of religious worship, Hebrew was becoming more and more a dead language, and the danger of losing the traditional pronunciation and readings was correspondingly increased, the rabbis realized the absolute necessity of making a more adequate provision for the indication and fixing of the vowel sounds, and this in time led to the painstaking elaboration of the vowel system which is known as the work of the Massoretes

The vowels, five in number (a, e, e, o, u), each of which may be short or long, are indicated by means of dots or dashes placed either above or below the consonants, and, particularly for the long vowels, in conjunction with one of the weak letters. Besides these full vowels, there are also four half vowels or shewas, indicated likewise by combinations of dots and dashes, and representing very short vowel sounds, e.g. like that contained in the first syllable of the English word before. This rather minute analysis and puzzling notation of the vowel sounds is due to the fact that the Massoretes were anxious to indicate and fix, not the conversational pronunciation of the language, but rather the traditional and distinctly articulated enunciation employed in the public reading of the Old Testament in the synagogues As in the case of all languages, this solemn and emphatic mode of utterance involved distinctions and shades of sound that were doubtless overlooked in everyday conversation. Many other signs generally called "accents" were added by the subtle and painstaking Massoretes. Some of them determine with greater precision the pronunciation of certain consonants; others (the accents properly so called) indicate the tone syllable in each word, and, besides, serve to indicate pauses and also the logical connection between words and clauses. Still another function of this complicated system of accents was to serve as a musical notation governing the modulations of the liturgical chant in the service of the synagogue. The tone accent in Hebrew words is ordinarily on the last syllable; sometimes it falls on the penult, but never on the antepenult.

VOCABULARY

The vocabulary of the Hebrew language as known to us is quite small, and there is also a dearth of grammatical forms, especially when comparison is made in this twofold respect with the marvellous richness of the sister Semetic tongue, Arabic. But we are justified in assuming that to the living Hebrew belonged many words and forms that never found a place in the writings of the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, lexicographers count only about 2050 root words, and of these a large number occur only seldom in the Bible, or have little importance in the formation of derivatives. It is generally claimed that a knowledge of 500 roots is a sufficient equipment for the reading of most of the Old Testament texts, and the total number of words in the language as preserved in the Bible is estimated at about 5000. There is an abundance of Hebrew terms to express the things that belong to everyday life-domestic animals and utensils, phenomena and actions that are of common occurrence, ordinary social relations, etc., and in particular to express the acts and objects pertaining to religious life and worship. But the Hebrew vocabulary is notably wanting when considered from the philosophical and psychological standpoint, there being few terms for the expression of abstract ideas or the sentiments of the soul. In such matters there is little evidence of psychological analysis or logical precision. Thus in the Old Testament, which is eminently a religious monument, there appears no abstract term corresponding to what we call "religion", the idea being rather inadequately rendered by the words, "fear f the Lord". There are words for love and hate, but no intermediary term to express the idea of simple preference. Hence the surprising harshness of certain expressions found even in the Gospels, which, though written in Greek, often exhibit the limitations of the Hebrew idiom in which the Evangelists thought. Such, for instance, is the passage (Luke, xiv, 26): "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters. . .he cannot be my disciple". In like manner the terms used in referring to the supposed organic seat of the soul's various operations are vague and give evidence of a rather crude psychological analysis. Thus the "heart", while affections are connected with the "reins" or the "liver", mercy with the "bowels" etc.

Among the structural characteristics which Hebrew possesses in common with the other Semitic languages may be mentioned the great predominance of triliteral roots, which in Hebrew constitute, with the proper vowels, words of two syllables (, qatal). True it is that many root forms exhibit only two consonants (e.g. , sab), but these are considered as contractions of original triliteral stems (e.g. , savav), and the few quadriliteral roots that occur are almost entirely of foreign origin, or can be otherwise accounted for. Among the parts of speech the verb is of paramount importance, not only because it is the principal element in the construction of a sentence, but also for the reason that the other parts of speech, with relatively few exceptions, are derived from verbal stems. Even when certain verbs called denominative are derived from nominal stems, these latter are generally found to be radically dependent on other verbal forms. In fine, it may be noted that Hebrew syntax, like that of the Semitic languages generally, is very elementary and simple-long and involved periods or sentences being entirely foreign to either the prose or poetic writings of the Old Testament. For further discussion of the grammatical structure and peculiarities of the language the reader is referred to the standard treatises on the subject, which are very numerous.

HISTORY

To construct an historical sketch of he origin and development of the Hebrew language is a task beset with much difficulty. In the first place the number of literary documents available for that purpose is very limited, being confined exclusively to the writings of the Old Testament, which doubtless represent only a portion of the Hebrew literature, and although these writings were produced at different intervals, covering a period of over a thousand years, yet there is not a little uncertainty as to the date of the various books. Moreover, in those early times the rules of grammar and orthography requisite for the stability of a language had not yet been formulated. Hence the notable divergencies that appear when the same passage happens to be reproduced in different books of the Old Testament (e.g. in II Kings, xxii, and Ps. xvii). It seems quite probable that the scribes in reproducing the older texts took the liberty of changing the archaic words and locutions into the more intelligible ones in current use, as is known to have been done with regard to the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus. Naturally the earlier stages of the growth of the language are the ones involved in the greatest obscurity. The convention that Hebrew was the original language bestowed upon mankind may be left out of the discussion, being based merely on pietistic a priori considerations. That it was simply a dialect belonging to the Chanaanitish group of Semitic languages is plain from its many recognized affinities with the Phoenician and Moabitic dialects, and presumably with those of Edom and Ammon (see Jeremias, xxvii,3). Its beginnings are consequently bound up with the origins of this group of dialects. The existence in remote antiquity of the Chanaanitish language is vouched for by conclusive monumental evidence. Thus the Tel-el-Amarna tablets bear witness that in the fifteenth century B.C. the peoples inhabiting the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, though making use of Assyrian in their official documents, employed the dialects of Chanaan in current spoken intercourse. Furthermore, the Egyptian records, some of which go back to the sixteenth century and earlier, contain words borrowed from the language of Chanaan, though it must be admitted that these loan words are more frequent in the papyri of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. But these documents, however ancient, do not, of course, take us back to the origin of the Chanaanitish group; its beginnings, like those of the other Semitic languages, are lost in the haze of prehistoric antiquity.

In connection with this problem scholars, assuming that some of the known Semitic languages were derived from others of the same family, have tried to discover their mutual relationships of parent stock and affiliation, to determine which was the mother tongue from which the others were derived. Thus Richard Simon accorded the honour of priority to Hebrew, but this view has now no adherents. Nor have the efforts of modern savants in this direction resulted in the general acceptance of any definite theory of derivations. Friedrich Delitzasch (The Hebrew Language Viewed in the Light of Assyrian Research) awards the priority to Assyrian, while Margoliouth (Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", Vol III, p. 26) places in the first place, and contends that the Chanaanitish language was derived from it when already in a classical stage of development. Obviously the question does not admit of a clear and ready solution, and there seems at present to be a tendency among Semitic scholars to give up the assumption that any of the known Semitic languages were derived directly from any of the others, and to consider them rather as sister idioms, all being derived in more or less parallel lines from one original parent stock of prehistoric origin, which survives only in the elements common to the different members of the group. This view of the case would seem to be confirmed by the results of philological investigations in the field of the Indo-European languages. For a time it was thought that Sanskrit would prove to be the parent stem, but deeper research pointed rather to the existence of a prehistoric language denominated "Aryan", from which Sanskrit, as well as the others was derived. So also in the case of the Semitic tongues; they probably all go back to an original parent language spoken in a certain locality by the first ancestors of the Semitic race. They became diversified more or less rapidly and profoundly as a result of the successive migrations of the various tribes from the common centre, and according to the circumstances and conditions of the milieux into which the migrations took place. While nothing definite is known as to the precise location of the original home of the Semites, the more common opinion of scholars, based on various indications, places it somewhere on or near the borders of the Persian Gulf. From this centre migrations went forth at different epochs, and to different portions of South-Western Asia, where the tribes settled and in the course of time formed separate nations. With this political isolation and independence came also gradual deviations from the original spoken idiom, which, in the course of time became so pronounced as to constitute distinct languages. In this hypothesis it is easy to understand why there are closer resemblances between some of the Semitic tongues (e.g. Hebrew and Arabic) than between others (e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic), the difference being due to the diversity of conditions in which the respective deviations from the parent stock took place. An obvious illustration of this is furnished by a comparative study of the Romance languages, all of which represent more or less independent and parallel derivations from the parent stem, Latin. As regards the Semitic group, it is possible that certain resemblances may be due to supervening influences of a later epoch. Thus, for instance, the Chanaanitish may have been affected more or less profoundly by the official use of Assyrian during the period of the Tell-el-Amarna letters.

Nothing definite is known as to the antiquity of the primitive Semitic nucleus near the Persian Gulf, nor concerning the date of the migration of the tribes who settled in Chanaan. The Book of Genesis (xix, 37 sqq.) connects with the family of Abraham the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites. At all events, it seems probable that the migration of these tribes was anterior to the year 2000 B.C. Whether Abraham already spoke the language of Chanaan at the time of his migration thither, or whether, having first spoken Assyrian or Aramaic, he later adopted the language of the country in which he established himself, it is hard to say. But be that as it may, the language spoken by the clan of Abraham was a dialect closely akin to those of Moab, Tyre, and Sidon, and it bore a greater resemblance to Assyrian and Arabic than to Aramaic. Once formed, it seems to have been little affected by the intrusion of foreign words. Thus, notwithstanding the long sojourn in Egypt, the number of Egyptian words that have found a place in the Hebrew vocabulary is exceedingly small. The attempt on the part of some scholars to prove the existence of several Hebrew dialects has not produced any definite results. The analysis invoked to show, for instance, traces in the Biblical writings of a northern and southern dialect is so minute and subtle, and often so arbitrary, that it is not surprising to find that the conclusions arrived at by different scholars are chiefly noteworthy for their wide divergencies. On the other hand, there seems to be good ground for asserting that, anterior to the period represented by the Biblical Hebrew, the language had already passed through the vicissitudes of long development and subsequent disintegration. Among the indications upon which this contention is base may be mentioned: (1) the presence of archaic words or forms occurring especially in poetic fragments of old war songs and the like; (2) the occurrence of certain classical forms which imply the existence of previous forms long since obsolete; and (3) the fact of the analogies between Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, from which scholars are led to infer the existence, in a more remote antiquity, of analogies closer and more numerous. Such evidences are, of course, subject to sober and cautious scrutiny, else they are liable to be made the basis of hasty and unwarrantable generalizations, but their proving force is cumulative, and they seem to indicate in the Hebrew a long process of growth and decay through which it had passed, in great part at least, before the Biblical period. In fact, it is claimed by some that the Hebrew of the Old Testament betrays evidences of as great a disintegration and departure from its assumed typical perfection as does the vulgar Arabic of to-day from the classical idiom of the golden literary age of Islam.

A noteworthy characteristic of the Hebrew of the Biblical period is its uniform stability. All due allowance being made for scribal alterations whereby archaic passages may have been made more intelligible to later generations, the astounding fact still remains that throughout the many centuries during which the Old-Testament writings were produced the sacred language remained almost without perceptible change-a phenomenon of fixity which has no parallel in the history of any of our Western languages. This is especially true of the period anterior to the Captivity, for that great event marks the beginning of rapid decadence. Nevertheless, though from that date onward the spoken Hebrew gave way more and more to the prevailing Aramaic, it still maintained its position as a literary language. The post-Exilic writers strove doubtless to reproduce the style and diction of their pre-Exilic models, and some of their compositions (e.g. certain psalms), though belonging to the latter part of the Jewish period, possess a literary merit scarcely surpassed by that of the best productions of the age of Ezechias, which is generally reckoned as the golden age of Hebrew letters. Not all of the writings, however, of the post-Exilic period are up to this high literary standard. Marks of decadence are already discernible in the prolixity of certain passages of Jeremias, and in the frequent occurrence of Aramaisms in the prophecies of Ezechiel. The substitution of Aramaic for Hebrew as a spoken language began with the Captivity and progressed steadily not only in Babylonia but also in Palestine. Certain parts of Daniel and of Esdras have dome down to us in Aramaic (whether they were thus originally composed is a moot question), and other books of that period though written in Hebrew, belong clearly to an epoch of literary decline. Such are Chronicles, Nehemias, Aggeus, and Malachias.

The period of transition from the spoken Hebrew to Aramaic coincided with that of the completion of the Old-Testament canon-a period of ever-increasing veneration for the Sacred Writings. From these circumstances arose in the minds of the rabbis a twofold preoccupation. As the people no longer understood the classical Hebrew, and were unable to follow the official reading of the Old Testament in the synagogues, it became necessary to translate it into the vernacular and explain it to them. It was this need that determined the translation of the Sacred Books into Greek for the use of the hellenizing Jews of Alexandria. This is the version known as the Septuagint (q.v.), and its beginnings go back to the third century B.C. The same need was met in Palestine and Babylonia by the free paraphrastic translations into Aramaic known as the Targums (q.v.). To these were added glosses and explanations by the rabbis, which, after having been for a time preserved by oral tradition, were later reduced to writing and incorporated in the Talmud (q.v.). Another urgent need growing out of the altered circumstances was a definite fixation of the Hebrew text itself. Hitherto the work of transcribing the Sacred Books had not been performed with all the care and accuracy desirable, partly through negligence on the part of the scribes, and partly because of their tendency to elucidate obscure passages by introducing intentional simplifications. From these and other causes numerous variations had gradually crept into the codices in both public and private use, and through these differences of reading were generally confined to details of minor consequence, it is nevertheless plain, from a comparison of the Septuagint version with the fixed Masoretic text of a later age, that in many cases they seriously affected the sense. The natural course of things would be in the direction of still further divergencies, but the ever-growing veneration for the Sacred Books caused a reaction which began to be felt as early as the third century B.C. Great and ever-increasing care was henceforth taken in the copying of the Biblical manuscripts, especially those of the Torah or Pentateuch. Variant readings were gradually and systematically eliminated, and so successful were these efforts that from the second century A.D. onwards a practically complete and final unity of text was established for all the Jewish communities.

But the fixation of the consonantal text which was perfected during the Talmudic period extending from the second to the fourth century A.D., was not the only end to be attained. It was necessary also to determine and fix orthographically the traditional pronunciation of the vowels which hitherto had to be supplied from the reader's knowledge of the language, or at best were only occasionally indicated by the use of one of the weak letters (). The use of these had been introduced as early as the third century B.C., as is proved from the Septuagint version, and they were doubtless of great utility in determining grammatical forms that would otherwise remain ambiguous, but their introduction had been neither official nor uniform, being rather left to the initiative and preference of the individual scribes, whence arose a considerable diversity in different manuscripts. But aside from inconsistencies of application, the system was at best quite inadequate, as it provided for the indication of only a small number of the more important vowel sounds. Nevertheless, no systematic attempt seems to have been made to supply this deficiency until the sixth century A.D. This was the beginning of what is known as the Massoretic period in the history of the Hebrew language.

The Massoretes, so called from the Talmudic word massorah or massoreth, signifying tradition, were a body of Jewish scholars who succeeded the Talmudists, and who during the period from the sixth to the eleventh century worked out the great Massoretic system. Their object, like that of the Talmudists, was to provide means for the inviolate preservation of the traditional reading and understanding of the Old Testament text, but what was still left to oral transmission by their predecessors was now reduced to writing and incorporated into the text by means of a most elaborate and ingenious system of annotations and conventional signs. The Massoretes drew up rules for the guidance of copyists, made exhaustive statistics of verses, words, and letters contained in the Sacred Books, noted peculiar forms, etc., but the most important part of their great work was the elaboration of the vowel system whereby all ambiguousity was henceforth practically removed, at least so far as the traditional reading was concerned. So great was the veneration entertained for the consonantal text that no modification of it could be tolerated, not even to correct palpable errors-such corrections being noted in the margin, and for the same reason the vowel signs were not allowed to disturb in any way the form or position of the consonants, but were added to the text in the form of dots and dashes together with other minute arbitrary signs generally known as accents. Two parallel systems with different methods of notation were developed, one in the Western or Tiberian, the other in the Eastern or Babylonian School. The work of the former reached its culmination in the tenth century in the text of Ben Asher, and that of the Oriental School about the same time in the text of Ben Naphthali. The former became the standard text upon which all subsequent manuscripts in the West and all printed editions of the Hebrew Bible have been based. Not only is the Massoretic system a marvel of ingenuity and minute painstaking labour, but it is moreover a work which has proved of inestimable value to all subsequent generations of Biblical students. In the light of modern philological knowledge it has indeed its defects and limitations; grammarians and lexicographers have doubtless at times followed its lead with too great servility, often to the extent of accepting as normal certain forms that are nothing more than scribal errors-a fact which accounts in part of the multitude of exceptions which bewilder the student when trying to master the Hebrew grammar. But when all this is conceded, the fact remains that the Massoretic text is the only reliable foundation on which to base a serious study of the Old Testament. It is a well-recognized right of modern scholarship to question and emend many of its readings, but the text is, so to say, in possession, and it must be confessed that many of the corrections suggested by some of our modern critics are more arbitrary than scientific.

LITERATURE

Prose literature of the historical type constitutes a large portion of the Old Testament. The history of the Jewish people with a sketch of their ancestors going back to the beginnings of the human race is related from a twofold point of view. Commonly known as the priestly and the prophetic. To the former belongs such books as Chronicles, Esdras, and Nehemias (II Esd.), and important sections of the Pentateuch. Its main characteristics are the annalistic style with precise dates, statistics, genealogies, official documents, etc., and it enters with minute detail into the religious prescriptions and ceremonies of the Law. It has the dryness of a series of legal documents, and is devoid of imagination or living descriptions of events. To the prophetic type of Hebrew prose belong large portions of the Pentateuch as well as of the succeeding gooks: Josue, Judges, Samuel (I and II Kings), and Kings (III and IV Kings). Its narratives are graphic and full of life, and they are characterized by imagination and a refined aesthetic taste. The Deuteronomic writers, and to some extent the Hebrew historiographers in general, employ the narration of historic facts chiefly as a vehicle for the conveying of prophetic and religious lessons. In like spirit, and on account of their didactic value, legends and ancient Semitic traditions and even accounts chiefly imaginary, find a place in the historical books. Other prose writings of the Old Testament, though cast in historical form, contain a large element of fiction introduced for a didactic purpose similar to the one underlying such narratives as that of the prodigal son in the New Testament. Among these writings, the chief object of which is to inculcate religious and patriotic lessons, may be mentioned Tobias, Judith, Esther, and Jonas.

The Old Testament embodies a considerable amount of poetry, most of which is religious in character. But various indications go to show that the Hebrew literature must have contained many other poetical works which unfortunately have not come down to us. Mention is occasionally made of some of these in the Sacred Writings, e.g. the Book of Yashar [II Sam. (Kings), I,18] and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh (Num., xxi,14). Besides fragments called "canticles" scattered here and there throughout the historical books [e.g. that of Jacob, Gen., xlix, 2-27; that of Moses, Deut., xxxii, 1-43, also xxxiii, 2-29; that of Deborah, Judges, v, 2-31; that of Anna, I Sam. (Kings), ii, 1-10, etc.], the poetical writings of the Old Testament embrace the Psalms, the Book of Job, except the prologue and the epilogue, the Canticle of Canticles, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, the Lamentations of Jeremias, and considerable portions of the prophetic books. The Psalms belong chiefly to the lyric genre, Job is a religious and philosophical drama, while Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus are collections of what is called didactic or gnomic poetry.

Apart from its sacred character, the poetry of the Old Testament possesses the highest literary merit, and there is abundant evidence of the great influence it exercised on the religious and national life of the Hebrews. Among its literary characteristics may be mentioned in the first place its naturalness and simplicity. It knows little of fixed, artificial forms, but has a natural sublimity of its own due to the loftiness of the ideas. It deals with things concrete and is essentially subjective. It re-echoes the poet's own thoughts and feelings, and sets forth the varied phases of his own experiences. To these qualities is due in great measure the influence exercised by Hebrew poetry on the Jewish people, as well as its wonderful adaptability to the needs and tastes of all classes of readers. It rarely involves anything like a logical process of reasoning, but is intuitive and sententious, expressing with authority religious and ethical truths in brief, terse, pregnant utterances having little connexion one with another save through the unity of the general theme. Another characteristic of Hebrew poetry is its realism. "The sacred writers enter into deep and intimate fellowship with external nature, the world of animal, vegetable and material forces: and by regarding them as in immediate connection with God and man, deal only with the noblest themes" (Cf. Briggs, "Gen. Introd.", p. 360). All nature is aglow with the glory of God, and at the same time it is represented as sharing in the destinies of man.

As regards literary form, Hebrew poetry takes little or no account of rhyme, and in this it differs essentially from the poetry of its sister language Arabic. It makes frequent and effective use of alliteration, assonance, and play upon words, but its main and essential characteristic is what is known as parallelism. This peculiarity, though remarked by earlier writers, was first set forth in a scientific treatise by the Anglican Bishop Lowth (De Sacrâ Poesi Hebr., 1753). Parallelism, traces of which are found likewise in the Assyrian and Babylonian hymns, consists essentially in the reiteration, in one form or another, in succeeding lines of the idea expressed in a pervious one. The more common form of this reiteration is a simple repetition of the idea in more or less synonymous terms. Thus:--

(1) In thy strength, O Lord, the king shall joy;
And in thy salvation he shall rejoice--(Ps.xx,2)

(2) Let thy hand be found by all thy enemies:
Let thy right hand find out all them that hate thee--(ibid., 9)

Sometimes, especially in the gnomic poetry, the reiteration of the idea is put in the form of an antithesis, constituting what Bishop Lowth termed antithetic parallelism. Thus:--

(1) A wise son maketh the father glad:
But a foolish son is the sorrow of his mother--(Prov., x, 1).

(2) The slothful hand hath wrought poverty:
But the hand of the industrious getteth riches--(ibid. 4).

Still another form of parallelism is the synthetic or cumulative, of which the following lines may serve as an example:--

Praise the Lord from the earth,
Ye dragons, and all ye deeps:
Fire, hail, snow, ice,
Stormy winds, which fulfil his word.--(Ps. cxlvii, 7-8).

Sometimes the thought expressed in the first verse is a figure of the truth enunciated in the second in which case the parallelism is called emblematic. Thus:

When the wood faileth, the fire shall go out:
And when the talebearer is taken away, contentions shall cease.
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire,
So an angry man stirreth up strife--(Prov., xxvi, 20-21).

For examples of other and rarer forms of parallelism such as the progressive or staircase form in which a final word or clause of one line is made the starting point of the succeeding one and so on; introverted parallelism, in which the first line corresponds with the fourth, and the second with the third, the reader is referred to special treatises (e.g.Briggs, "General Introduction", ch. xiv: "Characteristics of Biblical Poetry").

For the apocryphal works pertaining to the later Hebrew literature, see APOCRYPHA, and for the Neo-Hebrew of the Mishna and the Gemara, see TALMUD.

WORK OF THE GRAMMARIANS

Although some of the Old Testament writers give etymological renderings of various proper names, no trace of grammatical or philological study of the Hebrew language appears prior to the Talmudic period. Many of the observations preserved in the Talmud have a grammatical bearing, and remarks of a similar kind are frequently met with in the commentaries of St. Jerome and the other early Christian writers. The first systematic attempts to frame the rules of Hebrew grammar were made by the Oriental Jews, chiefly of the Babylonian School. The movement began with Manahem Ben Sarouk (d. 950) and continued until the end of the twelfth century, but the results of these early efforts left much to be desired. More successful was the movement inaugurated about the same time under the influence of Arabic culture among the Jewish colonies of Spain and Northern Africa. Among the writers belonging to this school may be mentioned Jehuda Ben Koreish (880), Saadyah (d. 942), Rabbi Jonah Ben Gannah (physician of Cordova, b. about 990), first author of a Hebrew grammar and lexicon, and Juda Hayug (d. 1010). In the sixteenth century the study of Hebrew, hitherto almost exclusively confined to the Jews, was taken up by Christian scholars, and under the influence of the Protestant principle of the Bible as the sole rule of faith it received a great impetus. Prior to the Reformation Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522) and the Dominican Santes Paginus (1471-1541) had prepared the way for such scholars as the famous Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629) and his son (1599-1664). The former was appointed professor of Hebrew at Basle in 1590 and was accounted the most learned hebraist of his time. He published in 1602 a manual of Biblical Hebrew containing a grammar and a vocabulary, and in the following year a work on the Jewish Synagogue. In 1613 he brought out a lexicon of rabbinical Hebrew and its abbreviations, and in 1618 appeared his greatest work, the folio Hebrew Bible, together with the Targums (q.v.) and the commentaries of the rabbinical writers Ben Ezra and Rashi. Buxtorf died of the plague in 1629, leaving many important works unfinished. Some of these were completed and edited by his son Johann, who became his successor as professor of Hebrew at Basle. Another scholar of that period was Paul Buchlein (Fagius), a Bavarian (1504-49), who after having studied Hebrew under Elias Levita became professor of theology at Strasburg in 1542) In 1549 he was called to England by Cranmer and appointed professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, where he died shortly afterwards. He enjoyed a great reputation as a Hebrew scholar, and he published more than a score of works dealing chiefly with Old Testament exegesis. But the work of these and other eminent scholars of the same school was defective because based too exclusively on the principles of the Jewish grammarians, and it was to a great extent superseded in the eighteenth century by the works of such scholars as Albert Schultens of Leyden (1686-1750) and Schroder of Marburg (1721-98), who introduced new methods, notably that of comparative grammar. The nineteenth century was marked by a strong revival of Hebrew studies. The movement was begun by Wilhelm Gesenius (d.1842), whose "Thesaurus" and grammar have been the basis of all subsequent works of the kind, and continued by Bottcher (d.1863), Ewald (d. 1875), Olshausen, Stade, Konig, Bickell, etc. These scholars, profiting by the great advance in linguistic knowledge derived from the comparative study of the Indo-European languages, have introduced into the study of Hebrew a more extensive application of phonetic and other philological principles and have thus brought it nearer than did their predecessors to the realm of an exact science.

TOUZARD in VIG., "Dict. de la Bible", s.v. "Hebraique (Langue)", anexhaustive treatise, of which the foregoing is in great measure an abstract and adaptation; MARGOLIOUTH in HAST., "Dict. of the Bible", s.v. "Language of the Old Testament"; GENESIUS, "Grammar of the Hebrew Language", ed. MITCHELL (1903); VOSEN, "Rudimenta", 7th ed., tr. GABRIELS, "Rudiments of the Hebrew Grammar" (Freiburg and St. Louis, 1888); HARPER, "Elements of Hebrew Syntax" (New York, 1892); WRIGHT, "Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages" (Cambridge, 1890); BRIGGS, "General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scripture" (New York, 1899), ch. xiii-xvii; MOULTON, "A Literary Study of the Bible"; IDEM, "A Short Introduction to the Literature of the Bible" (Boston, 1901); ABBOTT, "Life and Literature of the Ancient Hebrews" (Boston, 1901).

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Epistle to the Hebrews

This will be considered under eight headings: (I) Argument; (II) Doctrinal Contents; (III) Language and Style; (IV) Distinctive Characteristics; (V) Readers to Whom it was Addressed; (VI) Author; (VII) Circumstances of the Composition; (VIII) Importance.

I. ARGUMENT

In the Oldest Greek manuscripts the Epistle to the Hebrews (pros Hebraious) follows the other letters to the Churches and precedes the pastoral letters. In the later Greek codices, and in the Syriac and Latin codices as well, it holds the last place among the Epistles of St. Paul; this usage is also followed by the textus receptus, the modern Greek and Latin editions of the text, the Douay and Revised Versions, and the other modern translations.

Omitting the introduction with which the letters of St. Paul usually begin, the Epistle opens with the solemn announcement of the superiority of the New Testament Revelation by the Son over Old Testament Revelation by the prophets (Heb., i, 1-4). It then proves and explains from the Scriptures the superiority of this New Covenant over the Old by the comparison of the Son with the angels as mediators of the Old Covenant (i, 5-ii, 18), with Moses and Josue as the founders of the Old Covenant (iii, 1-iv, 16), and, finally, by opposing the high-priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech to the Levitical priesthood after the order of Aaron (v, 1-x, 18). Even in this mainly doctrinal part the dogmatic statements are repeatedly interrupted by practical exhortations. These are mostly admonitions to hold fast to the Christian Faith, and warnings against relapse into the Mosaic worship. In the second, chiefly hortatory, part of the Epistle, the exhortations to steadfastness in the Faith (x, 19-xii, 13), and to a Christian life according to the Faith (xii, 14-xiii, 17), are repeated in an elaborated form, and the Epistle closes with some personal remarks and the Apostolic salutation (xiii, 18-25).

II. DOCTRINAL CONTENTS

The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office. In regard to the Person of the Saviour the author expresses himself as clearly concerning the true Divine nature of Christ as concerning Christ's human nature, and his Christology has been justly called Johannine. Christ, raised above Moses, above the angels, and above all created beings, is the brightness of the glory of the Father, the express image of His Divine nature, the eternal and unchangeable, true Son of God, Who upholdeth all things by the word of His power (i, 1-4). He desired, however, to take on a human nature and to become in all things like unto us human beings, sin alone excepted, in order to pay man's debt of sin by His passion and death (ii, 9-18; iv, 15, etc.). By suffering death He gained for Himself the eternal glory which He now also enjoys in His most holy humanity on His throne at the right hand of the Father (i, 3; ii, 9; viii, 1; xii, 2, etc.). There He now exercises forever His priestly office of mediator as our Advocate with the Father (vii, 24 sq.).

This doctrine of the priestly office of Christ forms the chief subject-matter of the Christological argument and the highest proof of the pre-eminence of the New Covenant over the Old. The person of the High-priest after the order of Melchisedech, His sacrifice, and its effects are opposed, in an exhaustive comparison, to the Old Testament institutions. The Epistle lays special emphasis on the spiritual power and effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, which have brought to Israel, as to all mankind, atonement and salvation that are complete and sufficient for all time, and which have given to us a share in the eternal inheritance of the Messianic promises (i, 3; ix, 9-15, etc.). In the admonitory conclusions from these doctrines at the end we find a clear reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Christian altar, of which those are not permitted to partake who still wish to serve the Tabernacle and to follow the Mosaic Law (xiii, 9 sq.).

In the Christological expositions of the letter other doctrines are treated more or less fully. Special emphasis is laid on the setting aside of the Old Covenant, its incompleteness and weakness, its typical and preparatory relation to the time of the Messianic salvation that is realized in the New Covenant (vii, 18 sq.; viii, 15; x, 1, etc.). In the same manner the letter refers at times to the four last things, the resurrection, the judgment, eternal punishment, and heavenly bliss (vi, 2, 7 sq.; ix, 27, etc.). If we compare the doctrinal content of this letter with that of the other epistles of St. Paul, a difference in the manner of treatment, it is true, is noticeable in some respects. At the same time, there appears a marked agreement in the views, even in regard to characteristic points of Pauline doctrine (cf. J. Belser, "Einleitung" 2nd ed., 571-73). The explanation of the differences lies in the special character of the letter and in the circumstances of its composition.

III. LANGUAGE AND STYLE

Even in the first centuries commentators noticed the striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style that characterized the Epistle to the Hebrews (Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv, n.2-4; Origen, ibid., VI, xxv, n. 11-14). This observation is confirmed by later authorities. In fact the author of the Epistle shows great familiarity with the rules of the Greek literary language of his age. Of all the New Testament authors he has the best style. His writing may even be included among those examples of artistic Greek prose whose rhythm recalls the parallelism of Hebrew poetry (cf. Fr. Blass, "[Barnabas] Brief an die Hebraer". Text with indications of the rhythm, Halle, 1903). As regards language, the letter is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of the individuality of the writer. As many as 168 terms have been counted which appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found neither in Biblical or classical Greek, and forty words also which are not found in the Septuagint. One noticeable peculiarity is the preference of the author for compound words (cf. E. Jacquier, "Histoire des livres du N.T.", I, Paris, 1903, 457-71; Idem in Vig., "Dict. de la Bible". III, 530-38). A comparison of the letter as regards language and style with the other writings of St. Paul confirms in general the opinion of Origen that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between them (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xxv, n. 11).

IV. DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Among other peculiarities we should mention:

• The absence of the customary form of the Pauline letters. The usual opening with the Apostolic greeting and blessing is entirely lacking; nor is there any clear evidence of the epistolary character of the writing until the brief conclusion is reached (xiii, 18-25). On this account some have preferred to regard the letter rather as a homily, but this is plainly incorrect. According to the statement of the author it is an admonition and exhortation (logos tes karakleseos, xiii, 22), which, above all, presupposes a well-defined situation of an actually existing individual Church.
• The method of citing from the Old Testament. The author in his instruction, demonstration, and exhortation draws largely from the copious treasures of the Old Testament. All the citations follow the text of the Septuagint even where this varies from the Masoretic text, unless the citation is freely rendered according to the sense and without verbal exactness (examples, i, 6; xii, 20; xiii, 5). In the other Pauline letters, it is true, quotations from the Old Testament generally follow the Greek translation even when the text varies, but the Apostle at times corrects the Septuagint by the Hebrew, and at other times, when the two do not agree, keeps closer to the Hebrew.

In regard to the formula with which the citations are introduced, it is worthy of note that the expression "It is written", so commonly used in the New Testament, occurs only once in the Epistle to the Hebrews (x, 7). In this Epistle the words of Scripture are generally given as the utterance of God, at times also of Christ or the Holy Spirit.

V. READERS TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED

According to the superscription, the letter is addressed to "Hebrews". The contents of the letter define more exactly this general designation. Not all Israelites are meant, but only those who have accepted the faith in Christ.

Furthermore, the letter could hardly have been addressed to all Jewish Christians in general. It presupposes a particular community, with which both the writer of the letter and his companion Timothy have had close relations (xiii, 18-24), which has preserved its faith in severe persecutions, and has distinguished itself by works of charity (x, 32-35), which is situated in a definite locality, whither the author hopes soon to come (xiii, 19, 23).

The place itself may also be inferred from the content with sufficient probability. For although many modern commentators incline either to Italy (on account of xiii, 24), or to Alexandria (on account of the reference to a letter of Paul to the Alexandrians in the Muratorian Canon and for other reasons), or leave the question undecided, yet the entire letter is best suited to the members of the Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem. What is decisive above all for this question is the fact that the author presupposes in the readers not only an exact knowledge of the Levitical worship and all its peculiar customs, but, furthermore, regards the present observance of this worship as the special danger to the Christian faith of those addressed. His words (cf. particularly x, 1 sq.) may, if necessary, perhaps permit of another interpretation, but they indicate Jerusalem with the highest probability as the Church for which the letter is intended. There alone the Levitical worship was known to all by the daily offering of sacrifices and the great celebrations of the Day of Atonement and of other feast-days. There alone this worship was continuously maintained according to the ordinances of the Law until the destruction of the city in the year 70.

VI. AUTHOR

Even in the earliest centuries the question as to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was much discussed and was variously answered. The most important points to be considered in answering the inquiry are the following:

(1) External Evidence

(a) In the East the writing was unanimously regarded as a letter of St. Paul. Eusebius gives the earliest testimonies of the Church of Alexandria in reporting the words of a "blessed presbyter" (Pantaenus?), as well as those of Clement and Origen (Hist. Eccl., VI, xiv, n. 2-4; xxv, n. 11-14). Clement explains the contrast in language and style by saying that the Epistle was written originally in Hebrew and was then translated by Luke into Greek. Origen, on the other hand, distinguishes between the thoughts of the letter and the grammatical form; the former, according to the testimony of "the ancients" (oi archaioi andres), is from St. Paul; the latter is the work of an unknown writer, Clement of Rome according to some, Luke, or another pupil of the Apostle, according to others. In like manner the letter was regarded as Pauline by the various Churches of the East: Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Mesopotamia, etc. (cf. the different testimonies in B. F. Westcott, "The Epistle to the Hebrews", London, 1906, pp. lxii-lxxii). It was not until after the appearance of Arius that the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews was disputed by some Orientals and Greeks.

(b) In Western Europe the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians shows acquaintance with the text of the writing (chs. ix, xii, xvii, xxxvi, xlv), apparently also the "Pastor" of Hermas (Vis. II, iii, n.2; Sim. I, i sq.). Hippolytus and Irenaeus also knew the letter but they do not seem to have regarded it as a work of the Apostle (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", xxvi; Photius, Cod. 121, 232; St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lix). Eusebius also mentions the Roman presbyter Caius as an advocate of the opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not the writing of the Apostle, and he adds that some other Romans, up to his own day, were also of the same opinion (Hist. Eccl., VI, xx, n.3). In fact the letter is not found in the Muratorian Canon; St. Cyprian also mentions only seven letters of St. Paul to the Churches (De exhort. mart., xi), and Tertullian calls Barnabas the author (De pudic., xx). Up to the fourth century the Pauline origin of the letter was regarded as doubtful by other Churches of Western Europe. As the reason for this Philastrius gives the misuse made of the letter by the Novatians (Haer., 89), and the doubts of the presbyter Caius seem likewise to have arisen from the attitude assumed towards the letter by the Montanists (Photius, Cod. 48; F. Kaulen, "Einleitung in die Hl. Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments", 5th ed., Freiburg, 1905, III, 211).

After the fourth century these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews gradually became less marked in Western Europe. While the Council of Carthage of the year 397, in the wording of its decree, still made a distinction between Pauli Apostoli epistoloe tredecim (thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle) and eiusdem ad Hebroeos una (one of his to the Hebrews) (H. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 92, old n. 49), the Roman Synod of 382 under Pope Damasus enumerates without distinction epistoloe Pauli numero quatuordecim (epistles of Paul fourteen in number), including in this number the Epistle to the Hebrews (Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 84). In this form also the conviction of the Church later found permanent expression. Cardinal Cajetan (1529) and Erasmus were the first to revive the old doubts, while at the same time Luther and the other Reformers denied the Pauline origin of the letter.

(2) Internal Evidences

(a) The content of the letter bears plainly the stamp of genuine Pauline ideas. In this regard it suffices to refer to the statements above concerning the doctrinal contents of the Epistle (see II).

(b) The language and style vary in many particulars from the grammatical form of the other letters of Paul, as in sufficiently shown above (see III).

(c) the distinctive characteristics of the Epistle (IV) favour more the opinion that the form in which it is cast is not the work of the author of the other Apostolic letters.

(3) Most Probable Solution

From what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the question as to the author is that up to the present time the opinion of Origen has not been superseded by a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is to be distinguished from the writer. No valid reason has been produced against Paul as the originator of the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the belief of the early Church held throughout with entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the Epistle.

The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle, especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila.

VII. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPOSITION

An examination both of the letter itself and of the earliest testimonies of tradition, in reference to the circumstances of its composition, leads to the following conclusions:

(1) The place of composition was Italy (xiii, 24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63).

(2) The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composition is, therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his release from imprisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey "as far as the boundaries of Western Europe" (St. Clement of Rome, "I Epistle to the Corinthians", v, n. 7), that is to Spain.

(3) The reason for its composition is probably to be found in the conditions existing in the Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem. The faith of the Church might fall into great danger through continued persecution by the Jews, who had put James, the head of the community to a violent death. Precisely at this period the services in the temple were celebrated with great pomp, as under Albinus (62-64) the magnificent building was completed, while the Christian community had to struggle with extreme poverty. The national movement which began shortly before the outbreak of the last Jewish war would increase the danger. These circumstances might lead the Apostle to write the letter.

(4) The Apostle himself declares the aim of his writing to be the consolation and encouragement of the faithful (xiii, 22). The argument and context of the letter show that Paul wished especially to exhort to steadfastness in the Christian Faith and to warn against the danger of apostasy to the Mosaic worship.

VIII. IMPORTANCE

The chief importance of the Epistle is in its content of theological teaching. It is, in complete agreement with the other letters of St. Paul, a glorious testimony to the faith of the Apostolic time; above all it testifies to the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, to His heavenly priesthood, and the atoning power of His death.

LEOPOLD FONCK

Hebron

(hbrwn, chebrón)

An ancient royal city of Chanaan, famous in biblical history, especially at the time of the patriarchs and under David. During the Middle Ages it was an episcopal see — at present it is only a titular one — and was situated in Palestine Prima, with Cæsarea as metropolitan. Hence the division of this article into two parts: (I) Biblical Epoch, (II) Christian Epoch.

BIBLICAL EPOCH

Hebron is one of the earliest towns mentioned in history. According to the Bible (Num., xiii, 23) it was founded seven years before Zoan or Tanis, the most ancient town in Lower Egypt, which means that it existed from the first half of the third millennium b.c. Josephus (Bel. Jud., IV, ix, 7) says that in his time the town was already 2300 years old. It was originally called Kiriat Arba, or Kiriat- ha-Arba (D. V. Cariath-Arbe, Gen., xxiii, 2, xxxv, 27; Jos., xiv, 15, xv, 13, 54, xx, 7, xxi, 11; Judges, i, 10; II Esd., xi, 25) from the name of Arba, "the greatest among the Enacims" (Jos., xiv, 15). The Vulgate, taking the common name ha-adam in this last expression, i. e. the man, for the proper name Adam, translates as follows: "Adam the greatest among the Enacim was laid there"; whence it should not be inferred, as was the case with some ancient authors, that Hebron contains the tomb of the first man. The explanation of the name Kiriat-Arba by the Bible shows all others to be merely fanciful. Such, for instance, is that of St. Jerome (De locis et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum, s. v. Arbac, P. L., XXIII, 862; Ep. xlvi, P. L., XXII, 491; Ep. cviii, P. L. XXII, 886; Quest. in Gen., P. L., XXIII, 978) and of some Jewish commentators who take the word Arba to mean "four", and Kiriat-Arba to be the "town of the four", i. e. the four patriarchs buried in the cave of Machpelah: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom must be added, according to various opinions, either Adam, Caleb, Esau, or Joseph. According to de Saulcy (Voyage en Terre Sainte, I, 152) the name means "the town of the four quarters"; while it suits the modern town, this is not at all true of the ancient one. The Bible, however, insists over and over again on the true origin of the name: "Cariath-Arbe the father of Enac, which is Hebron" (Jos., xv, 13; xxi, 11). The name Hebron is also very ancient. It appears under the form Cheburo on Egyptian monuments of the second milennium b.c. (Brügsch, "Geog. Inschriften altägypt. Denkmäler", II, 76).

The earliest mention of Hebron in the Scriptures occurs (Gen., xiii, 18) on the occasion of Abraham's coming to the vale of Mambre; and this last name is often given to Hebron (Gen., xxiii, 19, xxxv, 27). On the death of Sara, his wife, the patriarch bought from Ephron the Hethite the cave of Machpelah to serve as a burying place for his family (Gen., xxiii); Abraham himself was buried there (Gen., xxv, 9), as were also Isaac (Gen., xxxv, 27-29) and Jacob (Gen., l, 13). Hebron thus became the second homeland of Abraham, and the centre of attraction during the wanderings of the patriarchs. Isaac and Jacob dwelt at Mambre, and it was from the "vale of Hebron" that Joseph was sent towards Sichem and Dothain to inquire after his brethren (Gen., xxxvii, 14, 17). The Hebrew spies sent by Moses into Chanaan went as far as Hebron, and it was from the adjacent valley of Escol that they brought back a vine-branch with its cluster of grapes, and some pomegranates and figs (Num., xiii, 23-25). When the Israelites invaded Chanaan, Oham, King of Hebron, allied himself against them with four other Chanaanite princes to besiege Gabaon. After Josue had defeated them, and put them to death, he went on to attack Hebron, which he took, putting all its inhabitants to death (Jos., x, 3, 23-26, 36-37; xi, 21; xii, 10). On the division of the Promised Land, Hebron fell to the tribe of Juda and was given to Caleb (Jos., xiv, 13, 14, xv, 13, 54; Judges, i, 20). It soon afterwards became a city of refuge, falling to the lot of the children of Aaron (Jos., xx, 7, xxi, 11, 13; I Par., vi, 55, 57). After the death of Saul on Mount Gelboe, David went to Hebron with his men, and occupied all the surrounding villages (II Kings, ii, 1, 3). He was there anointed King of Juda; made Hebron his capital, and reigned there seven years and a half (II Kings, ii, 11, iii, 2, 5, v, 5; III Kings, ii, 11; I Par., iii, 1, 4; and xxix, 27). Abner, the leader of Saul's army, came to Hebron to see David, was well received by him, but was afterwards killed by Joab. The king wept over Abner, gave him burial, and composed a lament over him (II Kings, iii, 19-iv, 1). It was also to Hebron that Baana and Rechab, chiefs of the bands of Isboseth, brought the head of that son of Saul whom they had traitorously slain. David ordered the murderers to be put to death; their hands and feet were cut off, and hanged up over the pool in Hebron (II Kings, iv, 2-12). Then all the tribes of Israel came and made submission to David (II Kings, v, 1-3; I Par., xi, 1-3). When Absalom revolted against his father, who had then become King of Jerusalem, it was Hebron he made his headquarters (II Kings, xv, 7-11). The town was fortified by Roboam (II Par., xi, 10). Cariath-Arbe is also mentioned among the towns occupied by the children of Juda after the captivity (II Esd., xi, 25). Under Syrian domination, it passed into the hands of the Idumeans; Judas Machabeus, who drove them out, razed the fortifications of Chebron (I Mach., v, 65).

CHRISTIAN EPOCH

Some writers, following Baronius, Papebroch, Cornelius a Lapide, and Matth. Polus, have identified Hebron as the city of Juda where the Visitation took place, and where St. John the Baptist was born. They hold that Hebron was the most important of the towns of Juda, since Jerusalem belonged to Benjamin; and that, moreover, Hebron was the most important of the Levitical towns belonging to the sons of Caath, from whom came Zachary, father of the Precursor. However there is fairly strong local tradition in favour of identifying the "city of Juda" with Carem, the modern Ain-Karim (see Carem; Heidet in Vig., "Dict. de la Bible", s. v. Carem; and Meistermann, "La partrie de S. Jean Baptiste"). At the time of the great Jewish rebellion, Simon ben Giora captured Hebron from the Romans; but the town was soon retaken, shortly before the siege of Jerusalem, by Cerealis, one of Vespasian's generals, who ravaged it with fire and sword (Josephus, "Bel. Jud.", IV, ix, 7-9). It was with great difficulty that Hebron ever recovered. Eusebius (Onomast., s. v. ’Arbó) tells us that in his day (fourth century) it was merely a large hamlet; but the neighbourhood has always been dear to pagans, Jews, and Christians alike (Eusebius, "Vita Constantini", III, li, lii, in P. G. XX, 1112-1117; Socrates, "Hist Eccl.", in P. G. LXVII, 124; Sozomen, "Hist. Eccl.", in P. G. LXVII, 941-946). Even the Mussulmans held it dear by reason of its many Scriptural associations, especially the apparition of the angels to Abraham, and because it contains the tomb of the patriarchs. This tomb is mentioned by Josephus (loc. cit.; "Ant.", I, 14), by Eusebius (Onomasticon, loc. cit.), by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333, and by visitors of after-ages, as a sanctuary held in the highest reverence. At the time of the Arab conquest in 637, Hebron, for all these reasons, was chosen as one of the four holy cities of Islam. Previously Khusrau (614), the Persian king, had spared it in deference to the Jews of whom there were many in his army. Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozomen (loc. cit.) relate that Constantine ordered a church to be built at Mambre, with the object of putting an end to the superstitious practices that took place there every year during a semi-religious fair. But we do not know at what epoch a basilica was first built over the cave of Machpelah. It is certain that the Crusaders took the town in 1100, and that the sanctuary became the church of Saint Abraham, also called the church of the Holy Cave (Sancta Caverna or Spelunca, ’ágion spelaîon). The town itself is often styled by the chroniclers of that period Castel Saint-Abraham, Præsidium or Castellum ad Sanctum Abraham. A priory of Canons Regular of St. Augustine was installed to take charge of the basilica (de Rozière, "Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulchre", 120, 142, etc., 171).

A curious document relating to the medieval period and taken from a fifteenth-century manuscript, is found in the "Recueil des historiens des croisades" (Hist. Occid., V, 302-316) under the heading: "Canonici Hebronensis tractatus de inventione sanctorum patriarcharum Abraham, Ysaac et Jacob" [see Riant, "Invention de la sépulture des patriarches … à Hébron, le 25 juin 1119", in "Archives de l'Orient latin", II (1883), 411-421; also "Acta SS.", Oct., IV, 683-691; and "Analecta Bollandiana", XX (1901), 464]. This story seems to be founded on fact; two Arab historians, who may have lived contemporaneously, mention such a discovery (Recueil des Hist. des Croisades, op. cit., p. 64).

Its most interesting historical materials are: a description of the sanctuary existing on the site of the tombs before the coming of the Franks; the sending of an embassy from Constantinople to Palestine by Theodosius the Younger, about 415, to bring back the bodies of the three patriarchs, and the failure of this attempt; the existence of a synagogue at Hebron at the time of the First Crusade; the spoliation of the sanctuary at Hebron between 1099 and 1102 by a Latin archbishop, probably Pierre de Narbonne, transferred from the See of Alban to that of Apamea between 1112 and 1119. A reference is made, at the year 1119, to Rainier, prior of Hebron, and to two monks, Odo and Arnulph, who gave the anonymous writer the facts he relates; mention is also made of Baudouin, seigneur of Saint-Abraham; Guermond, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 1128); and a description occurs of the sepulchral crypt where the bodies of the patriarchs lay. In 1167 Hebron became a Latin see; its first titular was Rainaldus (1167-1170), nephew of the patriarch Foucher (Du Cange, "Families d'outremer", 794).

A letter of Clement IV, dated 1 June, 1267, orders the Patriarch of Jerusalem to supply the church of Hebron with a priest (Eubel, "Hierarchia Catholica", I, 283). After Geoffrey (Gaufridus), O.P., 1273-1283, the bishops of Hebron were merely titulars, and a great confusion existed in their list (Lequien, "Oriens Christ.", III, 639-642, 1269-1270; Gams, "Series episc.", 435; Eubel, op. cit., I, 283, II, 180). Cardinal Mermillod was at one time Titular of Hebron. The titular at present is Monsignor Petkoff, Vicar Apostolic of the Uniat Bulgarians in Thrace, who resides at Adrianople. As a residential see, Hebron enjoyed a very brief existence. However it survived the triumph of Saladin in 1187, and the march of the Kharesmian hordes in 1244. Saladin, after the victory at Hattin (15 July, 1187), and that at Ascalon (5 September), hastened, before marching on Jerusalem, to occupy Hebron, and to associate the sanctuary of Abraham with the worship of Islam. The Kharesmians destroyed the town, but did not touch the sanctuary (Riant, "Archives", II, 420-421).

In spite of Mohammedan fanaticism, which since the fourteenth century had forbidden a non-Mussulman to enter the hallowed place (Isaac Chelo, 1334, "Les chemins de Jérusalem, in Carmoly, "Itinéraires", 243), the schismatic Greeks, after the departure of the Latins, retained for a time a residing bishop in Hebron. Lequien (III, 641-642) mentions one of these bishops, Joannikios, whose name appears with that of Christodoulos of Gaza in the Acts of the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 (Mansi, XXXIV B, 1771) under the title of Ioannikíou toû theophilestátou ’archiepiskópou toû ‘agíon spelaíon (Joannikios, most holy Archbishop of the holy Cave). Among the other signatories (ibid., 1174) were two priests of the same church, George and Isas, both of whom describe themselves as ‘iereùs toû ‘agíou spelaíou (priest and servant of the holy Cave). This Greek see did not last long; and it is not mentioned in the notice of Chrysanthus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 1707-1731. In 1834, after defeating, near the Pools of Solomon, the inhabitants of Hebron who had risen against his authority, Ibrahim Pasha took their town by assault.

Hebron is to-day one of the principal towns of Palestine. It is about twenty-four miles to the south of Jerusalem, is the residence of a kaimakam, and has a population of 20,000, of whom 2000 are Jews of German, Spanish, or Portuguese origin; the remainder are Mussulman fanatics. Its Arab name, El-Khalil, signifies "the friend of God", and calls to mind Abraham who is given that appellation in James, ii, 23. The town is picturesquely situated at about 3000 feet above the sea, on a narrow plateau among the hills of Judea. Its only monument of interest is the "Holy Enclosure" (Haram-el-Khalil), within which stands the mosque over the burial cave of Machpelah. The Haram is in the form of a rectangular parallelogram about 200 feet long, by 120 broad, and 50 to 60 feet high. The walls are adorned with many pilasters, and are built of enormous rough stones. The style of the construction belongs to the time when the crypts of the Haram at Jerusalem were built, and seems Roman in character. The modern mosque is built on the site of an ancient basilica restored by the Crusaders (La Palestine, Guide historique et pratique, par des professeurs de N. D. de France à Jérusalem, p. 268). The sacred enclosure is one of the finest relics of ancient architecture in Palestine, and has been admired since the time of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (fourth century). In the opinion of many it is of Jewish origin and dates from the time of the kings of Juda (cf. Legendre in Vig., "Dict. de la Bible", s. v. Hébron). Consult Riant, "Archives", II, 412, for a list of the few travellers who, during the nineteenth century, were able to visit this sanctuary so fanatically guarded by the Mussulmans. In 1862 the present King of England, then Prince of Wales, and in 1869 the Crown Prince of Prussia, later Frederick III, were among the visitors. The trade of the town is much the same as in all Arab countries. The comparative fertility of the soil and an abundance of water contribute to increase this trade, which consists mainly in the making of goat-skin water bags, jars, and especially glass ware for which, for centuries, Hebron has used a soda extracted from the trans-Jordan regions. The vineyards around the town are very fine; they belong mainly to the Jews who trade in dried raisins, and manufacture a syrup and an excellent wine known as Hebron wine. Of late years the Russians have contrived to get a foothold at El-Khalil, and they have now a hostelry at the entrance to the town.

A complete bibliography of Hebron would mean a lengthy enumeration; the principal works alone will be mentioned here. GuÉrin, Description de la Judée, III, 214-256; Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, II, 73-94; Conder and Kitchener, Memoirs of a Survey of Western Palestine, III, 305-8; 333-46; Thomson, The Land and the Book, I: Southern Palestine (London, 1881), 268-82; Rosen, Ueber das Thal und die nächste Umgebung Hebrons in Zeitschrift des deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, XII, 477; Legendre in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. On its Christian history, see the works referred to in the body of this article: Lequien, Du Cange, Eubel, and the historians of the Crusades at places indicated; also, for both epochs, Sauvaire, Histoire de Jérusalem et d'Hébron depuis Abraham jusqu'à la fin du XV ^e siecle de J. C. (Paris, 1876), containing fragments of the chronicle of Mondjired-din, translated from the Arabic text.

S. Salaville

Isaac Thomas Hecker

Missionary, author, founder of the Paulists; b. in New York, 18 December, 1819; d. there, 22 Dec., 1888. His parents were John Hecker, a native of Wetzlar, and Caroline Freund, of Elberfeld, Prussia. John Hecker professed no religious faith; his wife, who had originally been a Lutheran, became an ardent Methodist; none of the three children, all boys, ever joined any of the Protestant sects. A reverse in the family fortune made it necessary for Isaac, who was the youngest of the sons, to begin work at the age of eleven, helping his elder brothers in their business as bakers. His consequent want of even a complete common-school education would have been a serious and permanent impediment to any future intellectual work had he not been a studious, thoughtful boy, instinctively eager for knowledge. Even while kneading the dough in the bakery he studied Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", which he had fixed conveniently before his eyes. His mind was original, intuitive, and prone to seek the hidden solution of the grave problems of philosophy and of life. As a lad, he was anxious to improve the social condition of American workingmen. While still in his early teens he was accustomed to make street speeches on politico-social topics, and before he became of age, he was a friend and correspondent of Orestes A. Brownson, who was already famous as a philosopher and social reformer. Along with his keen sense for practical affairs, young Hecker was then, as always, predominantly mystical, and of a profoundly religious temperament. Perhaps because his religious sentiments were instinctively Catholic, he was repelled by the teachings of Luther and Calvin. Their doctrines of the total depravity of human nature and of the necessary sinfulness of reason were especially repugnant to him. On the other hand, becoming acquainted with the Transcendentalists, he found that they overexalted human nature. Driven from both extremes he sought religious truth restlessly until he became convinced of the Divinity of the Catholic Faith. He was baptized by Bishop McCloskey, in New York January, 1844. Once within the Catholic Church, he was powerfully attracted by the ideal of religious life in community, while his ever-increasing consciousness of a vocation to help his fellow-men drew him towards the apostolic priesthood. To satisfy both demands of his soul, he applied for admission into the Redemptorist community. He entered their novitiate in Belgium in 1845.

The period of preparation and study thus begun was one of acute suffering to him, and of perplexity to his superiors. His native bent was towards philosophy and theology, and he had from his boyhood informally exercised himself in these studies; but when he came to the formal study of ecclesiastical sciences he was halted and tortured by an inexplicable obscuration of the mind. However, in spite of the fears and doubts of some who did not understand him, he was recommended for Holy orders, and was ordained priest by Bishop Wiseman. After spending one year as a parish priest and chaplain in England, he returned to New York in March, 1851, as one of a band of Redemptorist missionaries assigned to work in the United States. The tide of immigration was then at its height, and for years Father Hecker and his four companions, Fathers Walworth, Hewit, Deshon, and Baker, were engaged in continuous and very arduous labours amid the rapidly increasing Catholic population. Father Hecker was deficient, at first, in some of the niceties of elocution, and he was never remarkable for those surges of emotion and imagination that are usually associated with oratorical power, but he was unrivalled as an instructor, persuasive in the highest degree, earnest, humorous, and apt in illustration; and he soon developed into a forceful, intense, and magnetic public speaker. He was much in demand as a lecturer and exponent of Catholic truth, and for years he was eagerly welcomed by overflowing audiences in New York, Boston, Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, and other large cities. The novelty of the lectures and the courage of the lecturer, as well as his skill in presenting doctrinal and historical themes, assured his success in the career for which he had long prayed and laboured. He became an apostle primarily to the Gentiles, and then to those of the household of the Faith.

Meanwhile, a misunderstanding had arisen between the American Redemptorists and their superiors. In order to seek an final and authoritative settlement of the difficulty, Father Hecker went to Rome as the representative of the American Fathers, to lay their case before the superior general of the order. Upon his arrival, he found the general and his council extremely hostile, and on the third day he was expelled from the order. Pius IX dispensed Hecker and his four companions from their vows as Redemptorists, and authorized and encouraged them to form a new congregation devoted to missionary work in the United States, in dependence upon the hierarchy. St. Paul was chosen patron of the new institute, which is called legally "The Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle in the State of New York". Father Hecker was elected superior of the society, and so continued until his death. He worked, during the prime of his life, with immense energy. In addition to his duties as superior, he continued his work as a lecturer; he notably promoted the apostolate of the press among Catholics in America; he organized the Catholic Publication Society, founded and edited "The Catholic World" magazine, directed "The Young Catholic", a paper for children, and created a new movement in Catholic literary activities. He was the author of three books: "Questions of the Soul", "The Aspirations of Nature", "The Church and the Age". However varied his works, his object in view was always simple: the propagation of Catholicity.

Father Hecker's work has been likened to Cardinal Newman's, by the cardinal himself—"I have ever felt", Newman wrote to Father Hewit on the occasion of Father Hecker's death, "that there was a sort of unity in our lives, that we had both begun a work of the same kind, he in America and I in England". In spite of some obvious differences in the character of the two men and of their work, the comparison is justifiable. Newman, better than anyone else, it has been said, made Catholic dogmas and practices acceptable to the English mind, which had long been estranged from Catholicity on the pretence that the Church was a foreign institution. Hecker, a man of and from the people, strove unceasingly to recommend the Catholic Faith to the democratic American people, who had been reared in hostility to the Church on the pretence that she was foreign and anti-democratic. He was an ardent American, in love with American institutions, but he was likewise absolutely and uncompromisingly Catholic. He won the respect and confidence of his non-Catholic countrymen to a surprising extent, while at the same time eliciting repeated letters of approval from the highest authorities of the Church at Rome. The regrettable controversy on "Americanism", in which Father Hecker's name was mentioned, is discussed elsewhere in this book (see TESTEM BENEVOLENTIÆ). It suffices to say here that, on the occasion of the issue, by Leo XIII, of the Brief "Testem Benevolentiæ", the hierarchy in the United States all but unanimously gave spontaneous testimony that Father Hecker had never countenanced any deviation form, or minimizing of, Catholic doctrines. And it is quite generally recognized by American Catholics that among the notable champions of the Holy See in the nineteenth century none was more loyal, none spent himself more generously, than Father Hecker, in upholding its dignity and extending its sway.

The Life of Father Hecker, with an Introduction by the Most Rev. John Ireland, D. D., Abp. of St. Paul (New York, 1891); BARRY, Father Hecker, Founder of the Paulists, reprinted from The Dublin Review for July, 1892; SEDGWICK, Father Hecker in Beacon Biographies Series (Boston, 1901); KEANE, Isaac Thomas Hecker in The Catholic World, XXXIV (New York, 1889); ELLIOT, Life of Isaac Thomas Hecker in The Catholic World, LI-LIV (New York, 1890, 1891).

MICHAEL PAUL SMITH

Hedonism

(hedoné, pleasure).

The name given to the group of ethical systems that hold, with various modifications, that feelings of pleasure or happiness are the highest and final aim of conduct; that, consequently those actions which increase the sum of pleasure are thereby constituted right, and, conversely, what increases pain is wrong.

HISTORY

The father of Hedonism was Aristippus of Cyrene. He taught that pleasure is the universal and ultimate object of endeavour. By pleasure he meant not merely sensual gratification but also the higher forms of enjoyment, mental pleasures, domestic love, friendship, and moral contentment. His followers, however, reduced the system to a plea for self-indulgence (see CYRENAIC SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY).

To the Cyrenaic succeeded the School of Epicurus, who emphasized the superiority of social and intellectual pleasures over those of the senses. He also conferred more dignity an the hedonistic doctrine by combining it with the atomic theory of matter; and this synthesis finds its finished expression in the materialistic determinism of the Roman poet Lucretius. Epicurus taught that pain and self-restraint have a hedonistic value; for pain is sometimes a necessary means to health and enjoyment; while self-restraint and prudent asceticism are indispensable if we would secure for ourselves the maximum of pleasure (see EPICUREANISM). With the decay of old Roman ideals and the rise of imperialism the Epicurean philosophy flourished in Rome. It accelerated the destruction of pagan religious beliefs, and, at the same time, was among the forces that resisted Christianity.

The revival of hedonistic principles in our own times may be traced to a line of English philosophers, Hobbes, Hartley, Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, the two Austins, and, more recently, Alexander Bain, who are popularly known as Utilitarians. Herbert Spencer adopted into his evolutionary theory of ethics the principle that the discriminating norm of right and wrong is pleasure and pain, though he substituted the progress of life for the hedonistic end.

EXPOSITION

Contemporary Hedonists are sometimes classed into egoistic and altruistic. The classification, however, is not quite satisfactory when applied to writers; for many Hedonists combine the egoistic with the altruistic principle. The distinction, however, may conveniently be accepted with regard to the principles that underlie the various forms of the doctrine. The statement that happiness is the end of conduct at once raises the question: whose happiness? To this egoism answers: the happiness of the agent; while altruistic Hedonism replies: the happiness of all concerned, or, to use a phrase that is classic in the literature of this school, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". Perhaps the only thoroughgoing egoistic Hedonist is Thomas Hobbes, though in many places Bentham too, proclaims himself the uncompromising apostle of selfishness (see EGOISM), while elsewhere he, like J.S. Mill, expands into altruism. The intrinsic difficulties in the task of constructing any decent code of morals on the egoistic principle, together with the destructive criticism which any such attempts encountered, led Hedonists to substitute the happiness of all concerned for the happiness of the individual. The transit from the one to the other is attempted through a psychological analysis which would show that, through the operation of the law of association of ideas, we come to love for their own sakes objects which in the first instance we loved from a selfish motive. This is true to a certain extent, but the cases in which it may occur fall far short of the range which the principle would have to cover in order to justify the theory. Besides, by adopting the happiness of others as the end, the Hedonist loses the only semblance of a proof which he had to offer in support of his first contention, that happiness is the end, viz. that every man does desire happiness and can desire nothing else; it is only too plain that not everybody desires the happiness of everybody else. Another modification was introduced to meet the criticism that, if pleasure is the standard of right and wrong, sensual indulgence is just as good as the noblest form of self-sacrifice. The Hedonists, or at least some of them, replied that not merely the quantity of pleasure but also the quality is to be taken into account. There are higher and lower pleasures; and the higher are more desirable than the lower; therefore conduct which aims at the higher is the better. But if pleasures are thus to be divided into higher and lower, irrespective of quantity, the hedonistic standard is, by the very fact, displaced, and some other ultimate scale of moral valuation is appealed to or implied. The subjective norm, pleasurable feeling, is made to retire in favour of some unnamed objective norm which dictates what the agent ought to pursue. This is the suicide of Hedonism. Other advocates of the system have, contrary to its initial principle, introduced a primary altruistic impulse co-ordinate with and controlling the egoistic as a spring of action.

CRITICISM

The fundamental errors of Hedonism and the chief unanswerable objections to the theory may be briefly summed up as follows:

(1) It rests on a false psychological analysis; tendency, appetite, end, and good are fixed in nature antecedent to pleasurable feeling. Pleasure depends on the obtaining of some good which is prior to, and causative of, the pleasure resulting from its acquisition. The happiness or pleasure attending good conduct is a consequence, not a constituent, of the moral quality of the action.

(2) It falsely supposes that pleasure is the only motive of action. This view it supports by the fallacy that the pleasurable and the desirable are interchangeable terms.

(3) Even if it were granted that pleasure and pain constitute the standard of right and wrong, this standard would be utterly impracticable. Pleasures are not commensurable with one another, nor with pains; besides no human mind can calculate the quantity of pleasure and pain that will result from a given action. This task is impossible even when only the pleasure of the agent is to be taken into account. When the pleasure and pain of "all concerned" are to be measured the proposal becomes nothing short of an absurdity.

(4) Egoistic Hedonism reduces all benevolence, self-sacrifice, and love of the right to mere selfishness. It is impossible for altruistic Hedonism to evade the same consummation except at the cost of consistency.

(5) No general code of morality could be established on the basis of pleasure. Pleasure is essentially subjective feeling, and only the individual is the competent judge of how much pleasure or pain a course of action affords him. What is more pleasurable for one may be less so for another. Hence, on hedonistic grounds, it is evident that there could be no permanently and universally valid dividing line between right and wrong.

(6) Hedonism has no ground for moral obligation, no sanction for duty. If I must pursue my own happiness, and if conduct which leads to happiness is good, the worst reproach that can be addressed to me, however base my conduct may be, is that I have made an imprudent choice.

Hedonists have appropriated the term happiness as an equivalent to the totality of pleasurable or agreeable feeling. The same word is employed as the English rendering of the Latin beatitudo and the Greek eudaimonía, which stand for a concept quite different from the hedonistic one. The Aristotelean idea is more correctly rendered in English by the term well-being. It means the state of perfection in which man is constituted when he exercises his highest faculty, in its highest function, on its highest good. Because they fail to give due attention to this distinction, some writers include eudæmonism among hedonistic systems. Hedonism sometimes claims the credit of much beneficent effort in social reform in England which has been promoted by professed Utilitarians; and everywhere movements popularly designated as altruism are pointed out as monuments to the practical value of the hedonistic principle "the greatest good of the greatest number". But it must be observed that this principle may have another genesis and another part to play in ethics than those assigned to it by Hedonism. Besides, as Green has pointed out, the Utilitarians illogically annexed it, and the fruits it bore in their political activity are to be credited to it in its democratic, rather than in its hedonistic, character.

JAMES J. FOX

St. Hedwig

Duchess of Silesia, b. about 1174, at the castle of Andechs; d. at Trebnitz, 12 or 15 October, 1243. She was one of eight children born to Berthold IV, Count of Andechs and Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia. Of her four brothers, two became bishops, Ekbert of Bamberg, and Berthold of Aquileia; Otto succeeded his father as Duke of Dalmatia, and Heinrich became Margrave of Istria. Of her three sisters, Gertrude married Andrew II, King of Hungary, from which union sprang St. Elizabeth, Landgravine of Thuringia; Mechtilde became Abbess of Kitzingen; while Agnes was made the unlawful wife of Philip II of France in 1196, on the repudiation of his lawful wife, Ingeborg, but was dismissed in 1200, Innocent III having laid France under an interdict. Hedwig was educated at the monastery of Kitzingen, and, according to an old biography, at the age of twelve (1186), was married to Henry I of Silesia (b. 1168), who in 1202 succeeded his father Boleslaw as Duke of Silesia. Henry's mother was a German; he himself had been educated in Germany; and now through his wife he was brought into still closer relations with Germany. Henry I was an energetic prince, who greatly extended the boundaries of his duchy, established his authority on a firm basis, and rendered important services to civilization in the realm. For this purpose he encouraged to the utmost the spread of the more highly developed civilization existing in the German territories adjoining his to the west, so that Silesia became German in language and customs.

Hedwig now took a prominent part in the beneficent administration of her husband. Her prudence, fortitude, and piety won for her great influence in the government of the land. In particular she gave her support to new monastic foundations and assisted those already in existence. It was chiefly through the monasteries that German civilization was spread in Silesia. Henry and Hedwig endowed munificently the Cistercian monastery of Leubus, the Premonstratensian monastery of St. Vincent, and the foundation of the Canons of St. Augustine at Breslau. The following monasteries were established: the Augustinian priory of Naumburg on the Bober (1217), later transferred to Sagan, the Cistercian monastery of Heinrichau (1227), and the priory of the Augustinian Canons at Kamenz (1210). St. Hedwig brought the Dominicans to Bunzlau and Breslau, the Franciscans to Goldberg (1212) and later to Krossen. The Templars established a house at Klein-Oels. Henry was also the founder of the Hospital of the Holy Ghost at Breslau (1214), and Hedwig tended with disinterested charity the leper women in the hospital at Neumarkt. At the instance of his saintly wife, the duke then founded at his own expense, and on ground donated by himself the convent of the Cistercian nuns at Trebnitz (1202), and generously endowed it. This was the first house of religious women in Silesia. The first nuns came from Bamberg and took possession of their new monastery early in 1203. The first abbess is said to have been Petrussa, succeeded by Bl. Gertrude, a daughter of Henry and Hedwig, who at an early age had been betrothed to Otto von Wittelsbach. After he murdered the German King Philip of Swabia (1208), the betrothal was annulled and Gertrude entered the Abbey of Trebnitz (before 1212), where she later became abbess.

For some years after her marriage, Hedwig resided chiefly at Breslau. She had seven children. A son, Boleslaw, and two daughters, Sophia and Agnes, died at an early age; Henry succeeded to his father's title; Conrad died while still a young man, in consequence of a fall from his horse (c. 1214); and Gertrude embraced the religious life. On Christmas Day, 1208, another son of Hedwig's was baptized, probably not identical with the above-mentioned Boleslaw, who had died before this time. On the suggestion of Hedwig, after the birth of this last child, she and her husband led a virgin life (1209), and pronounced a vow of chastity before the Bishop of Breslau. Duke Henry took the tonsure and allowed his beard to grow, like the Cistercian lay brothers (whence his sobriquet of "the Bearded"). From this time forward Hedwig spent much of her time at the Abbey of Trebnitz, where, on the death of her husband (1238), she took up her permanent abode, that she might devote herself unreservedly to exercises of mortification and piety as well as to works of charity. She transferred to the abbey her inheritance of Schawoine. Hedwig had had many trials and tribulations. In the year 1227 her husband, with Duke Lesko of Sandomir, was treacherously set upon by Swantopolk, Duke of Pomerania, and severely wounded. Hedwig immediately hastened to Gonsawa, where the bloody deed had taken place, to care for her husband. Lesko had been killed, and war now broke out between Henry of Silesia and Conrad of Masovia over the possession of Cracow. Conrad was defeated, but succeeded in surprising Henry in a church attending Divine service and led him captive to Plock (1229). Hedwig forthwith went to her husband's assistance, and her very appearance made such an impression on Conrad of Masovia that he released the duke.

Of Hedwig's children, only Gertrude survived her; Duke Henry II fell at Wahlstatt (1241) in a battle against the Tatars. After her husband's death, Hedwig took the grey habit of the Cistercians, but was not received into the order as a religious, that she might retain the right to spend her revenues in charities. The duchess practised severe mortification, endured all trials with the greatest resignation, with self-denying charity cared for the sick and supported the poor; in her interior life of prayer, she gave herself up to meditation on supernatural things. Her piety and gentleness won for her even during life the reputation of a saint. She was interred in the church attached to the monastery, and was canonized by Clement IV, 26 March, 1267, and on 25 August of the same year her remains were raised to the honours of the altar. Her feast is celebrated 17 October; she in honoured as the patroness of Silesia.

With St. Hedwig as patroness, R. Spiske, later canon at Breslau, founded, in 1848, a pious association of women and young girls, from which developed the congregation of the Sisters of St. Hedwig, established in 1859, at Breslau, under the Rule of St. Augustine, and constitutions approved by the bishop. Their chief aim is the education of orphaned and abandoned children; they also conduct schools for little girls and trade schools. Their activity extends chiefly over Germany and Austria, but they also have a house in Denmark. The sisters number about three hundred, with mother-house at Breslau.

Acta SS., Oct., VIII, 189-267; STENGEL, Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum, II (Breslau, 1835–), 1 sqq; SEMKOWICZ, Monumenta Poloniæ historica, IV (Lemberg, 1884), 510-651; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca hist. med. ævii, II, 1362-63, with bibliography; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, ed BOLLAND., I, 562; GÖRLICH, Das Leben der hl. Hedwig, Herzogin von Schlesien (Breslau, 1843; 2nd ed., 1854); WOLFSKRON, Die Bilder der Hedwigslegende (Vienna, 1846); KNOBLICH, Lebensgeschichte der Landespatronin Schlesiens, der hl. Hedwig (Breslau, 1860); LUCHS, Ueber die Bilder der Hedwigslegende (Breslau, 1861); BECKER, Die hl. Hedwig, Herzogin von Schlesien und Polen (Freiburg im Br., 1872); JUNGNITZ, Die hl. Hedwig (Breslau, 1886); IDEM, Das Breslauer Brevier und Proprium (Breslau, 1893), 24 sqq.; BAZIN, Ste Hedwige, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1895); MICHAEL, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, II (Freiburg im Br., 1899) 225 sqq.; BRAUNSBERGER, Rückblick auf das katholisches Ordenswesen im 19. Jahrhundert (Freiburg im Br., 1901).

J.P. KIRSCH

Cornelius Heeney

Merchant and philanthropist; b. in King's County, Ireland, 1754; d. at Brooklyn, U.S.A., 3 May, 1848. After acquiring a practical mercantile education in Dublin, he emigrated to America in 1784 and became a fellow employe of the founder of the Astor family in the store of a New York fur dealer. His employer, retiring, left the business to John Jacob Astor and Heeney, and they prospered in it for several years and then separated. Heeney continued in the same line and amassed a considerable fortune. He was a bachelor and used his income in the promotion of religious and charitable works, St. Peter's church, St. Patrick's and the Catholic Orphan Asylum, New York, were the recipients of generous gifts. He was one of the first Catholics to hold public office in New York, and served five terms in the State Assembly from 1818 to 1822. He retired from business in 1837 and went to live in Brooklyn, where he had purchased a large farm in what is now one of the best residence sections. Here he continued his charitable benefactions, and having spent the most of his income for so long in good works, he planned to secure the disposition of the whole of his estate for the same purpose. Accordingly it was incorporated by Act of Legislature, 10 May, 1845, as "The Trustees and Associates of the Brooklyn Benevolent Society" with the object of administering the estate for the benefit of the poor and the orphans. The income amounts to about $25,000, and from its incorporation the society has distributed (1909) more than a million dollars.

U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc., Historical Records and Studies (New York, Oct., 1906), IV, pts. I and II Fordam Monthly (New York, Jan, 1906), 135; STILES, History of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1867-70); U. S. Cath. Hist. Magazine (New York, 1890-91).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Freiherr von Heereman von Zuydwyk

(Clemens Aug. Ant.).

Catholic statesman and writer on art, b. 26 Aug., 1832, at Surenburg near Riesenbeck, Westphalia; d. 23 March, 1903, at Berlin. He studied law at the Universities of Bonn, Heidelberg, and Berlin. In the German capital he took an active part in the organization of a reading circle for Catholic students. For several years he was employed as referendary the Circuit Court, and later to the Governmental Council of Münster, and in 1874 was appointed a member of the Governmental Council of Merseburg. In 1870 he was chosen a member of the Prussian Diet (Landtag), and in 1871 of the Reichstag for the district of Münster-Cosfeld. During the Kulturkampf towards the end of 1875, he resigned as a government official and devoted himself exclusively to parliamentary labours on behalf of the oppressed Church. His efforts were chiefly directed against the Law of 31 May, 1875, which threatened the existence of several charitable orders devoted to the care of the sick, and he secured several important modifications of that law. He was at this time one of the leaders of the Centre Party. From 1879-82 he was second vice-president of the Prussian Landtag, and from 1882 to the time of his death first vice-president of the same body. After the death of Freiherr von Schorlemer-Alst (1889) he was chosen chairman of the Centre Party in the Landtag, and in 1900 retired as its honorary president.

In the course of his active parliamentary career he took a leading part in the debates on the tariff, in 1879, and on all subjects relating to the interests of the Church, schools, and fine arts. His acknowledged ability as an art critic is displayed in the work on "Die alteste Tafelmalerei Westfalens" (1882). He was also an active member of the Gorres-Gesellschaft, president of the Kunstverein of Westphalia, and encouraged the study of the history and archaeology of his native country. Above all, he was a devout, practical Catholic. His tact and moderation won the admiration and respect of men of all political creeds, and although he was not so fervent an orator as Freiherr von Schorlemer, he was a diligent and painstaking worker. One of his admirers characterizes him as a "refined art critic, an eminent member of parliament, a former chairman of the Centre Party, a glorious champion of the Church, a friend of the religious orders and a self-sacrificing promoter of Catholic Congresses". In 1887 he invited a number of friends of art to assemble at Bonn; one of the immediate results of this meeting was the establishment of the "Zeitschrift fur christliche Kunst" (Magazine of Christian Art), still published at Dusseldorf.

FREYS in BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handlez. (Munich, 1907); The Messenger, XXXIX (New York, 1903), HOCHWART in Alte und neue Welt, V, 38; Zeitschrift fur christl. Kunst (Dusseldorf, 1903).

ALEXIUS HOFFMANN

Heeswijk

A village in the diocese of Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc), Holland, in which the dispersed religious of the confiscated Norbertine Abbey of Berne have created a new abbey and college. The present name is the Abbey of Berne at Heeswijk. The Abbey of Berne, two miles southeast of Heusden on the Maas, and about six miles northwest of Bois-le-Duc, was founded in the year of St. Norbert's death, 1134, by Fulcold, Lord of Teisterband, with a colony sent from Marienweerd under Everard, its first abbot. Numerous legends surround its foundation. One is that Fulcold, when hotly pressed in battle, made a vow to build an abbey, if, by throwing himself into the river Maas, his life might be preserved from the enemy. This prayer having been heard, Fulcold converted his castle at Berne into an abbey, and he himself became a lay brother therein. Blessed Fulcold died on 12 April, 1149, on which day his name is recorded in the hagiology of the order. The Abbey of Berne has always been held in high esteem by the counts of Holland and the dukes of Brabant, as is proved by the privileges which they granted to it. It possessed the right of patronage over nine parishes, which were always served by priests from the abbey. In 1534 the abbot obtained the privilege of wearing the mitre. In the second half of the sixteenth century the abbey had much to suffer from the Dutch Calvinists, who plundered and partly destroyed it in 1572 and again in 1579. In 1623 the abbot bought the former convent of the Brothers of the Common Life at Bois-le Duc, but at the capture of this town the religious were expelled and the property was confiscated. In 1648 the last of what the abbey once possessed in houses or in land had been confiscated. But the religious were not discouraged, and the abbot obtained a house at Vilvorde, near Brussels, from which he directed the spiritual and temporal interests of his dispersed community. Several of the priests of Berne, though compelled to remain in hiding and always in danger, continued to minister to the spiritual wants of their people, and if some parts of North Brabant and Gelderland have preserved the Faith, the result may be ascribed to the apostolic exertions of these zealous priests. The future of the community was provided for by the admission of subjects, who made their novitiate and continued their studies at Vilvorde or in one of the Belgian abbeys. In this manner the Abbey of Berne has been kept up, while nearly all monasteries, which had made no such provision, have died out in Holland.

At the end of the seventeenth century, the religious succeeded in renting the house of Heeswijk which had been confiscated by the State, and in 1786 they were enabled to buy the property. Though dispersed, the religious met frequently at Heeswijk or in some presbytery, and at the death of the abbot, they always elected another, so that from the foundation of the abbey in 1134, there has been an unbroken succession of abbots. But at the end of the eighteenth century the French Republic confiscated the house at Vilvorde and so put an end to their refuge in Belgium. But novices were admitted as usual, who had their time of probation and made their studies either at the house at Heeswijk or in some presbytery of the order. With the arrival of better times Abbot Neefs in 1847 enlarged the house at Heeswijk and inaugurated the community life. The community grew in numbers, and in 1889 the abbot saw his way to open a college, the full staff of which consisted of priests of the abbey. In 1893 the abbot was able to comply with the pressing request of Bishop Messmer of Green Bay, Wisconsin, U.S.A., to send some priests whose special mission would be to minister to the spiritual needs Belgian and Dutch settlers in his diocese, and to bring back to the fold such Catholics as had been deceived by the schismatic "Bishop" Vilatte. Prior Pennings, Father Lambert Broens, and a lay brother were sent in 1895, and were soon followed by other priests. So successful were their labours in the various parishes confided to them, that at present hardly a vestige of Vilatte's schism remains. In 1898 St. Joseph's church at De Pere, Wis., was transferred to the Norbertine Fathers, and from that time became the headquarters of the order in the United States. The first stone of St. Norbert's college for classical and commercial students was laid in 1901. At the general chapter in 1902 the house at De Pere was canonically created a priory, and was granted leave to have a novitiate attached to it. At present the priests of the De Pere priory have the charge of parishes in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and in the Dioceses of Grand Rapids, Green Bay, and Marquette. They also have a mission among the Oneida Indains of Wisconsin. Some of the priests conduct missions for Catholics and non-Catholics. At the general chapter of the order in 1908 the priory was declared substantially independent of the mother-abbey in Holland, within limits specified by the constitution of the order. The Abbey of Berne at Heeswijk is at present very prosperous, being filled with active and industrious members, some fulfilling the usual duties in the abbey, some giving missions, while others teach in the college or write for newspapers and reviews, no fewer than five of these being published by the fathers.

Annales Pr m., s.v. Berne; Gasper, Les Prémontrés Belges et les Missions Etrangères (Louvain).

F.M. GEUDENS

Karl Joseph von Hefele

Bishop of Rottenburg, b. at Unterkochen, Würtemberg, 15 March, 1890; d. at Rottenburg, 5 June, 1893. He was the son of the royal superintendent of furnaces at Unterkochen. After attending the gymnasia at Ellwangen (1817-25) and Ehingen (1825-27), and the University of Tübingen (1827-32), he was ordained on 10 August, 1833. For a time the young priest was vicar at Mergentheim, tutor at the Wilhelmsstift, Tübingen, and substitute professor in Rottweil Gymnasium. After the departure in the autumn of the year 1835, of the famous church historian Möhler, for the University of Munich, Hefele was appointed by the Catholic faculty of theology of Tübingen to the department of church history, with which he was connected as privatdozent from the spring of 1836. In 1840 he became ordinary professor. He retained this post until his election as bishop in the summer of 1869. In scholarly method as well as in the general character of his work, he followed closely in the footsteps of his great predecessor, Johann Adam Möhler. He combined accuracy in historical detail with a thorough grasp of the chief facts of church history, and a great power of exposition.

Möhler, though at first affected by the current Illuminism, had eventually freed himself from it and introduced into the Catholic faculty of Tübingen an unswerving devotion to the Catholic Church and a high degree of enthusiasm, thereby counteracting the aforesaid Illuminism (as far as it was an inner disrupting force) and the external attacks of Protestantism. This was also the spirit and the method of Hefele who, in addition, was endowed with rare gifts as a teacher, an excellent memory, a clear understanding, earnest affection for his pupils, and a diction at once simple and beautiful. His lectures were frequented, in the golden age of the Tübingen faculty of Catholic theology, by hundreds of students from all parts of Germany and Switzerland. In 1895, Professor Knöpfler of Munich published his admirable manual of church history based on the academic lectures of Hefele. Von Funk, successor of Hefele at Tübingen, also owes much in his manual of church history to Hefele's teaching. The same spirit and scientific temper pervaded all the writings of Hefele. Besides his work in various learned periodicals, etc. he wrote about 150 articles for the first edition of the "Kirchenlexikon" and contributed a multitude of critical book notices and reviews to the Tübingen "Theologische Quartalschrift", some of which were collected and published in two volumes under the title "Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Archäologie und Liturgik" (1864). Hefele was probably the first Catholic theologian to introduce Christian archæology into the academic curriculum (1840). From 1854 to 1862 he was also at the head of the diocesan association for Christian art (Christliches Diözesankunstverein). Among his earlier works are "Geschichte der Einführung des Christentums im südwestlichen Deutschland, besonders in Würtemberg" (1837); "Patrum Apostolicorum Opera" (1839; 4th ed., 1855); "Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas" (1840); "Der Kardinal Ximenes und die kirchlichen Zustande Spaniens am Ende des 15. und Anfange des 16. Jahrhunderts" (1844; 2nd ed., 1851); "Chrysostomuspostille" (1845; 3rd ed., 1857); "S. Bonaventuræ Breviloquium" (1845, 1861).

The standard work of Hefele's, however, is the "Conciliengeschichte" in seven volumes, reaching to the fifteenth century and embracing the history of dogma, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and political history, so far as necessary. Von Funk rightly says that "as one of the most detailed and thorough works on church history, it has attained a prominent place in the learned literature of our time". The first edition, for which the matter had been in part gathered in a prize essay on Nicholas of Cusa, written during his student years, and in a number of more important recensions and articles, appeared between 1855 and 1874. His life of Cardinal Ximenes was soon translated into French and English, and his history of the councils was likewise rendered into French and the earlier volumes into English. The second edition was edited by Hefele himself as far as the fourth volume inclusive, and appeared in 1873-79 (Freiburg im Br.); the next two volumes were prepared by Professor Knöpfler in 1886 and 1890 respectively. Cardinal Hergenröther issued (1887, 1890) an eighth and ninth volume extending to the Council of Trent. Since 1907 the Benedictine H. Leclercq is publishing a French translation of the second edition. Suitable honours were conferred on Hefele by faculties, universities, and even by the Government. In 1852-53 he was made rector of the university, and in the spring of the latter year he was made a Knight of the Order of the Würtemberg Crown, and with it received the rank of nobility.

In addition to his other work, he had a parliamentary seat (1842-45) as representative of the government district of Ellwangen. In Würtemberg, as in almost all districts of Germany in the first half of the nineteenth century, the Church groaned under the oppression of the Illuminati and a Protestant government. When in 1842 Bishop von Keller made an energetic attempt to liberate the Church, he was supported by the skill and vigour of his fellow- representative Hefele, who endeavoured in this way to realize Möhler's ideal programme. The historian of the councils was summoned to Rome in 1868 as consultor for the Vatican council. He spent the winter of 1868-69 in Rome, and on his return he was appointed Bishop of Rottenburg; his consecration took place 29 December of the same year. He was to bring sorely needed peace to the diocese, torn by the so-called "Rottenburg Dissensions", a conflict between the more rigorous and the laxer clergy. Immediately after his consecration, the bishop set out for Rome to attend the council. When the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility was proposed, he was one of the most prominent bishops in the opposition minority. He even published the reason for the stand he had taken in his "Causa Honorii Papæ" (Naples, 1870). In the decisive session of 13 July he voted "Non placet", and having signed the address of the minority to the pope on 17 July, returned home. Even after the definition of the dogma he held to his opinion, but was soon placed in a most difficult position, whence neither his expectation of a common stand on the part of the opposition bishops, nor his hope of a speedy resumption of the œcumenical council, nor yet the thought of resignation, could extricate him. Shrinking from a schism, urged by Rome, importuned by the clergy of his diocese, perhaps also influenced by the desire of the Government, but above all, solicitous for his diocese, Hefele promulgated the decrees of the council, 10 April, 1871.

Various judgments were pronounced on this step. Karl von Hase, in his "Handbuch der Polemik gegen die römisch-katholische Kirche" (5th ed., 1890, p. 237), declared that "the bishop had strangled the scholar". It was the Old Catholics, however, who attacked Hefele the most severely. To compromise him they published various letters written to their leaders both during and after the council, and explained that his submission was merely external. But they erred; good evidence for this may be found in the declaration made to his coadjutor bishop during an illness in the late autumn of 1890: "It is true that I stood on the side of the opposition. But thereby I made use of my right; for the question was proposed for discussion. However, once the decision had been made, to tarry in the opposition party would have been inconsistent with my whole past. I would have set my own infallibility in the place of the infallibility of the Church" [From a discourse of Bishop Reiser at the burial of Bishop Hefele (Rottenburg, 1893), p. 11]. Apart from the aforesaid matter, the bishop brought peace to his diocese. It was not disturbed when the Kulturkampf was raging in other parts of Germany. That peace was preserved in Würtemberg, was due, after King Charles, to the services of Hefele. After November, 1886, he was aided by Bishop Reiser as auxiliary bishop.

Funk, Theologische Quartalschrift, LXXVI (1894); Idem in Allgem. deutsche Biog., L (1905), 109; Hegler in Realencyk. für prot. Theol. und Kirche, s. v.; Granderath- Kirsch, Geschichte des vatikanischen Concils, III (1906), 31, 163, 174, 559.

Johannes Baptist SÄgmÜller

Hegelianism

(1) Life and Writings of Hegel

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was born at Stüttgart in 1770; died at Berlin in 1831. After studying theology at Tübingen he devoted himself successively to the study of contemporary philosophy and to the cultivation of the Greek classics. After about seven years spent as private tutor in various places, he began his career as university professor in 1801. His first appointment was at Jena. After an intermission of a year which he spent as newspaper editor at Bamberg, and a short term as rector of a gymasium at Nuremberg, he was made professor of philosophy at Heidelberg in 1816, whence he was transferred to the University of Berlin in 1818. Hegel's principle works are his "Logic" (Wissenschaft der Logik, 1816), his "Phenomenology of Spirit" (Phanomenologie des Gesites, 1807), his "Encyclopedia" (Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften, 1817), and his Philosophy of History (Vorlesungen uber die Philosophie der Geschichte, 1820). His works were collected and published by Rosenkranz in 19 vols., 1832-42, second edition 1840-54.

(2) Aim of his Philosophy

Hegel's philosophy is an attempt to reduce to a more synthetic unity the system of transcendantal idealism bequeathed to him by Kant, Fichte, and Schelling. Kant had taught that, so far as our theoretical experience is concerned, there exists nothing except the appearances of things and the unknown and unknowable noumenal substrate of these appearances, the Ding-an-sich. Hegel starts out by assuming that, if for Kant's destructive criticism of theoretical experience we substitute an incessantly progressive and productive immanent criticism, we shall find that the noumenal reality is not an unknowable substrate of appearances, but an ever-active process, which in thought and in reality constantly passes into its opposite in order to return to a higher and richer form of itself. This process in its barest and most meagre form is being; in its fullest and richest form it is spirit, absolute mind, the state, religion, philosophy. The busines of philosophy is to trace this process through all its stages.

(3) His Method

Hegel's method in philosophy consists, therefore, in following out the triadic development (Entwicklung) in each concept and in each thing. Thus, he hopes, philosophy will not contradict experience, but will give to the data of experience the philosophical, that is, the ultimately true, explanation. If, for instance, we wish to know what liberty is, we take that concept where we first find it, in the unrestrained action of the savage, who does not feeel the need of repressing any thought, feeling, or tendency to act. Next, we find that the savage has given up this freedom in exchange for its opposite, the restraint, or, as he considers it, the tyranny, of civilization and law. Thirdly, in the citizen under the rule of law, we find the third stage of development, namely liberty in a higher and a fuller sense than that in which the savage possessed it, the liberty to do and to say and to think many things which were beyond the power of the savage. In this triadic process we remark that the second stage is the direct opposite, the annihilation, or at least the sublation, of the first. We remark also that the third stage is the first returned to itself in a higher, truer, richer, and fuller form. The three stages are, therefore, styled:

• in itself (An-sich);
• out of itself (Anderssein); and
• in and for itself (An-und-fur-sich).

These three stages are found succeeding one another throughout the whole realm of thought and being, from the most abstract logical process up to the most complicated concrete activity of organized mind in the succession of states or the production of systems of philosophy.

(4) Doctrine of Development

In logic---which really is a metaphysic---we have to deal with the process of development applied to reality in its most abstract form. For in logic we deal in concepts robbed of their empirical content: in logic we are discussing the process in vacuo, so to speak. Thus, at the very beginning of our study of reality, we find the logical concept of being. Now, being is not a static concept, as Aristotle supposed it was. It is essentially dynamic, because it tends by its very nature to pass over into nothing, and then to return to itself in the higher concept, becoming. For Aristotle, there was nothing more certain that that being=being, or, in other words, that being is identical with itself, that everything is what it is. Hegel does not deny this; but, he adds, it is equally certain that being tends to become its opposite, nothing, and that both are united in the concept becoming. For instance, the truth about this table, for Aristotle, is that it is a table. For Hegel, the equally important truth is that it was a tree, and it "will be" ashes. The whole truth, for Hegel, is that the tree became a table and will become ashes. Thus, becoming, not being, is the highest expression of reality. It is also the highest expression of thought; because then only do we attain the fullest kowledge of a thing when we know what it was, what it is, and what it will be---in a word, when we know the history of its development.

In the same way as being and nothing develop into the higher concept becoming, so, farther on in the scale of development, life and mind appear as the third terms of the process and are in turn are developed into higher forms of themselves. But, one cannot help asking, what is it that develops or is developed? Its name, Hegel answers, is different in each stage. In the lowest form it is being, higher up it is life, and in still higher form it is mind. The only thing always present is the process (das Werden). We may, however, call the process by the name of spirit (Geist) or idea (Begriff). We may even call it God, because at least in the third term of every triadic development the process is God.

(5) Division of Philosophy

The first and most wide-reaching consideration of the process of spirit, God, or the idea, reveals to us the truth that the idea must be studied (1) in itself; this is the subject of logic or metaphysics; (2) out of itself, in nature; this is the subject of the philosophy of nature; and (3) in and for itself, as mind; this is the subject of the philosophy of mind (Geistesphilosophie).

(6) Philosophy of Nature

Passing over the rather abstract considerations by which Hegel shows in his "Logik" the process of the idea-in-itself through being to becoming, and finally through essence to notion, we take up the study of the development of the idea at the point where it enters into otherness in nature. In nature the idea has lost itself, because it has lost its unity and is splintered, as it were, into a thousand fragments. But the loss of unity is only apparent, because in reality the idea has merely concealed its unity. Studied philosophically, nature reveals itself as so many successful attempts of the idea to emerge out of the state of otherness and present itself to us as a better, fuller, richer idea, namely, spirit, or mind. MInd is, therefore, the goal of nature. It is also the truth of nature. For whatever is in nature is realized in a higher form in the mind which emerges from nature.

(7) Philosophy of Mind

The philosophy of mind begins with the consideration of the individual, or subjective, mind. It is soon perceived, however, that individual, or subjective, mind is only the first stage, the in-itself stage, of mind. The next stage is objective mind, or mind objevtified in law, morality, and the State. This is mind in the condition of out-of-itself. There follows the condition of asboslute mind, the state in which mind rises above all the limitations of nature and instituitions, and is subjected to itself alone in art, religion, and philosophy. For the essence of mind is freedom, and its development must consist in breaking away from the restrictions imposed on it in it otherness by nature and human institutions.

(8) Philosophy of History

Hegel's philosophy of the State, his theory of history, and his account of absolute mind are the most interesting portions of his philosophy and the most easily understood. The Stae, he says, is mind objectified. The individual mind, which, on account of its passions, its prejudices, and its blind impulses, is only partly free, subjects itself to the yoke of necessity---the opposite of freedom---in order to attain a fuller realization of itself in the freedom of the citizen. This yoke of necessity is first met with in the recognition of the rights of others, next in morality, and finally in social morality, of which the primal institution is the family. Aggregates of families form civil society, which, however, is but an imperfect form of organization compared with the State. The State is the perfect social embodiment of the idea, and stands in this stage of development for God Himself. The State, studied in itself, furnishes for our consideration constitutional law. In relation to other States it develops international law; and in its general course through historical vicissitudes it passes through what Hegel calls the "Dialectics of History". Hegel teaches that the constitution is the collective spirit of the nation and that the government is the embodiment of that spirit. Each nation has its own individual spirit, and the greatest of crimes is the act by which the tryrant or the conqueror stifles the spirit of a nation. War, he teaches, is an indispensable means of political progress. It is a crisis in the development of the idea which is embodied in the different States, and out of this crisis the better State is certain to emerge victorious. The "ground" of historical development is, therefore, rational; since the State is the embodiment of reason as spirit. All the apparently contingent events of history are in reality stages in the logical unfolding of the sovereign reason which is embodied in the State. Passions, impulse, interest, character, personality---all these are either the expression of reason or the instruments which reason moulds for its own use.We are, therefore, to understand historical happenings as the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom. Consequently, we must interpret history in purely rational terms, and throw the succession of events into logical categories. Thus, the widest view of history reveals three most important stages of development. Oriental monarchy (the stage of oneness, of suppression of freedom), Greek democracy (the stage of expansion, in which freedom was lost in unstable demagogy), and Christian constitutional monarchy (which represents the reintegration of freedom in constitutional government).

(9) Philosophy of Absolute Mind

Even in the State, mind is limited by subjection to other minds. There remains the final step in the process of the acquistion of freedom, namely, that by which absolute mind in art, religion, and philosophy subjects itself to itself alone. In art, mind has the intuitive contemplation of itself as realized in the art material, and the development of the arts has been conditioned by the ever-increasing "docility" with which the art material lends itself to the actualization of mind or the idea. In religion, mind feels the superiority of itself to the particularizing limitations of finite things. Here, as in the philosophy of history, there are three great moments, Oriental religion, which exaggerated the idea of the infinite, Greek religion, which gave undue importance to the finite, and Christianity, which represents the union of the infinite and the finite. Last of all, absolute mind, as philosophy, transcends the limitations imposed on it even in religious feeling, and, discarding representative intuition, attains all truth under the form of reason. Wahtever truth there is in art and in religion is contained in philosophy, in a higher form, and free from all limitations. Philosophy is, therefore, "the highest, freest and wisest phase of the uinion of subjective and objective mind, and the ultimate goal of all development.

(10) Hegelian School

Hegel's immediate followers in Germany are generally divided into the "Hegelian Rightists" and the "Hegelian Leftists". The Rightists developed his philosophy along lines which they considered to be in accordance with Christian teaching. They are Goschel, Gabler, Rosenkranz, and Johann Eduard Erdmann. The Leftists accentuated the anti-Christian tendencies of Hegel's system and developed schools of Materialism, Socialism, Rationalism, and Pantheism. They are Feuerbach, Richter, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and Strauss. In England, Hegelianism was represented during the nineteenth century by Stirling, Thomas Hill Green, John Caird, Edward Caird, Nettleship, McTaggart, and Baillie. Of these the most important is Thomas Hill Green. Hegelianism in America is represented by Thomas Watson and William T. Harris. In its most recent form it seems to take its inspiration from Thomas Hill Green, and whatever influence it exerts is opposed to the prevalent pragmatic tendency. In Italy the Hegelian movement has had manydistinguished adherents, the chief of whom at the present time is Benedetto Croce, who as an exponent of Hegelianism occupies in his own country the position occupied in France by Vicherot towards the end of the nineteenth century. Among Catholic philosophers who were influenced by Hegel the most prominent were Georg Hermes (q.v.), and Anton Gunther (q.v.). Their doctrines, especially their rejection of the distinction between natural and supernatural truth, were condemned by the Church.

(11) Influence of Hegel

The far reaching influence of Hegel is due in a measure to the undoubted vastness of the scheme of philosophical synthesis which he conceived and partly realized. A philosophy which undertook to organize under the single formula of triadic development every department of knowledge, from abstract logic up to the philosophy of history, has a great deal of attractiveness to those who are metaphysically inclined. But hegel's influence is due in a still larger measure to two extrinsic circumstances. His philosophy is the highest expression of that spirit of collectivism which characterized the ninetheenth century, and it is also the most extended application of the principle of development which dominated nineteenth-century thought in literature, science, and even in theology. In theology especially Hegel revolutionized the methods of inquiry. The application of his notion of development to Biblical criticism and to historical investigation is obvious to anyone who compares the spirit and purpose of contemporary theology with the spirit and purpose of the theological literature of the first half of the nineteenth century. In science, too, and in literature, the substitution of the category of becoming for the category of being is a very patent fact, and is due to the influence of Hegel's method. In political economy and political science the effect of Hegel's collectivistic conception of the State supplanted to a large extent the individualistic conception which was handed down from the eighteenth century to the nineteenth. Whether these changes are for good or for ill remains to be seen. Some of them have certainly wrought so much evil, especially in theology, in our own day, that one can hardly dare to hope that they will in the future be productive of much benefit to philosophy or to scientific method.

(12) Estimate of Hegel's Philosphy

The very vastness of the Hegelian plan doomed it to failure. "The rational alone is real" was a favourite motto of Hegel. It means that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories. This is a Gnosticism more detrimental to Christian conceptions than the Agnosticism of Huxley and Spencer. It implies that God, being a reality, must be capable of comprehension by the finite mind. It impliess, moreover, as Hegel himself admits, that God is only in so far as He is conceived under the category of Becoming; God is a process. It is by this doctrine, which is at once so out of place in a great system of metaphysics and so utterly repugnant to the Christian mind, that Hegel's philosophy is to be judged. Hegel attempted the impossible. A complete synthesis of reality in terms of reason is possible only to an infinite mind. Man, whose mental power is finite, must be content with a partially complete synthesis of reality and learn in his failure to attain completeness he should learn that God, Who evades his rational synthesis and defies the limitations of his categories, is the object of faith as well as of knowledge.

Notes

Hegel's Werke, ed. ROSENKRANZ (Berlin, 1832-42; 2nd ed., 1840-54); Hegel's Briefwechsel, ed. K. HEGEL (19 vols., Berlin, 1887); translations of several of Hegel's works made by HARRIS in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy (St. Louis, 1867-71); several treatises translated by WALLACE, Logic of Hegel (Oxford, 1892); IDEM, Hegel's Philosophy of Mind (Oxford, 1894); and SIBREE, Philosophy of History (London, 1860, 1884). The best English exposition of Hegel's philosophy is CAIRD, Hegel in Blackwood's Philosophical Classics (Edinburgh and Philadelphia, 1896); STIRLING, Secret of Hegel (2 vols., London, 1865) is difficult reading. Also consult FISCHER, Hegel (Heidelberg, 1898-1901); Mind, especially the new series; SETH, Hegelianism and Personality (2nd ed., London, 1893); MORRIS, Hegel's Philosophy of the State and of History in Grigg's Classics (Chicago, 1887); HIBBEN, Hegel's Logic (New York, 1892); TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), pp. 560-583.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. Hegesippus

(Roman Martyrology, 7 April).

A writer of the second century, known to us almost exclusively from Eusebius, who tells us that he wrote in five books in the simplest style the true tradition of the Apostolic preaching. His work was entitled hypomnemata (Memoirs), and was written against the new heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion. He appealed principally to tradition as embodied in the teaching which had been handed down in the Churches through the succession of bishops. St. Jerome was wrong in supposing him to have composed a history. He was clearly an orthodox Catholic and not a "Judaeo-Christian", though Eusebius says he showed that he was a convert from Judaism, for he quoted from the Hebrew, he was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews and with a Syriac Gospel, and he also cited unwritten traditions of the Jews. He seems to have belonged to some part of the East, possibly Palestine. He went on a journey to Corinth and Rome, in the course of which he met many bishops, and he heard from all the same doctrine. He says: "And the Church of the Corinthians remained in the true word until Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaintance in my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true word. And when I was in Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And in each succession and in each city all is according to the ordinances of the law and the Prophets and the Lord" (Euseb., IV, 22).

Many attempts have been made to show that diadochen epoiesamen, "I made for myself a succession," is not clear, and cannot mean, "I made for myself a list of the succession of the bishops of Rome." A conjectural emendation by Halloix and Savile, diatriben epoiesamen, is based on the version by Rufinus (permansi inibi), and has been accepted by Harnack, McGiffert, and Zahn. But the proposed reading makes nonsense: "And being in Rome, I made a stay there till Anicetus." When did he arrive? And what does "till Anicetus" mean? Eusebius cannot have read this, for he says that Hegesippus came to Rome under Anicetus and stayed until Eleutherus. The best scholars have accepted the manuscript text without difficulty, among others Lipsius, Lightfoot, Renan, Duchesne, Weizsaecker, Salmon, Caspari, Funk, Turner, Bardenhewer. In fact diadoche had then a technical meaning, which is precisely found in the next sentence, where "in each succession and in each city", may be paraphrased "in each list of bishops in every city", the argument being that of St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, 3): "We are able to enumerate those who were made bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successions up till our own time, and they have taught and known nothing resembling the wild dreams of these heretics." The addition of Soter and Eleutherus is intended by the writer to bring his original catalogue up to date.

With great ingenuity Lightfoot has found traces of this list in St. Epiphanius, Haer., XXVII, 6, where that saint of the fourth century carelessly says: Marcellina came to us lately and destroyed many, in the days of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome", and then refers to "the above catalogue", though he has given none. He is clearly quoting a writer who was at Rome in the time of Anicetus and made a list of popes beginning with St. Peter and St. Paul, martyred in the twelfth year of Nero. A list which has some curious agreements with Epiphanius, and extends only to Anicetus, is found in the poem of Pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion; the author has mistaken Marcellina for Marcion. The same list is at the base of the earlier part of the Liberian Catalogue, doubtless from Hippolytus (see under Clement I). It seems fairly certain that the list of Hegesippus was also used by Irenaeus, Africanus, and Eusebius in forming their own. It should be said, however, that not only Harnack and Zahn, but Funk and Bardenhewer, have rejected Lightfoot's view, though on weak grounds. It is probable that Eusebius borrowed his list of the early bishops of Jerusalem from Hegesippus.

Eusebius quotes from Hegesippus a long and apparently legendary account of the death of St. James, "the brother of the Lord", also the story of the election of his successor Symeon, and the summoning of the descendants of St. Jude to Rome by Domitian. A list of heresies against which Hegesippus wrote is also cited. We learn from a note in the Bodleian MS. Barocc. 142 (De Boor in "Texte und Unters.", V, ii, 169) that the names of the two grandsons of St. Jude were given by Hegesippus as Zoker and James. Dr. Lawlor has shown (Hermathena, XI, 26, 1900, p. 10) that all these passages cited by Eusebius were connected in the original, and were in the fifth book of Hegesippus. He has also made it probable (Journal of Theol. Studies, April, 1907, VIII, 436) that Eusebius got from Hegesippus the statement that St. John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian. Hegesippus mentioned the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, apparently in connection with the persecution of Domitian. It is very likely that the dating of heretics according to papal reigns in Irenaeus and Epiphanius -- e.g., that Cerdon and Valentius came to Rome under Anicetus, etc. -- was derived from Hegesippus, and the same may be true of the assertion that Hermas was the brother of Pope Pius (so the Liberian Catalogue, the poem against Marcion, and the Muratorian fragment). The date of Hegesippus is fixed by the statement that the death and apothesis of Antinous were in his own time (130), that he came to Rome under Anicetus (154-7 to 165-8) and wrote in the time of Eleutherus (174-6 to 189-91). Zahn has shown that the work of Hegesippus was still extant in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in three Eastern libraries.

The fragments of Hegesippus, including that published by De Boor (above) and one cited from Stephen Gobaras by Photius (Bibl. 232), have been elaborately commented upon by Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des N.T. Kanons (Leipzig, 1900), VI, 228 sqq., who discusses other traces of Hegesippus. On the papal catalogue see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome (London, 1890), I, 327, etc.; Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1897), I, 373; Harnak, Chronol., I, 180; Chapman in Revue Bened., XVIII, 410 (1901); XIX, 13 (1902); Flamon in Revue d Hist. eccl., Dec., 1900, 672-8. On the lost manuscripts, etc., see Zahn in Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., II (1877-8), 288, and in Theol. Litteraturblatt (1893), 495. For further references and a fuller account see Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., I, 483 sqq.

JOHN CHAPMAN

The Pseudo-Hegesippus

A fourth-century translator of the "Jewish War" of Flavius Josephus. The name is based on an error. In the manuscripts of the work "Iosippus" appears quite regularly for "Josephus". From Iosippus an unintelligent reviser derived Hegesippus, which name, therefore, is merely that of the original author, ignorantly transcribed. In the best manuscripts, the translator is said to be St. Ambrose. Although formerly much contested, this claim is today acknowledged by the greater number of philologists. The work began to circulate about the time of the death of the Bishop of Milan (398), or shortly after. A letter of St. Jerome (Epist lxxi), written between 386 and 400, bears witness to this. But there is nothing to prove that St. Ambrose wrote this work at the end of his life. The various allusions, notably that to the conquest of Britain by Theodosius (c. 370) are more readily explained if it be an earlier work of St. Ambrose, antedating his episcopate. The translator worked with great freedom, curtailing and abridging here and developing there. As a whole it suggests the work of a rhetorician. There are only five books, the first four corresponding to the first four of Josephus, but the fifth of Hegesippus combines the fifth and sixth books of Josephus, and a part of the seventh book. The authors most frequently imitated are Virgil, Sallust, and Cicero, precisely the writers most frequently imitated by St. Ambrose. The Bible is rarely quoted or made use of, which can be readily understood if the work is anterior to his career as preacher and bishop. The language and style are perceptibly the same as those of St. Ambrose. This translation of the "Bellum Judaicum" must not be confounded with that of Rufinus, which has seven books corresponding to the original, and is more literal. The best edition is that of C.F. Weber and J. Caesar (Marburg, 1864).

Against the attribution to St. Ambrose: VOGEL, De Hegesippo qui dicitur Iosephi interprete (Munich, 1880); KLEBS, Festschrift für Friedländer (1895), 210.
For the attribution: IHM, Studia Ambrosiana (Leipzig, 1889), 62; LANDGRAF, Die Hegesippus Frage in Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, XII, 465; USSANI, La Questione e la critica del cosi detto Egesippo in Studi italiani di Filologia classica (Florence, 1906), 245.

PAUL LEJAY

Alexander Hegius

Humanist; b. probably in 1433, at Heeck (Westphalia); d. 7 December, 1498, at Deventer (Netherlands). Nothing is known of his earlier studies; but he must have been of quite mature age when ordained to the priesthood. He himself declares that he was a pupil of Rudolph Agricola, the most distinguished exponent of earlier German Humanism; there is no doubt that the latter, though eleven years his junior, exerted over him no small influence, so that he was compelled to admit: "When forty years of age I came to young Agricola, from whom I have learned all that I know, or that others think I know." He became in 1469 rector of the school at Wesel, and soon afterwards was made head of the monastic school at Emmerich. In 1474, he assumed direction of the school at Deventer, which even in those days had acquired renown. As a Humanist he was an enthusiastic admirer of the ancient classic period; he spoke and wrote a pure Ciceronian Latin. He was equally versed in Greek and sought to instil into his pupils a love for the tongue of Homer. But Hegius earned his claim to recognition chiefly in the domain of pedagogics. He simplified and improved the method of teaching and banished from the schools the ancient books which for centuries had been used therein. He instituted a course which centered about the classics and drew from them a new vitality. The school of Deventer made progress under his guidance; it was common for more than two thousand students to gather there, and these he inspired with zeal not only for their studies, but also for the high calling of an educator. It was his whole personality, his deeply religious mind, moral qualities, modesty and simplicity, the charm of his pure heart, added to his learning, that made such a deep impression. He was a real father to his pupils, particularly to the poor, to whom he gave what he received from the rich. Shortly before his death he distributed all he had among the poor of Deventer, who amid tears and lamentations followed the remains of their benefactor. Among his most distinguished pupils were Erasmus, Murmellius, Mutianus, and others. He did not acquire prominence as a writer. His small treatises, letters and poems were published by Jakob Fabri in 1503, at Deventer.

Reichling, Beitrüge zur Charakeristik der Humanisten Alexander Hegius, Joseph Hortenius, &c. In Picks, Monatschrift für rheinisch westfülische Geschichtsforschung., III, 283-303; Molhuysen-Tross, Alexander Hegius in Zeitschrift für vaterlündische Geschichte: XXI, 339-362; Geiger, Allegemeine Deutsch Biographie, XI, 283-285.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

University of Heidelberg

Heidelberg, a city of 41,000 inhabitants, is situated in the Grand Duchy of Baden, on the left bank of the Neckar. From the obscurity of a legendary origin the city emerges into the light of history in 1214, when the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II bestowed on Duke Louis I of Wittelsbach the dignity of Count Palatine of the Rhine on account of his faithful services; from that time, the fortunes of the Palatinate and its capital, Heidelberg, were bound up with those of its thirty counts and electors, until, by the Imperial Delegates Enactment of 1803 at Ratisbon, it passed from the ranks of German states and was partitioned among the neighboring states. The fame of Heidelberg is due to its university, which was founded in 1386 by the warlike Rupert I of Wittelsbach when he was over seventy years of age, on the model of the University of Paris. The same prince erected the Heiliggeistkirche, formerly the university church, which contains the graves of the Palatine Counts of Witttelsbach. After Pope Urban VI had issued the Bull of authorization (23 October, 1385), the founder granted the university a succession of privileges, exemptions, and prerogatives. It was to consist of four faculties, theology, law, medicine and art, each to have its separate organization. At first, the rector was elected every quarter, after 1393 semi-annually, and after 1522, annually, like the deans of the faculties. Teachers and students were provided with safe-conducts, were exempt from taxes and tolls in the electorate, and were granted all the privileges that obtained at the University of Paris. The Bishop of Worms, in whose diocese Heidelberg was situated, was judge in ordinary of the clerics. The regulations were publicly read and posted up in the Heiliggeistkirche every year.

On 18 October, 1386, the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, the university was solemnly opened with Divine service, and the next day lectures on logic, exegesis, and natural philosophy were begun. Dr. Marsilius from Inghen, near Arnheim, Guelderland, former representative of Nominalism in Paris, was chosen first rector. In accordance with the terms of the papal Bull of authorization, the provost of the cathedral of Worms acted as chancellor of the university, and until the end of the eighteenth century exercised in the name of the Church the right of superintending and sanctioning the conferring of academic degrees, either in person or through a vice-chancellor. Soon after the opening of the university the faculties of theology and law were reinforced by bachelors and licentiates from Prague and Paris. But as most of the students came from the Rhenish provinces, the custom followed by other universities of classifying them according to nationality was not imitated here. The faculty of medicine was not organized until 1390. the faculty of arts, the alma totius Universitatis mater, was here as everywhere else, the first in point of numbers. St. Catherine was the patron saint, and her feast day (25 November) was observed with great solemnity. In the first year of its existence the university had in its roll 525 teachers and students. The foundations of the celebrated library of Heidelberg were laid by means of donations from the bishops, chancellors, and early professors. Louis III willed his large and valuable collection to the university. Later, when Otto Henry had added the gift of his books and MSS., the entire collection received the name of Bibliotheca Palatina and was considered the most valuable in Germany. At the instance of Elector Rupert III, later German king (1400-1410), Pope Boniface IX, in 1399, relinquished twelve important livings and several patronages to the university. Rupert's eldest son, Louis III, changed the Heilggeistkirche into a collegiate church and united its twenty-four prebends to the university, a measure sanctioned by Pope Martin V.

Nominalism had been prevalent from the time of Marsilius until after 1406, when Jerome of Prague, the friend of John Hus, introduced realism, on which account he was expelled by the faculty which, six years later, also condemned the teachings of John Wycliffe. Several distinguished professors took part in the Council of Constance and acted as counsellors for Louis III who, as representative of the emperor and chief magistrate of the realm, attended this council and had Hus executed as a heretic. In 1432 the university, pursuant to papal and imperial requests, sent to the Council of Basle two delegates who faithfully supported the legitimate pope. The transition from scholastic to humanistic culture was effected by the learned chancellor and bishop, Johann von Dalberg. Humanism was represented at Heidelberg by Rudolph Agricola, founder of the older German Humanistic School, the younger humanist Conrad Celtes, the pedagogue Jakob Wimpheling and that "marvel in three languages", Johann Reuchlin. The learned Æneas Silvius Piccolomini was chancellor of the university in his capacity of provost of Worms and, as Pope Pius II, always favored it with his friendship and good-will. In 1482 Sixtus IV, through a papal dispensation, permitted laymen and even married men to be appointed professors in ordinary of medicine, and in 1553 Pope Julius III sanctioned the allotment of ecclesiastical benefices to secular professors.

In April, 1518, the Augustinian monks of Heidelberg held a convention in their monastery in which Dr. Martin Luther from Wittenberg participated. In a public debate he maintained forty theological and philosophical theses which maintained in part the uselessness of moral effort and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The university as a body looked quite unfavourably upon the reform movement which Luther and his followers had inaugurated. Pope Adrian VI, in a Brief, dated 1 December, 1523, warned individual members of the university who were inclined towards the new teachings, to oppose the Reformation in speech and writing and to guide back to the path of truth all who had gone astray - an admonition which the university accepted in a spirit of gratitude. But when in consequence of the attitude of certain professors, the Reformed teachings began to take a firmer hold at Heidelberg, Elector Louis V in 1523 ordered an inquiry. Matters did not then reach a crisis, though in spite of the Elector's exertions, the university became more and more unsettled, its revenues were considerably reduced, and the professors exceeded the students in numbers. In 1545 some of the citizens and university members declared themselves in favor of Luther's teaching; Elector Frederick II remained a Catholic, but his consort Dorothea, a Danish princess, and their household received Communion under both kinds on Christmas Day of that year. The last two Catholic electors, Louis V and Frederick II, with the support of learned advisers, had made repeated attempts at timely reforms in the university. The only outcome was a revision of the constitutions of the faculty of arts undertaken by the professor of Greek, Jakob Mikyllus, and approved by the university in 1551. To terminate the brawls between the occupants of the different students' halls, the three halls were, in accordance with the elector's desire, united in 1546 with the college of arts and by this means with the university proper, and were thus consolidated under their own statutes and administration. Frederick II also founded the Sapientia College in 1556, to accommodate sixty to eighty poor but talented students from the Palatinate. With the consent of Pope Julius III it was established in 1560 in the abandoned Augustinian monastery. Under Frederick III in 1561, it was transferred to the Protestant Consistory and turned into a theological seminary; as such it continued until 1803 when its revenues were given over to a more advanced institute at Heidelberg. In 1560 the grammar school which had declined under Otto Henry was revived as a preparatory college.

The university recognized the pope's authority for the last time, when, on the invitation of Julius III, it resolved to send two professors as delegates to the Council of Trent, an intention which was not after all carried into effect. Under Otto Henry (1556-59), who immediately after his accession established Lutheranism as the State religion, the last two Catholic professors resigned their chairs. Reforms affecting economic management and administration, faculty organization, number, subjects, and order of courses, and the appointment of professors, were carried out by Otto Henry with the assistance of Mikyllus and Philip Melanchthon, in 1556 and during the following years when the elector's brother, the Palatine Count George John, was rector. The latter chose a pro-rector from among the professors, and subsequently it became customary to associate a pro-rector with the rector magnificentissimus. Through these innovations, the university was transformed into a school of the Evangelical-Lutheran and later of the Calvinistic stamp. At that time, the rigid Calvinists of the theological faculty gave the Reformers their most important doctrinal formulary in the Heidelberg Catechism. As under Louis VI (1576-83) all the Calvinist professors were dismissed from the university, so under his successor, John Casimir (1583-92), the Lutherans were sent away and the Reformed readmitted. In 1588 some further regulations for the faculties, discipline, and economy were proposed and were carried out by Frederick IV. The university gained an international reputation, but its prosperity was destroyed by the Thirty Years War. In September, 1622, the city and castle of Heidelberg were taken by Tilly and the university practically abolished. It was reorganized in 1629 as a Catholic institution and some of the chairs were filled by Jesuits; but the tempestuous conditions then prevalent made the fostering of science impossible and the work was entirely suspended from 1631 to 1652. After the occupation of Heidelberg the Bibliotheca Palatina was presented to the pope by Duke Maximillian of Bavaria and sent in wagons to Rome, a fortunate arrangement for this collection which otherwise would have been burned to ashes, with the other libraries of the city, in May, 1693. In 1815 and 1816 a number of these MS. were returned to Heidelberg. After the Peace of Westphalia, Elector Charles Louis restored the university as a Protestant institution and reorganized its economic management. On 1 November, 1652, it was reopened and a number of distinguished scholars were invited there, among others, Samuel Pufendorf, professor of natural and international law. The philosopher Spinoza also received a call to Heidelberg but declined it, fearing that on account of the religious conflicts philosophical teaching would be restricted within narrow limits.

In the Palatine-Orléans war Heidelberg was burned by the troops of Louis XIV. At that time the elector's castle also went up in flames. The foundation of this residence had been laid by the Palatine Count Rudolph I (1294-1319), who built for himself a castle on the Jettenbühl above the city, which is the oldest part of the entire structure. When Rupert III became King of the Romans (1400-10) he erected a stately building the interior of which was especially rich in design. Opposite, near the picturesque group of fountains, stood Louis's building. Both were fortified by Louis V, and the south wing was completed by his brother, Frederick II. The actual edifice dates from Otto Henry, Frederick IV and Frederick V. Otto Henry's building is in the classic Early Renaissance style adorned with numerous plastic escutcheons, ornaments, and statues. Of the later ruins, Frederick's building is best preserved. It was erected in 1601-07 by the architect Johannes Schoch, and, like Otto Henry's, is remarkable for its numerous ornamental figures. In addition to these there is the English building, with its exquisite, fairy-like gardens and fountains, built in Italian later Renaissance style by order of Frederick V and his wife Elizabeth, who was a granddaughter of Queen Mary Stuart. The castle was partly blown up and partly burned by the French in May, 1693. During these terrible times the professors and students sought safety in flight, and in 1694 established the university temporarily at Frankfort and then at Weinheim. In 1700 it was moved back to Heidelberg. Three years later, under the Catholic Elector John William of the House of Palatine Neuburg, the first Jesuits were appointed as teachers. A Catholic faculty of theology was established side by side with that of the Reformers and invested with equal prerogatives. The first Jesuit rector served during the year 1709. John William in 1712 began the new university buildings which were completed in 1735 in the reign of Charles Philip, who, in 1720 transferred the electoral residence, which had been maintained at Heidelberg for six hundred years, to Mannheim, where he built a new palace.

Through the efforts of the Jesuits a preparatory seminary was established, the Seminarium ad Carolum Borromæum, whose pupils were also registered in the university. After the suppression of the Jesuit Order, most of the schools they had conducted passed into the hands of the French Congregation of Lazarists (1773). They deteriorated from that time forward. The university itself continued to lose in brilliance and prestige until the reign of the last elector, Charles Theodore, of the House of Sulzbach, who established new chairs for all the faculties, founded scientific institutes such as the Electoral Academy of Science, and transferred the school of political economy from Kaiserslautern to Heidelberg, where it was combined with the university as the faculty of political economy. He also founded an observatory in the neighboring city of Mannheim, where the celebrated Jesuit Christian Meyer laboured as director. In connexion with the commemoration of the four hundredth anniversary of the university, a revised statute book which several of the professors had been commissioned to prepare, was approved by the elector, and the financial affairs of the university, its receipts and expenditures, were put in order. At that period the number of students varied from three to four hundred; in the jubilee year 133 matriculated.

In consequence of the disturbances caused by the French Revolution and particularly through the Peace of Lunéeville, the university lost all its property on the left bank of the Rhine, so that its complete dissolution was expected. At this juncture, the elector and (after 1806) Grand Duke Charles Frederick of Baden, to whom had been allotted the part of the Palatinate situated on the right bank of the Rhine, issued on 13 May, 1803, an edict of organization for the Baden dependencies and determined the rights and constitution of Heidelberg, now the State university. He divided it into five faculties and placed himself at its head as rector, as did also his successors. From a local college of Baden the present Ruperto-Carola became a renowned German university. In 1807 the Catholic faculty of theology was removed to Freiburg. Heidelberg then had 432 students on its register. During this decade Romanticism found expression here through Clemens Brentano, Achim von Arnim, Ludwig Tieck, Joseph Görres, and Joseph von Eichendorff, and there went forth a revival of the German Middle Ages in speech, poetry, and art. The German Students Association exerted great influence, which was at first patriotic and later political in the sense of Radicalism. After Romanticism had died out, Heidelberg became a centre of Liberalism and of the movement in favour of national unity. The historians Friedrich Christoph Schlosser, Georg Gervinus, and Ludwig Haüsser were the guides of the nation in political history. The modern scientific schools of medicine and natural science, particularly astronomy, were models in point of construction and equipment. The law faculty was for a time the first in Germany. Its most distinguished representatives were the professors of Roman law, Thibaut, and von Vangerow; K. F. A. Mittermaier in the departments of civil law, penal law, and criminal law; and in commercial law L. Goldschmidt. The division of political economy was represented for a long time by Karl Heinrich Rau, champion of the Liberal-individualist movement, which was greatly influenced by the English, and by Karl Knies, leader of the historic movement. Distinguished among the professors of medicine are the anatomists Henle, Arnold, and Gegenbaur, and the surgeons, von Chelius and Czerny, the latter the founder and head of the Institute for the Investigation of Cancer. Robert Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff share the glory of the discovery of the spectrum analysis. Hermann von Helmholtz, inventor of the opthalmoscope Erwin Rohde, the classical scholar and philologian; and Kuno Fischer, historian of modern philosophy, should be especially mentioned.

In the summer of 1909 the family of the Mannheim machine builder, Heinrich Lanz gave one million marks ($250,000) for the foundation of an academy of science in connexion with Heidelberg University. At present the number of professors in Heidelberg is about 150; students, 2200.

HAUTZ, Gesch. d. Uníversität Heidelberg (2 vols., Mannheim, 1864); THORBECKE, Die älteste Zeit der Universität Heidelberg, I (Heidelberg, 1886), 1386-1449; WINCKELMANN, Urkundenbuch der Universität Heidelberg (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1886); TOEPKE, Matrikel d. Univ. Heidelberg von 1386-1662 (Heidelberg. 1884-); FISCHER, Die Schicksale der Univ. Heidelberg (4th ed., Heidelberg, 1903); PALATINUS, Heidelberg u. seine Universität (Freiburg, 1886); MARCKS, Die Universität Heidelberg im 19 Jahrhundert (Heidelberg, 1903); PFAFF, Heidelberg und Umgebung (2nd ed., Heidelberg, 1902); WALDSCHMIDT, Altheidelberg und sein Schloss (Jena, 1909).

KARL HOEBER

Heiligenkreuz

(SANCTA CRUX).

An existing Cistercian monastery in the Wienerwald, eight miles north-west of Baden in Lower Austria. It was founded in 1135 by Margrave St. Leopold at the request of his son Otto, Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Morimund in Burgundy and afterwards Bishop of Freising. Its first monks with their abbot, Gottschalk, came from Morimund. Heiligenkreuz was richly endowed by the dukes of Babenberg. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it was often imperilled by epidemics, floods, and fires, and suffered severely during the Turkish wars of 1529 and 1683. Nearly all its abbots were noted for both piety and learning. In 1734 the Abbey of St. Gotthard in Hungary was ceded to Heiligenkreuz by Emperor Charles VI, but was taken away and united with the Hungarian Abbey of Zirez in 1778. In its place the monastery of Neukloster at Wiener-Neustadt was joined to Heiligenkreuz in 1880. The church of Heiligenkreuz combines two styles of architecture. The naves and the transept (dedicated 1187) are Romanesque, while the choir (13th century), which is an extension of the original church, is Gothic. The thirteenth-century window paintings of the choir are some of the most beautiful remnants of medieval art. The following Cistercian monasteries received their first monks from Heiligenkreuz: Zwettl in Lower Austria in 1138 (still existing); Czikador in Hungary in 1142 (ceased in 1526); Baumgartenberg in Upper Austria in 1142 (ceased in 1784); Marienberg in Hungary in 1194 (ceased in 1526); Lilienfeld in Lower Austria in 1206 (still existing); Goldenkron in Bohemia in 1263 (ceased in 1785); Neuberg in Styria in 1327 (ceased in 1785). Heiligenkreuz has a library of 50,000 volumes, and its own theological seminary and college. Its 52 priests are engaged in teaching and administering the affairs of the 22 parishes that belong to the monastery.

GSELL in BRUNNER, Ein Cisterzienserbuch (Wurzburg, 1881), 52-116; WATZL, Die Cisterziser von Heiligenkreuz (Graz, 1898); HALUSA in Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benediktiner und dem Cistercienser-Orden (Brunn, 1902), XXIII, 373-386 and 605-662; LANZ, ibid. (1895), XVI, 40-53.

MICHAEL OTT

Heilsbronn

(FONS SALUTIS).

Formerly a Cistercian monastery in the Diocese of Eichstatt in Middle Franconia. It was founded in 1133 by St. Otto, Bishop of Bamberg, and received its first monks with their Abbot Rapatho from the Cistercian monastery of Ebrach in Upper Franconia. It was richly endowed by the dukes of Abenberg and their heirs, the burgraves of Nuremberg. The abbey church contains the sepulchral monuments of most of the burgraves of Nuremberg and the electors of Brandenburg. Heilsbronn was a flourishing monastery until the time of the Reformation. In 1530 Abbot John Schopper founded a monastic school at Heilsbronn, which later became a Protestant school for princes. Under Abbot Schopper (1529-1540) the doctrines of Luther found favour in the monastery. His successor, Sebastian Wagner, openly supported Protestantism. He married and resigned in 1543. In 1549 the Catholic religion was restored at Heilsbronn, but only ostensibly. The last abbot who made any pretense to Catholicity was Melchior Wunderer (1562-1578). The five succeeding abbots were Protestants, and in 1631 Heilsbronn ceased to be an abbey. Its valuable library is at present at Erlangen.

STILLFRIED, Kloster Heilsbroun (Berlin, 1877); MUCK, Geschichte von Kloster Heilsbroun von der Urzeit bis zur Neuzeit (Nordlingen, 1879-80).

MICHAEL OTT

Monk of Heilsbronn

This name indicates the unknown author of some small mystical treatises, written about the beginning of the fourteenth century at the Cistercian Abbey of Heilsbronn (between Ansbach and Nuremberg; not to be confounded with Heilbronn on the Neckar). The Monk cites St. Bonaventure and Albert the Great (d.1280) and draws largely on the works of Conrad of Brundelsheim (Soccus), Abbot of Heilsbronn in 1303 (d. 1321), whose preaching was so efficacious in the diffusion of the spiritual doctrines of St. Bernard. The date of the composition of the treatises is determined by these borrowings and quotations; they are written in Middle German with some traces of the Bavarian dialect. The first, in verse, is "The Book of the Seven Degrees" (Das Buch der siben Grade), which comprises 2218 lines, and has only been preserved in one manuscript—that of Heidelberg, transcibed in 1390 by a priest, Ulric Currifex of Eschenbach. In it the author, taking as his starting point the vision of Ezechiel (xl, 22) describes the seven degrees which make the pure soul mount up to the realms of heaven: prayer, penitence, charity, the habitual thought of God, with the devotion, which purifies and which ravishes, union and conformity with God, contemplation of God. Has the author utilized a treatise of the same nature attributed to David of Augsburg? This question is still under discussion; in any case, however, his originality is undeniable.

The other work is in prose with a prologue and and epilogue in verse and it is in this prologue that the author was himself the "Monk of Heilsbronn" (einem Muniche von Hailsprunne) and asks the prayers of the reader. The title of the treatise is the "Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini" (or "Das Puch on den VI namen des Fronleichnams", or also the "Goldene Zunge"). In it the author sets himself to give us a collection of the flowers gathered by the Fathers from the broad meadows of Scripture with the purpose of teaching us how to receive and how to conduct ourselves towards the Sacred Flesh of the Saviour. He then passes in review six different names given to the Blessed Sacrament: Eucharist, Gift, Food, Communion, Sacrifice, Sacrament; he gives the reasons for these names and suggests considerations on the Divine love, union with God, etc. (cf. supra), especially when speaking of the second and the sixth names. He cites St. Bernard, "his father", very frequently, while much less frequently Augustine and Gregory are quoted. We find the same work also in Latin translations. A third work "On Love" (Das Puch von der Minne), if it ever existed, has not been recovered. Two other treatises which are found in the manuscript of Heidelberg have been attributed to the same author, they are "The Daughter of Sion" (Tochter Syon), a short poem of 596 lines, in the Alamannian dialect, rich in matter and full of emotion; it treats of the mystical union of the soul with God, a theme frequently dealt with in the poetry of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The second work (von Sante Alexis) gives us in 456 lines the well-known legend of St. Alexis. However, peculiarities of language, rhyme, and verse, coupled with an original fashion of conceiving things (e.g. the idea of soul and spirit), forbid us to consider the "Monk of Heilsbronn" as the author of these two poems. In his writings, the Monk of Heilsbronn shows a very great humility, an attractive simplicity which draws us towards him, and a really practical good sense; his poetry is full of imagery and rich in comparisons which render the Latin of the Bible very happily. His mystical conceptions, which by no means betray the influence of Eckhart, show a close relation to St. Bernard and to Hugo of St. Victor.

MERZDORF, Der Monch von Heilsbronn (Berlin, 1870); WAGNER, Ueber den M. von H. (Strasburg, 1876); DENIFLE in Anzeiger fur deutsches Altherthum und deutsche Litteratur, II (1876), 300-313; BIRLINGER in Alemannia, III (1875), 105 sqq.; WIMMER, Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung der Werke des Monchs von Heilsbronn (Kalksburg, 1895).

J. DE GHELLINCK

François Joseph Heim

French historical painter, b. near Belfort, 1787, d. in Paris, 1865. This clever painter commenced work when eight years old, and gained the first prize for drawing in Strasburg before he was eleven. He was a pupil of Vincent in 1803, his people having sent him to Paris to receive the best instruction they could afford. In 1807 he won a prize at the Academy with a picture of Theseus and the Minotaur, and a travelling scholarship with which he went to Rome. On his return to Paris he carried off the gold medal at the Academy, became a full member in 1829, and a professor in 1831. He was appointed painter to the Institute of France, and exhibited over sixty portraits of members, the drawings for which are now in the Louvre. His historical and religious paintings were very attractive. The best of them, representing Jacob in Mesopotamia, was executed in 1814, and is now to be seen at Bordeaux. Two of the ceilings in the Louvre, and three of the ceilings in the Senate house in Paris are his work, and his pictures are also to be found at Versailles and Strasburg.

A privately printed essay from the Strasburg Artistic Society's Proceedings (1901).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Heinrich der Glïchezäre

(i.e. the hypocrite, in the sense of one who adopts a strange name or pseudonym).

A Middle High German poet, author of a narrative poem "Reinhart Fuchs" (Reynard the Fox), the oldest German beast-epic that we possess. The date of its composition is about 1180. It is based on a French poem, part of an extensive "Roman de Renart", but older than any of the branches of this romance that have come down to us. Of the German poem in its original form entitled "Isengrïnes nöt" (Isengrin's trouble), only a few fragments are preserved in a mutilated manuscript discovered in 1839 in the Hessian town of Melsungen. We possess, however, a complete version made by an unknown hand in the thirteenth century and preserved in two manuscripts, one at Heidelberg and one belonging to the archiepiscopal library of Kalocsa. This version is very faithful the changes made therein pertaining apparently only to form and versification. Its title is "Reinhart Fuchs". In the beginning of this poem the fox is anything but a successful impostor, being generally outwitted by far weaker animals. But later on this changes. Reynard plays outrageous pranks on most of the animals, especially on Isengrin, the wolf, but escapes punishment by healing the sick lion. This the fox accomplishes at the expense of his adversaries. In the end he poisons the lion, his benefactor, and the poem closes with a reflection on the success attending craft and falsehood while honesty goes unrewarded. The story is told in a plain, straightforward manner; compared with the French model the german poem shows abbreviations as well as additions, so that it is not a mere translation. The order in which the different incidents are related has also been changed, and occasional touches of satire are not wanting. The poem of der Glichezare is the only beast-epic of Middle High German literature. The famous later versions of this material are Low German. It is on one of these latter that Goethe based his well-known "Reineke Fuchs". The complete poem (from the Heidelberg MS.) was edited by J. Grimm under the title "Reinhart Fuchs" (Berlin,1834), and together with the older fragments by K. Reissenberger in "Paul's Altdeutsche Textbibliothek", VII (Halle, 1886). The Kalocsa MS. was published by Mailáth and Köffinger (Budapest, 1817). Selections are found in P. Piper's "Die Spielmannsdichtung" (in Kurschner, "Deutsche National literatur", II), pt. I, 287-315.

Consult the introduction to the above-mentioned editions and BUTTER, Der Reinhart Fuchs und seine franzosische Quelle (Strasburg, 1891).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Heinrich von Ahaus

(Hendrik van Ahuis)

Founder of the Brethren of the Common Life in Germany, b. in 1371, the natural son of Ludolf, Lord of the principality of Ahaus, and Hadwigis of Schöppingen; d. at Münster, 1439. About 1396 he joined the Brethren of the Common Life at Deventer, where personal intercourse with the companions of the founder, especially Florentius Radewyns, thoroughly acquainted him with the spirit and methods of the congregation, then in its first fervour. It is probable that during the plague of 1398 he left Deventer for Amersfort with Florentius on whose death he returned to his native Münster to establish a community there. In any case the records at Münster point to 1400 as the date of foundation. The benefactions of his family enabled Heinrich to provide generously for the new community, and in 1429 to establish it on his family estate of Springbrunnen (Ad fontem salientem), where he and his companions, besides continuing their missionary work in the diocese, applied themselves to the copying of MS. Heinrich also founded houses of the congregation at Cologne (1416), Weswl (1435), and Osnabrück, and the communities of sisters at Borcken, Kösfeld, Lippstadt, Wesel, and Bodeken, labouring all the while in the face of continuous opposition from both priests and laymen. He accompanied Johann Vos of Huesden, rector of Windesheim, to the Council of Constance, to refute the charges lodged against the Brethren by the Dominican, Mathüus Grabow, and of which they were triumphantly cleared. In 1428 he inaugurated the union of the Münster and Cologne houses, which was sanctioned by papal decree, a few months after his death, and joined in 1441 by the house at Wesel. Heinrich's influence was incalculable, in connection with the training and reform of the clergy, the cause of education, the spread of religious literature, and the advancement of the spiritual life among the masses of the German people.

Schulze, Heinrich von Ahaus in Luthardts Zeitschrift (1882), I, ii; Idem in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyk. für prot. Theol.; Chronicon Windesheimense, ed. Grube (Halle, 1886).

F.M. RUDGE

Heinrich von Laufenberg

A German poet of the fifteenth century, d. at Strasburg in 1460; he was a priest in Freiburg (Breisgau), and later dean of the cathedral. In 1445 he entered the cloister of the Knights of St. John. He was a fertile writer in prose and verse. Among his works there is a collection of sermons, also rhymed German versions of two lengthy Latin works, a "Speculum humanæ salvationis", and the "Opus figurarum" of Konrad von Alzei. The former version dates from 1437 and gives an account of the Fall and Redemption, with a number of Biblical and profane stories interspersed and symbolically interepreted. The other work is devoted to the glorification of the Blessed Virgin, stories of the Old Testament being explained allegorically and mystically with reference to Mary. All these works, however, have not come down to us, the manuscripts having been destroyed during the siege of Strasburg (1870). A metrical German version of a Latin hygienic treatise called "Regimen Sanitatis" is still extant. It dates from 1429. But the chief significance of Laufenberg is as a writer of religious lyrics. Some of these are renderings of Latin hymns, while others are original poems expressive of his love for Jesus and Our Lady. Most notworthy are his recasts of worldly lyrics and folksongs in religious form (so-called Contrafacta). In these he adhered as closely as possible to the form and diction of the folksong, retaining the popular melodies but infusing into them a religious spirit. While most of these poems are simple and effective, many of his original poems are marred by a laboured artificiality, acrostics and other metrical devices being quite common. His translations show occasional latinisms; sometimes, too, Latin and German verses are intermingled. A number of his hymns (97) are found in Wackernagel, "Das deutsche Kirchenlied", II (Leipzig, 1864-77), 528-612.

See Müller, Heinrich Laufenberg (Berlin, 1889).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Heinrich von Meissen

Usually called "Frauenlob" (Woman's praise), a Middle High German lyric poet; b. at Meissen about 1250; d. at Mainz, 1318. He received a learned education, probably at the cathedral school of his native town. He led a wandering life, roving over the greater part of Germany. Poems in praise of different princes enable us to trace his travels after 1278 as far as Bohemis and Carinthia in the south and Denmark in the north. In 1311 he settled down at Mainz, where he is said to have founded the first school of Mastersingers. Tradition relates that he was borne to his grave by women. His tomb in the cathedral of Mainz was renovated in 1842 and is still to be seen. The surname "Frauenlob" is said to have been given to him because in a poetic contest with the poet Barthel Regenbogen he maintained that the term Frau (in the sense of "lady", "mistress") was superior to Weib (woman, as the opposite of man). But it has been shown that he had the surname when quite young and before the poetic contest took place.

Heinrich von Meissen marks the transition from Minnesong to Mastersong; certain it is that the later Mastersingers looked to him as their model. He has written a great many lyric poems on a wide range of subjects, theological, ethical, erotic, and didactic or gnomic. Many of these poems sing the praises of women, matrimony especially being exalted. As a poet he lacks inspiration and spontaneity; his lyrics are the product of learning and reflection, and excel chiefly on the formal side. The artificiality of their form renders most of them unpalatable to modern readers, while the excessive use of far-fetched metaphors and the frequent occurrence of learned allusions tend to obscurity that at times verges on the unintelligible, as, for instance, in his poem in honour of the Blessed Virgin. He is at best in the Spruch or gnomic poem. His poems were edited by Ettmüller, "Heinrichs von Meissen des Frauenlobes Leiche, Sprüche, Streigedichte und Lieder" (Quedlinburg-Leipzig, 1843). Selections were edited by Pfaff in Kürschner's, "Deutsche National Litteratur", VIII, pt. I, pp. 234-239.

See the introduction and notes to the editions mentioned above: Also Boerckel, Frauenlob. Sein Leben und Dichten (Mainz, 2nd ed., 1881). For comments on particular poems and passages, see Bech in Germania, XXVI, 257 sq., 379 sq.; XXIX, 1 sq.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Heinrich von Melk

German satirist of the twelfth century; of knightly birth and probably a lay brother in the convent of Melk, in Styria. His chief work is a poem "Von des todes gehugede" (the remembrance of death), a discourse on the theme memento mori. It is a bitter invective against the vices and sins of all classes, especially of knighthood. After an introduction wherein the poet explains how the depravity of his age has incited him to his task, he turns to his real subject, the contemplation of death, the horrors of which are portrayed in glaring contrast with the vanity of earthly life. Concrete examples are summoned up. A wife is brought to the bier of her deceased spouse, and the ugliness of death is depicted with hideous realism. A son sees his dead father in a vision, and hears from him a gruesome description of the torments which await the sinner after death. The poet does not shrink from the disgusting and revolting in order to impress hardened souls. While this poem is mainly directed against the vices of the laity, particularly those of knighthood, the clergy are made the subject of scathing satire in the poem known as "Priesterleben", which is also attributed to Heinrich von Melk, though his authorship is not certain. It is to be noted, however, that, while the clergy are severely arraigned, their sacred office is scrupulously respected. Both poems date from about 1160. Heinrich von Melk is one of the most notable exponents of the spirit of asceticism that followed in the wake of the reform movement emanating from the monastery of Cluny. In his writings the conflict between asceticism and secularism, so characteristic of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, has found its most impassioned expression. The two poems were edited by Heinzel, "Heinrich von Melk", (Berlin, 1867).

See the introduction to Heinzel; also Kelle, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von der ültesten Zeit bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (2 vols., Berlin, 1892-96), I, 88 sq.; Kochendörffer in Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, XXXV, 187 and 281 sq.; Wilmanns in Beitrüge zur Geschichte der ülteren deutschen Literatur, I, (Bonn, 1885), has tried to prove that the first of the poems dates from the fourteenth century.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Heinrich von Veldeke

A medieval German poet of knightly rank; b. near Maastricht in the Netherlands about the middle of the twelfth century. He received a learned education, knew Latin and French, and was familiar with the writings of Virgil and Ovid. His chief work is the "Eneide" (Eneit), an epic poem dealing with the love romance of Æneas and Dido. The greater part of the poem had been completed by 1175 at the court of Cleves, when the manuscript, which had been loaned to a Countess of Cleves, was carried away to Thuringia. There after nine years the poet regained possession of it, and finished his poem under the patronage of Hermann, the Count Palatine of Saxony, afterwards Landgrave of Thuringia. This happened before 1190, when Hermann became landgrave, but later than 1184, the date of the great Whitsuntide festival given by Frederick I at Mainz, at which the poet was present. The "Eneide" is based on an old French romance of unknown authorship, though it is possible that Virgil's poem was also used. The subject is treated with considerable freedom and thoroughly medievalized. Minne or love is the central theme of the poem. Its form is the short rhyming couplet used by all subsequent writers of courtly epics. Through the introduction of a strict metrical form, purity of rhyme, and the courtly style, Heinrich von Veldeke became the pioneer of the romances of chivalry in Germany. Previous to the "Eneide" he had written at the instance of a Countess of Los and epic on the legend of St. Servatius. Besides the epics he also composed lyrics, which in structure and versification show the French influence, so that in the field of the Minnesong also he was one of the first to introduce the foreign element into German literature. Editions of the "Eneide" were given by L. Ettmüller (Leipzig, 1852) and O. Behaghel (Heilbronn, 1882); the "servatius" by J. H. Bormans (Maastricht, 1858). The lyrics are found in Ettmüller's edition, also in Lachmann and Haupt's "Minnesangs Frühling", IX (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1888). Selections from all the works were edited by P. Piper in his "Höfische Epik", pt. I, 56-281 (in Kürschner's "Deutsche National Literatur", IV).

Consult the introductions to the editions above mentioned; also non Muth, H. von Veldeke und sie Genesis der romantischen und heroischen Epik um 1190 (Vienna, 1880); and Krams, H. von Veldeke und die mittelochdeutsche Dichtersprache Halle, 1899).

ARTHUR F.H. REMY

Joseph Heinz

Swiss painter; b. at Basle, 11 June, 1564; d. near Prague, Bohemia, October, 1609. He appears to have been a pupil of Hans Bock, and to have educated himself by diligent practice in copying the works of Hans Holbein the younger. Between 1585 and 1587 he lived in Rome, registering himself a pupil; to Hans von Aachen. He next settled in Bohemia in 1591, and was at once appointed court painter to Rudolf II, but he remained at Prague for two years only, as in 1593 he was commissioned to make some copies from the antique for the emperor, and for that purpose went to Rome, where he spent some years. In 1604 we hear of him in Augsburg, and from the time we know little of his history, until his decease is recorded in a village outside of Prague. His works were at one time in extraordinary demand, but later on suffered an eclipse, and are now not so highly esteemed as they deserve. His portraits and landscapes are his best works; the family portrait at Berne and that of his patron Rudolf II at Vienna are excellent examples of serious and academic portraiture. In his landscapes he was too fond of a remarkable green colour, but in composition his works were simple and not so crowded as were those of many of his contemporaries in the Dutch School. He was constantly investigating subtle questions of light, and almost all of his landscapes show the interest he took in this technical matter. A notable work by him is the "Rape of Proserpine", which hangs in the Dresden Gallery, and was engraved by Kilian; in the same gallery are two other well-known works, "Lot and His Daughters" and "Ecce Homo". He had a son, who bore the same name, and who painted a few religious pictures not of special importance; several of these works hitherto attributed to the son are now believed to be late productions by the father.

Woermann, Gesch. Der Kunst (Dresden, 1902); Bohemian Dict. Of Artists (Dlabacz, 1877); Schweizerisches Kunstlerlexikon (1902).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Eduard Heis

German astronomer, b. at Cologne, 18 February, 1806; d. at Münster, Westphalia, 30 June, 1877. He graduated from the gymnasium at Cologne in 1824; in 1827 from the university at Bonn, where during his course he solved two prize questions, one on the reconstruction of the Latin text "De sectione determinata" of Apollonius Pergæus, the other on the solar eclipse of Ennius (350 U. C. "Soli luna obstitit et nox") mentioned by Cicero (De republica, I, 16). He then taught mathematics and sciences in the gymnasium of Cologne (1827-37) and in the commercial high-school at Aachen (1837-52). In 1852, on the request of Alexander von Humboldt, he was appointed by King Frederick William IV to the chair of mathematics and astronomy at the Academy (now University) of Münster, which he filled for twenty-five years; in the same year, on presentation by Argelander, he was honoured by his alma mater at Bonn with the title of doctor honoris causa. He was rector of the academy in 1869, was decorated in 1870 with the order of the Red Eagle, nominated in 1874 foreign associate of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, and in 1877 became honorary member of the Leopoldine Academy and of the Scientific Society of Brussels.

Being endowed with exceptionally good eyes and finding at the academy of Münster only a four-inch telescope, Heis devoted himself to the observation with the eye alone of the brilliance of all the stars visible to the naked eye; his observations were also extended to the Milky Way, the zodiacal light, and shooting-stars. The publications containing the results of these investigations are, "Atlas Coelestis" (Cologne, 1872), with 12 charts, a catalogue of 5421 stars, and the first true delineation of the Milky Way; "Zodiakal-Beobachtungen", extending over twenty-nine years (1847-75);" Sternschnuppen-Beobachtungen", which includes over 15,000 shooting-stars observed by himself and his students during forty-three years (1833-75). The latter two works appeared as vols. I and II of the publications of the royal observatory of Münster (1875 and 1877). The work on the "Atlas", which was the result of twenty-seven years' labour, was accompanied by observations of variable stars (1840-70), into which field he was introduced by Argelander. These observations were recently published by the writer of the present article (Berlin, 1903). He also turned his attention to the auroral light and to sun-spots. Among his minor publications were treatises on the eclipses of the Peloponnesian war (1834), on Halley's comet (1835), on periodic shooting-stars (1849), on the magnitude and number of the stars visible to the naked eye ("De Magnitudine", etc., 1852), which work gained him the title of doctor, on Mira Ceti (1859), and on the fable of Galileo's E pur si muove (1874, also in the Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels, 1876-77, I). He wrote a number of mathematical text-books, of which the "Sammlung von Beispielen und Aufgaben aus der allgemeinen Arithmetik und Algebra" reached 107 editions in various languages. Heis was one of the founders of "Natur und Offenbarung" (1855), and editor of the scientific journal "Wochenschrift" (1857-1877). Shortly before his death he prepared the design of the Scriptural and symbolical constellations (Orion, Ursa, Pieces, Virgo, Crux) for the ceiling of the choir in the cathedral of Münster. Heis was an excellent teacher, a fatherly friend to his students, charitable to his neighbour, especially the poor, and an exemplary husband and father. During the Vatican Council and the Kulturkampf he stood faithfully by the Church. In 1869 as rector he offered the jubilee congratulations of the Academy of Münster to Pius IX, and in 1872 he received from the same pontiff a precious medal with a Latin Brief for the "Atlas Coelestis" which he had dedicated to the pope through Father Secchi. Heis died of apoplexy, three months before his golden jubilee as teacher. He had his own tombstone prepared in the proportions of the "golden section", with the symbol of the dove and olive-branch from the catacombs.

Monthly Notices R. Astr. Soc. (1878), XXXVIII, 152; Deutscher Hausschatz (1877), III, 807; Mitteilungen Fr. d. Astr. u. kosm. Phys. (1906), XVI, 13.

J. G. HAGEN

Heisterbach

(Vallis S. Petri).

A former Cistercian monastery in the Siebengebirge near the little town of Oberdollendorf in the Archdiocese of Cologne. It traces its origin to a knight named Walther, who lived as a recluse on the Stromberg, or Petersberg, one of the mountains forming the Siebengebirge. When numerous disciples began to settle near the cell of Walther, he built a monastery (1134) where they lived according to the Rule of St. Augustine. After the death of Walther his disciples left their monastery on the Petersberg and built the monastery of Reussrath on the Sulz. In 1189 Archbishop Philip of Cologne requested Gisilbert, the Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Himmerod in the Diocese of Trier, to repeople the deserted monastery of Petersberg with Cistercians from Himmerod. On 22 March, 1189, twelve Cistercian monks with their newly-appointed Abbot Hermann took possession of Petersberg. Three or four years later they removed to the foot of the mountain, where they built a new monastery which they called Petersthal or Heisterbach. The famous basilica of Heisterbach was begun by Abbot Gerard (1195-1208), and consecrated in 1237 under Abbot Henry (1208-1244). Being built during the period of transition from the Romanesque round arch to the Gothic pointed arch, its style of architecture was a combination of the Romanesque and the Gothic. Heisterbach, which had large possessions and drew revenues from many neighbouring towns, remained one of the most flourishing Cistercian monasteries until its suppression in 1803. The library and the archives were given to the city of Dusseldorf; the monastery and the church were sold and torn down in 1809, and at present only the apse with the ruins of the choir remains. Caesarius of Heisterbach, one of the greatest men that the Cistercian Order has produced, was a monk at this abbey (1199-c. 1240). A monument was erected in his honour near the ruins of Heisterbach in 1897.

SCHMITZ, Die Abtei Heisterbach (Dusseldorf, 1900); POHL, Schicksale der letzten Monche v. Heisterbach in Annalen des hist. Vereins fur den Niederrhein (1902), 88-111; REDLICH, Aufhebung der Abtei Heisterbach, ibidem (1901), 86-95.

MICHAEL OTT

St. Helena

The mother of Constantine the Great, born about the middle of the third century, possibly in Drepanum (later known as Helenopolis) on the Nicomedian Gulf; died about 330. She was of humble parentage; St. Ambrose, in his "Oratio de obitu Theodosii", referred to her as a stabularia, or inn-keeper. Nevertheless, she became the lawful wife of Constantius Chlorus. Her first and only son, Constantine, was born in Naissus in Upper Moesia, in the year 274. The statement made by English chroniclers of the Middle Ages, according to which Helena was supposed to have been the daughter of a British prince, is entirely without historical foundation. It may arise from the misinterpretation of a term used in the fourth chapter of the panegyric on Constantine's marriage with Fausta, that Constantine, oriendo (i. e., "by his beginnings," "from the outset") had honoured Britain, which was taken as an allusion to his birth, whereas the reference was really to the beginning of his reign.

In the year 292 Constantius, having become co-Regent of the West, gave himself up to considerations of a political nature and forsook Helena in order to marry Theodora, the step-daughter of Emperor Maximianus Herculius, his patron, and well-wisher. But her son remained faithful and loyal to her. On the death of Constantius Chlorus, in 308, Constantine, who succeeded him, summoned his mother to the imperial court, conferred on her the title of Augusta, ordered that all honour should be paid her as the mother of the sovereign, and had coins struck bearing her effigy. Her son's influence caused her to embrace Christianity after his victory over Maxentius. This is directly attested by Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III, xlvii): "She (his mother) became under his (Constantine's) influence such a devout servant of God, that one might believe her to have been from her very childhood a disciple of the Redeemer of mankind". It is also clear from the declaration of the contemporary historian of the Church that Helena, from the time of her conversion had an earnestly Christian life and by her influence and liberality favoured the wider spread of Christianity. Tradition links her name with the building of Christian churches in the cities of the West, where the imperial court resided, notably at Rome and Trier, and there is no reason for rejecting this tradition, for we know positively through Eusebius that Helena erected churches on the hallowed spots of Palestine. Despite her advanced age she undertook a journey to Palestine when Constantine, through his victory over Licinius, had become sole master of the Roman Empire, subsequently, therefore, to the year 324. It was in Palestine, as we learn from Eusebius (loc. cit., xlii), that she had resolved to bring to God, the King of kings, the homage and tribute of her devotion. She lavished on that land her bounties and good deeds, she "explored it with remarkable discernment", and "visited it with the care and solicitude of the emperor himself". Then, when she "had shown due veneration to the footsteps of the Saviour", she had two churches erected for the worship of God: one was raised in Bethlehem near the Grotto of the Nativity, the other on the Mount of the Ascension, near Jerusalem. She also embellished the sacred grotto with rich ornaments. This sojourn in Jerusalem proved the starting-point of the legend first recorded by Rufinus as to the discovery of the Cross of Christ.

Her princely munificence was such that, according to Eusebius, she assisted not only individuals but entire communities. The poor and destitute were the special objects of her charity. She visited the churches everywhere with pious zeal and made them rich donations. It was thus that, in fulfilment of the Saviour's precept, she brought forth abundant fruit in word and deed. If Helena conducted herself in this manner while in the Holy Land, which is indeed testified to by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, we should not doubt that she manifested the same piety and benevolence in those other cities of the empire in which she resided after her conversion. Her memory in Rome is chiefly identified with the church of S. Croce in Gerusalemme. On the present location of this church formerly stood the Palatium Sessorianum, and near by were the Thermae Helenianae, which baths derived their name from the empress. Here two inscriptions were found composed in honour of Helena. The Sessorium, which was near the site of the Lateran, probably served as Helena's residence when she stayed in Rome; so that it is quite possible for a Christian basilica to have been erected on this spot by Constantine, at her suggestion and in honour of the true Cross.

Helena was still living in the year 326, when Constantine ordered the execution of his son Crispus. When, according to Socrates account (Hist. eccl., I, xvii), the emperor in 327 improved Drepanum, his mother's native town, and decreed that it should be called Helenopolis, it is probable that the latter returned from Palestine to her son who was then residing in the Orient. Constantine was with her when she died, at the advanced age of eighty years or thereabouts (Eusebius, "Vita Const.", III, xlvi). This must have been about the year 330, for the last coins which are known to have been stamped with her name bore this date. Her body was brought to Constantinople and laid to rest in the imperial vault of the church of the Apostles. It is presumed that her remains were transferred in 849 to the Abbey of Hautvillers, in the French Archdiocese of Reims, as recorded by the monk Altmann in his "Translatio". She was revered as a saint, and the veneration spread, early in the ninth century, even to Western countries. Her feast falls on 18 August. Regarding the finding of the Holy Cross by St. Helena, see CROSS AND CRUCIFIX.

J.P. KIRSCH

Helena

(Helenensis)

Erected from the Vicariate of Montana, 7 March, 1884. It comprises the western part of the State of Montana, U.S.A., and is made up of Lewis and Clark, Teton, Flathead, Missoula, Sanders, Powell, Granite, Ravalli, Deer Lodge, Silver Bow, Jefferson, Broadwater, Meagher, Gallatin, Madison, and Beaverhead counties, an area of 51,922 square miles. Montana Territory was first included in the jurisdiction of the Viciariate of Nebraska, created in 1851. When in 1868 that part west of the Rocky Mountains was taken to make up the Vicariate of Idaho there were nineteen priests, twenty-three churches and chapels, four hospitals, six parish schools, and an estimated Catholic population of 15,000 when the diocese was formed. Missions among the Flathead, Blackfeet, and Cheyenne Indians took up a large part of the time of the band of Jesuit priests located in the diocese, while the Sisters of Charity, the Ursulines, and the Sisters of Charity of Providence looked after the schools.

The first bishop was the Right Rev. John Baptist Brondel, consecrated 14 December, 1879, at Victoria, V.I., and transferred to Helena, 7 March, 1884. He died 3 November, 1903. John P. Carroll, second bishop, was consecrated 21 December, 1904. He was born at Dubuque, Iowa, 22 February, 1864, and ordained priest 7 July, 1889.

The following religious have communities in the diocese: Jesuits, Brothers of Christian Instruction, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Ursulines, Sisters of Charity of Providence, Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic, Sisters of Charity B.V.M.

Statistics

45 priests (8 religious), 45 churches with resident priests, 34 missions, 72 stations, 48 chapels, 20 parish schools (4900 pupils), 5 Indian schools (400 pupils), 15 brothers, 219 sisters, 36 ecclesiastical students; 1 orphan asylum (250 inmates), 1 industrial and reform school (50 inmates), total young people under Catholic care 5762, 5 hospitals, Catholic population 50,000.

Catholic Directory, 1909; Catholic News (New York), files; Biog. Encycl. Cath. Hierarchy U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Helen of Sköfde

Martyr in the first half of the twelfth century. Her feast is celebrated 31 July. Her life (Acta SS., July, VII, 340) is ascribed to St. Brynolph, Bishop of Skara, in Sweden (d. 1317). She was of noble family and is generally believed to have been the daughter of the Jarl Guthorm. When her husband died she remained a widow and spent her life in works of charity and piety; the gates of her home were ever open to the needy and the church of Sköfde was almost entirely built at her expense. Her daughter's husband was a very cruel man, and was in consequence killed by his own servants. His relatives, wishing to avenge his death, examined the servants. These admitted the crime, but falsely asserted that they acted on the instigation of Helen. She had then gone on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but on her return she was killed in 1160 (?) at Gothene by her husband's relatives. Her body was brought to Sköfde for burial, and many wonderful cures were wrought at her intercession. The report of these miracles was sent to Rome by Stephen, the Archbishop of Upsala, and he, by order of Pope Alexander III, in 1164 inscribed her name in the list of canonized saints (Benedict XIV, "De canonizatione sanctorum", I, 85). Great was the veneration shown her relics even after the Reformation had spread in Sweden. Near her church was a holy well, known to this day as St. Lene Kild. At various times the Lutheran authorities inveighed against this remnant of what they called popish and anti-Christian superstition. Especially zealous in this regard was Archbishop Abraham, who had all the springs, mineral or pure water, filled up with stones and rubbish (Baring-Gould, "Lives of the Saints", July, II, 698). St. Helen's tomb and well (St. Elin's) were also honoured at Tiisvilde in the parish of Tibirke in the island of Zealand. Pilgrimages were made every summer, cripples amd sick came in numbers; they would remain all night at the grave, take away with them little bags of earth from under the tombstone, and frequently would leave their crutches or make votive offerings in token of gratitude. Such was the report sent in 1658 from Copenhagen to the Bollandists by the Jesuit Lindanus. A similar statement is made by Werlaiff, in 1858, in his "Hist. Antegnelser". The legend says that St. Helen's body floated to Tiisvilde in a stone coffin, and that a spring broke forth where the coffin touched land. The Bollandists (loc. cit.) give as a possible reason for her veneration at Tiisvilde that perhaps St. Helen had visited the place, or some of her relics had been brought there.

DUNBAR, Dictionary of Saintly Women (London, 1904); PREGER in Kirchenlex.; THIELE, Danmarks Folkesagen (Copenhagen, 1843).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Helenopolis

A titular see of Bithynia Prima, suffragan of Prusa. On the southern side of the Sinus Astacenus was a place known as Drepana or Drepanon, where about 258 St. Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, was born. Near it were some famous mineral springs. In 318 Constantine gave the place the name Helenopolis, and built there a church in honour of the martyr St. Lucian; it soon grew in importance, and Constsntine lived there very often towards the end of his life. Justinian built there an aqueduct, baths, and other monuments. Yet it does not seem ever to have grown in prosperity, and hence it was slightingly called Eleinou Polis, "the wretched town". It has been identified with the modern village of Hersek in the vilayet of Broussa. The mineral springs are those of Coury near Yalova. Helenopolis occurs in the "Notitif Episcopatuum" until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Lequien (Oriens Christ., I, 623) mentions nine of its bishops; Macrinus, the first, is said to have been at the Council of Nicaea (325), but his name is not given in the authentic lists of the members of the council. About 400 the church of Helenopolis was governed by Palladius, the friend and defender of St. John Chrysostom, and author of the famous "Historia Lausiaca". The last known bishop assisted at the Photian Council in Constantinople (879).

There was another Helenopolis, suffragan of Scythopolis in Palestina Secunda; and a third, suffragan of Sardes in Lydia.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Heli

Heli the Judge and High Priest

Heli (Heb. ELI, Gr. HELI) was both judge and high-priest, whose history is related in I Kings, i-iv. He lived at Silo, where the ark of the Lord was kept at that time. Samuel's early history is connected with that of the last days of the aged Heli, whom he succeeded in the office of judge, just before the appointment of Saul as king (I Kings, vii, 15; viii, 22). Heli must have been held in the highest esteem, and yet the Bible represents him to us in his old age as weak and indulgent to his sons, Ophni and Phinees, whose crimes brought ruin on their country and on their father's house. The high-priesthood had been promised to Phinees, son of Eleasar and grandson of Aaron, for his zeal (Num., xxv, 13); and how Heli, who was a descendant of Aaron through Ithamar (Lev., x, 12; I Pr., xxiv, 2; III Kings, ii, 27), became high-priest is not known; but his title to the office had the Divine sanction (I Kings, ii, 30). The Lord spoke to Heli through the boy Samuel, and the word of the Lord was fulfilled. The Philistines were victorious in battle, Ophini and Phinees being among the slain, and the ark was carried away as a part of the spoils. The death of the high-priest is thus described: "Now Heli was ninety and eight years old. . .he fell from his stool backwards by the door, and broke his neck, and died" (I Kings, iv, 15-18). According to the Heb. Text, with which Josephus agrees (Ant., V, xi, 3), Heli judged Israel forty years, so that the twenty of the Gr. Text is generally considered an error. Heli spoke when he should have been silent (I Kings, I, 14), and he was silent when he should have spoken and corrected his children. The words "And thou shalt see thy rival in the temple" (I Kings, ii, 32) refer to the taking of the high-priesthood from his family; but as this was done in the days of Solomon, more than a hundred years later, for he "cast out Abiathar, from being the priest of the Lord" (III Kings, ii, 27; Josephus, "Ant.", VIII, i, 3), they were addressed, not to Heli as an individual, but rather to his house. The passage however is obscure.

Heli the Father of Joseph

Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deut., xxv, 5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, "The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

JOSEPHUS, Ant., V, ix, x, xi; GEIKIE, O. T. Characters: Eli, 184-193; MALDONATUS, In Matt., i, 16; Eccl. Rev. (Jan., 1896), 21 sqq.

THOMAS J. TIERNEY

Paul Heliae

(POVL HELGESEN)

A Carmelite, opponent of the Reformation in Denmark, born at Warberg (in the Laen of Halland), about 1480; died after 1534, place unknown, In early youth he entered the Carmelite convent of his native town, where he received his first education, and in course of time obtained the degrees of Lecturer on Holy Scripture and Bachelor of Divinity; he was elected provincial in 1519 and soon after professor at the University of Copenhagen. In these positions he had to choose sides in the religious strife which broke out on the appointment of a Lutheran pastor to the parish of St. Nicholas, and the introduction of a new ecclesiastical code of distinctly schismatical tendencies. In a sermon preached at court he warmly defended the Catholic Faith and made some pointed remarks on the king's morals, with the result that he had to seek safety in flight until the dethronement of Christian II and the election of Frederick I procured a short respite to the Catholic religion. Unfortunately Helgesen through misdirected zeal, rendered his own faith suspect; he preached against simony, avarice, and other clerical vices with a vehemence peculiar to Protestant invectives, and also published a Danish translation of Luther's "Betbüchlein" (prayer book on the commandments, the Creed, the Our Father and Hail Mary); his object in placing Luther's work before the Catholics of Denmark was evidently to eliminate what was unsound in faith and to preserve only that which agreed with the doctrine of the Church; yet, owing to hurry, Helgesen allowed much to pass which should have been omitted, and failed to emphasize some of the most important dogmas.

The result was that both Catholics and Protestants remained for some time uncertain as to his real belief, and afterwards, when his attitude proved him to be an uncompromising adherent of the Catholic religion, he was nicknamed Vendekaabe (weathercock), under which name he went down to posterity. Nevertheless he missed no occasion to attack heresy, writing no less than six works in defence of the old faith, and taking part in public disputations. But all in vain; protected by the king (in flagrant violation of his oath), and fostered both by Germany and Sweden, the new religion grew every day more powerful; Catholic worship was gradually abolished, and Helgesen had the sorrow to see the convents of his order secularized. Nothing is known concerning his last days; Schmitt inclines to think that he met with a violent death during or after the siege of Roskilde (1536), and thus gained a martyr's crown; others are of opinion that he may have withdrawn to some convent abroad, perhaps in Holland.

SCHMITT, Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliae (Freiburg im Br., 1893), where there is a complete list of his works, whether extant or lost; among the former mention must be made of the polemical writings published by SECHER, Povel Eliesens danske Skrifter, I, 1855.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

The Heliand

(Germ. Heiland, Saviour)

The oldest complete work of German literature. Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-75) published in his "Catalogus testium veritatis" the Latin text of the "Præfatio", reciting that Emperor Louis the Pious had ordered a translation of the Old and the New Testament into the Saxon language, to make Christianity better known to his Saxon subjects. A fragment of the manuscript of the "Heliand" in the Cottonian Library was discovered by Junius before 1587, and extracts from the poem were first published by George Hickes in 1705. In 1720 J. G. von Eckhart identified it with the Old Saxon poem mentioned in the "Præfatio" of Flacius. The full text appeared in 1830, edited by J. Andrew Schmeller, from a Munich manuscript. To Schmeller also is due the title "Heliand", The genuineness of the "Præfatio", important because it bears witness to the language of the Heliand as Saxon, and to its composition under Louis the Pious, (c. 830), was for a long time doubted, because it asserted that Louis had also commissioned the Saxon bard to write poetic versions of the Old Testament. Since 1894, however, when K. Zangemeister found fragments of a Saxon translation of Genesis in the Bibliotheca Palatina, the genuineness of the "Præfatio" is generally acknowledged. The Heiland is an epic poem whose theme, like that of the Anglo-Saxon Cædmon, is the life of Christ. The author is unknown; some, like Rückert, are convinced that the poem was written by a priest, while others, like Piper, advocate the authorship of a layman. The basis of the story is thought to be Tatian's "Diatessaron" (Gospel Harmony), or a work like it. The author, however, has also consulted various commentators, among whom are mentioned the Venerable Bede and Rabanus Maurus. This fact favours the view that the author was a priest, while his intimate mastery of the formulæ and metrical shifts of the Old Saxon minstrels suggests that he was a skop and a layman. Certain theological inaccuracies also make for the latter opinion. The author was a man of poetic power, for unlike Ottfried, who shortly after him wrote the rhymed Gospel Harmony, in High German, he produced a work of real poetic inspiration. His work was difficult. The Saxons had been forcibly converted to Christianity by Charlemagne only a few years before. They were a rude, vigorous and warlike race, loyal to their chiefs, without culture and learning, who cared little for religious speculations. To interest such men in the story of the Divine Teacher and His doctrines was of course difficult. The poet therefore adopted a bold expedient. He represents Christ not so much as a Divine Teacher but as the Prince of Peace, the Sovereign Ruler, who gathers about him his loyal vassals, the Apostles. With their aid He founds His kingdom upon earth, and appears throughout His career as the beneficent Lord of men. His life is related from His birth to His ascension in accordance with the Gospel narrative. Just as the atmosphere of the masterpieces of the great Christian painters of Italy is Italian, so the atmosphere of the Heliand is purely German. The marriage at Cana takes place in the great banqueting hall of a German lord. The guests are seated on long rows of benches and there is an imposing display of tankards and viands. St. Thomas and St. Peter are bold German warriors who cannot restrain their valour and their loyalty, when their Liege-Lord is assailed by the traitorous Jews. The Saxon minstrel seems to have been a skilled seaman, for he revels in the description of the storm on Lake Genesareth. He is throughout animated with the warmest devotion to his Lord. He respects, honours, but above all loves Him. For St. Peter, too, he entertains a feeling of deep loyalty and admiration, and beholds in him the God-given chief of Christendom. The personality of Christ gives unity to the long epic. To secure the needful movement he confines the didactic side of Christ's career to one or two cantos, the nucleus of which is the Sermon on the Mount. The poem is composed in the alliterative verse in which the pagan Saxon lays were probably written, and he handles this instrument with considerable skill. Even without the statement found in the "Præfatio", that Louis selected a bard well known among his people for poetic genius, to sing for his countrymen the wonderful story of the Old and the New Testament, the versification, the poetic language, and the frequent use of poetic formulæ, some of which still betray their pagan origin, convince the reader that the old Saxon Homer must have been a popular bard. His recital is characterized by simplicity and the absence of grandiloquence. Modern critics have judged the work variously. Some, like Scherer, approach it with the feeling that it was primarily a kind of Saxon tract in verse, and condemn it because of its didactic character. Others, like Behringer and Windisch, regard it as a perfect work of art. Vilmar declares it to be the finest Christian epic in any language. The interest aroused by the poem may be measured by the fact that since its publication in 1830 two hundred and seventy-three books and pamphlets on the Heliand, including some ten editions of the text, have been published in Germany and elsewhere.

RÜCKERT, Heliand (Leipzig, 1876); PIPER, Heliand (Stuttgart, 1897); HEYNE, Heliand (Paderborn, 1905); COOK, Studies in the Heiland; GIBB, Heliand, a Religious Poem of the Ninth Century in Fraser's Magazine (1880), CII, 658; STEPHEN, The "Heiland" and the "Genesis" in Academy (1876), 1409; HERBERMANN, The Heiland in Am. Cath. Quarterly Rev. (Philadelphia, Oct., 1905).

CHARLES G. HERBERMANN.

Hélinand

A celebrated medieval poet, chronicler, and ecclesiastical writer; born of Flemish parents at Pronleroi in the Department of Oise in France c. 1150; died 3 February, 1223, or 1227, or 1237. His talents won the favor of King Philip Augustus, and for some time he freely indulged in the pleasures of the world, after which he became a Cistercian monk at the Monastery of Froidment in the Diocese of Beauvais about the year 1190. From being a self-indulgent man of the world he became a model of piety an d mortification in the monastery. Whatever time was not consumed in monastic exercises he devoted to ecclesiastical studies and, after his ordination to the priesthood, to preaching and writing. The Church of Beauvais honors him as a saint and celebrates his feast on 3 February. Many of his writings are lost. The extant ones (published in P.L., CCXII, 482-1084) are the following:

• twenty-eight sermons on various Church festivals; two ascetic treatises, viz. "De cognitione sui" and "De bono regimine principis";
• one epistle entitled "De reparatione lapsi", in which he exhorts a renegade monk to return to his monastery;
• a passio of Gereon, Victor, Cassius, and Florentius, martyrs of the Theban Legion (reprinted by the Bollandists in "Acta SS.", October, V, 36-42);
• a chronicle (from the beginning of the world to 1204) of which everything up to A.D. 634 has been lost;
• a poem on death, in the French language, of which only four incomplete stanzas remain.

His sermons, written in a neat Latin style, give evidence of a remarkable acquaintance with the pagan poets as well as with the Fathers of the Church. His chronicle is not sufficiently critical to be of much historical value. It is still not decided whether Hélinand of Fro idment is a different person from the Cistercian Hélinand of Perseigne, the author of a commentary on the Apocalypse and glosses on the Book of Exodus.

MICHAEL OTT

Heliogabalus

(Elagabal)

The name adopted by Varius Avitus Bassianus, Roman emperor (218-222), born of a Syrian family and a grandnephew of Julia Domna, the consort of Emperor Septimus Severus. When Emperor Caracalla had fallen a victim to a conspiracy of his officers at Carrhæ in 217, the prætorian prefect, M. Opellius Macrinus, seized the reins of power. Empress Julia Domna committed suicide; her sister, Julia Mæsa, was exiled to Emesa with her daughters and her eldest grandchild, Avitus Bassianus. The latter was appointed priest of the sun-god Elagabal, whose name he adopted. A report was then spread among the soldiers in Syria, that Elagabalus was a son of Caracalla, and by appointment the fifteen-year-old youth betook himself to the Roman camp in 218, and allowed himself to be elected emperor on 16 May by the soldiers. He received the official name of M. Aurelius Antoninus in recognition of the general desire to pay a tribute to the memory of the glorious Antonine. A rising in favour of Macrinus failed, as well as his attempt to win over the soldiers and the inhabitants of Rome by bribery. An important battle fought on the borders of Syria and Phœnicia to the east of Antioch, was decided in favour of Heliogabalus; the troops of Macrinus, bribed by money and promises, joined the army of his opponent, while Macrinus himself was put to death during the flight. Heliogabalus lived in Rome as an oriental despot and, giving himself up to detestable sensual pleasures, degraded the imperial office to the lowest point by most shameful vices, which had their origin in certain rites of oriental naturalistic religion. His mother Soæmias and his grandmother Julia Mæsa, who also took part in the sessions of the Senate, exercised a controlling influence over Heliogabalus. A conical, black, meteoric stone from Emesa served as the idol of the sun-god, which Heliogabalus married to the Syrian moon-goddess Astarte, introduced from Carthage, and whose high-priest became pontifex maximus of Rome. This led to the greatest religious confusion and disintegration among the pagans in the city, the Christians affording a marked contrast in the manner in which they maintained the integrity of their faith. Influenced by his grandmother, the emperor adopted his so far uncorrupted twelve-year-old cousin Aurelius Alexander, and assigned him the title of Cæsar. The repeated attempts of Heliogabalus to encompass his cousin's death were always frustrated by the soldiers. In a mutiny in favour of Alexander (11 March, 222) Heliogabalus was murdered, together with his mother.

Schiller, Römische Kaiserzeit (Berlin, 1883); Allard, Hist. des persécutions de l'Eglise (Paris, 1875–); Reville, La religion à Rome sous les Sévèred (Paris, 1866); Duchesne, dfHist. ancienne de l'Eglise, I (2nd ed., Paris, 1906); Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog., s. v.

Karl Hueber

Hell

This subject is treated under eight headings: (I) Name and Place of Hell; (II) Existence of Hell; (III) Eternity of Hell; (IV) Impenitence of the Damned; (V) Poena Damni; (VI) Poena Sensus; (VII) Accidental Pains of the Damned; (VIII) Characteristics of the Pains of Hell.

I. NAME AND PLACE OF HELL

The term hell is cognate to "hole" (cavern) and "hollow". It is a substantive formed from the Anglo-Saxon helan or behelian, "to hide". This verb has the same primitive as the Latin occulere and celare and the Greek kalyptein. Thus by derivation hell denotes a dark and hidden place. In ancient Norse mythology Hel is the ill-favoured goddess of the underworld. Only those who fall in battle can enter Valhalla; the rest go down to Hel in the underworld, not all, however, to the place of punishment of criminals.

Hell (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:

• hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
• the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
• the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
• purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.

The present article treats only of hell in the strict sense of the term.

The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol correspond to the word hell. Infernus is derived from the root in; hence it designates hell as a place within and below the earth. Haides, formed from the root fid, to see, and a privative, denotes an invisible, hidden, and dark place; thus it is similar to the term hell. The derivation of sheol is doubtful. It is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Sept. hades; Vulg. infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Gen., xxxvii, 35) as well as of the bad (Num., xvi, 30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers. But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ's Ascension, hades (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ's Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (II Cor., v 1). However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned. Gehenna is the Hebrew gê-hinnom (Neh., xi, 30), or the longer form gê-ben-hinnom (Jos., xv, 8), and gê-benê-hinnom (IV Kings, xxiii, 10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (IV Kings, xxiii, 10), cursed by Jeremias (Jer., vii, 31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term. Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulg. tartarus) (II Peter, ii, 4), "abyss" (Luke, viii, 31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke, xvi, 28), "pool of fire" (Apoc., xix, 20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matt., xiii, 42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matt., iii, 12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matt., xviii, 8; xxv, 41; Jude, 7), "exterior darkness" (Matt., vii, 12; xxii, 13; xxv, 30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (II Peter, ii, 17; Jude, 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, I Tim., vi, 9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, II Thess., i, 9), "corruption" (phthora, Gal., vi, 8), "death" (Rom., vi, 21), "second death" (Apoc., ii, 11 and elsewhere).

Where is hell? Some were of opinion that hell is everywhere, that the damned are at liberty to roam about in the entire universe, but that they carry their punishment with them. The adherents of this doctrine were called Ubiquists, or Ubiquitarians; among them were, e.g., Johann Brenz, a Swabian, a Protestant theologian of the sixteenth century. However, that opinion is universally and deservedly rejected; for it is more in keeping with their state of punishment that the damned be limited in their movements and confined to a definite place. Moreover, if hell is a real fire, it cannot be everywhere, especially after the consummation of the world, when heaven and earth shall have been made anew. As to its locality all kinds of conjectures have been made; it has been suggested that hell is situated on some far island of the sea, or at the two poles of the earth; Swinden, an Englishman of the eighteenth century, fancied it was in the sun; some assigned it to the moon, others to Mars; others placed it beyond the confines of the universe [Wiest, "Instit. theol.", VI (1789), 869]. The Bible seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. We even read of the earth opening and of the wicked sinking down into hell (Num., xvi, 31 sqq.; Ps., liv, 16; Is., v, 14; Ez., xxvi, 20; Phil., ii, 10, etc.). Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendour. But the damned are utterly estranged from God; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from his dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth. However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know. St. Chrysostom reminds us: "We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it" (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674). St. Augustine says: "It is my opinion that the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation", (De Civ. Dei, XX, xvi, in P.L., XLI, 682). Elsewhere he expresses the opinion that hell is under the earth (Retract., II, xxiv, n. 2 in P.L., XXXII, 640). St. Gregory the Great wrote: "I do not dare to decide this question. Some thought hell is somewhere on earth; others believe it is under the earth" (Dial., IV, xlii, in P.L., LXXVII, 400; cf. Patuzzi, "De sede inferni", 1763; Gretser, "De subterraneis animarum receptaculis", 1595).

II. EXISTENCE OF HELL

There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).

The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention.

The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence (Matt., v, 29; viii, 12; x, 28; xiii, 42; xxv, 41, 46; II Thess., i, 8; Apoc., xxi, 8, etc.). A very complete development of the Scriptural argument, especially in regard to the Old Testament, may be found in Atzberger's "Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung im Alten und Neuen Testament", Freiburg, 1890. Also the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, "Ad Eph.", v, 16; "Martyrium s. Polycarpi", ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, "Apol.", II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, "De resurr. mort.", c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", V, xxvii, n. 2 in P.G. VII, 1196; Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277). For citations from this patristic teaching see Atzberger, "Gesh. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit" (Freiburg, 1896); Petavius, "De Angelis", III, iv sqq.

The Church professes her faith in the Athanasian Creed: "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire" (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 1908, n.40). The Church has repeatedly defined this truth, e.g. in the profession of faith made in the Second Council of Lyons (Denx., n. 464) and in the Decree of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., N. 693): "the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments" (poenis disparibus).

If we abstract from the eternity of its punishment, the existence of hell can be demonstrated even by the light of mere reason. In His sanctity and justice as well as in His wisdom, God must avenge the violation of the moral order in such wise as to preserve, at least in general, some proportion between the gravity of sin and the severity of punishment. But it is evident from experience that God does not always do this on earth; therefore He will inflict punishment after death. Moreover, if all men were fully convinced that the sinner need fear no kind of punishment after death, moral and social order would be seriously menaced. This, however, Divine wisdom cannot permit. Again, if there were no retribution beyond that which takes place before our eyes here on earth, we should have to consider God extremely indifferent to good and evil, and we could in no way account for His justice and holiness.-Nor can it be said: the wicked will be punished, but not by any positive infliction: for either death will be the end of their existence, or, forfeiting the rich reward of the good, they will enjoy some lesser degree of happiness. These are arbitrary and vain subterfuges, unsupported by any sound reason; positive punishment is the natural recompense of evil. Besides, due proportion between demerit and punishment would be rendered impossible by an indiscriminate annihilation of all the wicked. And finally, if men knew that their sins would not be followed by sufferings, the mere threat of annihilation at the moment of death, and still less the prospect of a somewhat lower degree of beatitude, would not suffice to deter them from sin.

Furthermore, reason easily understands that in the next life the just will be made happy as a reward of their virtue (see HEAVEN). But the punishment of evil is the natural counterpart of the reward of virtue. Hence, there will also be punishment for sin in the next life. Accordingly, we find among all nations the belief that evil-doers will be punished after death. This universal conviction of mankind is an additional proof for the existence of hell. For it is impossible that, in regard to the fundamental questions of their being and their destiny, all men should fall into the same error; else the power of human reason would be essentially deficient, and the order of this world would be unduly wrapt in mystery; this however, is repugnant both to nature and to the wisdom of the Creator. On the belief of all nations in the existence of hell cf. Lüken, "Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts" (2nd ed., Münster, 1869); Knabenbauer, "Das Zeugnis des Menschengeschlechts fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele" (1878). The few men who, despite the morally universal conviction of the human race, deny the existence of hell, are mostly atheists and Epicureans. But if the view of such men in the fundamental question of our being could be the true one, apostasy would be the way to light, truth, and wisdom.

III. ETERNITY OF HELL

Many admit the existence of hell, but deny the eternity of its punishment. Conditionalists hold only a hypothetical immortality of the soul, and assert that after undergoing a certain amount of punishment, the souls of the wicked will be annihilated. Among the Gnostics the Valentinians held this doctrine, and later on also Arnobius, the Socinians, many Protestants both in the past and in our own times, especially of late (Edw. White, "Life in Christ", New York, 1877). The Universalists teach that in the end all the damned, at least all human souls, will attain beatitude (apokatastasis ton panton, restitutio omnium, according to Origen). This was a tenet of the Origenists and the Misericordes of whom St. Augustine speaks (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xviii, n. 1, in P.L., XLI, 732). There were individual adherents of this opinion in every century, e.g. Scotus Eriugena; in particular, many rationalistic Protestants of the last centuries defended this belief, e.g. in England, Farrar, "Eternal Hope" (five sermons preached in Westminster Abbey, London and New York, 1878). Among Catholics, Hirscher and Schell have recently expressed the opinion that those who do not die in the state of grace can still be converted after death if they are not too wicked and impenitent.

The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Apoc., xiv, 11; xix, 3; xx, 10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matt. xxv, 46). Of Judas Christ says: "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matt., xxvi, 24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched" (Is., lxvi, 24; Mark ix, 43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John, iii, 36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Rom., ix, 22); they shall not possess the Kingdom of God (I Cor., vi, 10; Gal. v, 21), etc. The objections adduced from Scripture against this doctrine are so meaningless that they are not worth while discussing in detail. The teaching of the fathers is not less clear and decisive (cf. Patavius, "De Angelis", III, viii). We merely call to mind the testimony of the martyrs who often declared that they were glad to suffer pain of brief duration in order to escape eternal torments; e.g. "Martyrium Polycarpi", c. ii (cf. Atzberger, "Geschichte", II, 612 sqq.). It is true that Origen fell into error on this point; but precisely for this error he was condemned by the Church (Canones adv. Origenem ex Justiniani libro adv. Origen., can. ix; Hardouin, III, 279 E; Denz., n. 211). In vain attempts were made to undermine the authority of these canons (cf. Dickamp, "Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten", Münster, 1899, 137). Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have favoured the errors of Origen; many, however, believe that his statements can be shown to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine. But the suspicions that have been cast on some passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome are decidedly without justification (cf. Pesch, "Theologische Zeitfragen", 2nd series, 190 sqq.). The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

But what is the attitude of mere reason towards this doctrine? Just as God must appoint some fixed term for the time of trial, after which the just will enter into the secure possession of a happiness that can never again be lost in all eternity, so it is likewise appropriate that after the expiration of that term the wicked will be cut off from all hope of conversion and happiness. For the malice of men cannot compel God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity. Any obligation to act in this manner would be unworthy of God, because it would make Him dependent on the caprice of human malice, would rob His threats in great part of their efficacy, and would offer the amplest scope and the strongest incentive to human presumption. God has actually appointed the end of this present life, or the moment of death, as the term of man's probation. For in that moment there takes place in our life an essential and momentous change; from the state of union with the body the soul passes into a life apart. No other sharply defined instant of our life is of like importance. Hence we must conclude that death is the end of our probation; for it is meet that our trial should terminate at a moment of our existence so prominent and significant as to be easily perceived by every man. Accordingly, it is the belief of all people that eternal retribution is dealt out immediately after death. This conviction of mankind is an additional proof of our thesis.

Finally, the preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death.

Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion. As is apparent, the author of this article does not hold it. We admit that God might have extended the time of trial beyond death; however, had He done so, He would have permitted man to know about it, and would have made corresponding provision for the maintenance of moral order in this life. We may further admit that it is not intrinsically impossible for God to annihilate the sinner after some definite amount of punishment; but this would be less in conformity with the nature of man's immortal soul; and, secondly, we know of no fact that might give us any right to suppose God will act in such a manner.

The objection is made that there is no proportion between the brief moment of sin and an eternal punishment. But why not? We certainly admit a proportion between a momentary good deed and its eternal reward, not, it is true, a proportion of duration, but a proportion between the law and its appropriate sanction. Again, sin is an offence against the infinite authority of God, and the sinner is in some way aware of this, though but imperfectly. Accordingly there is in sin an approximation to infinite malice which deserves an eternal punishment. Finally, it must be remembered that, although the act of sinning is brief, the guilt of sin remains forever; for in the next life the sinner never turns away from his sin by a sincere conversion. It is further objected that the sole object of punishment must be to reform the evil-doer. This is not true. Besides punishments inflicted for correction, there are also punishments for the satisfaction of justice. But justice demands that whoever departs from the right way in his search for happiness shall not find his happiness, but lose it. The eternity of the pains of hell responds to this demand for justice. And, besides, the fear of hell does really deter many from sin; and thus, in as far as it is threatened by God, eternal punishment also serves for the reform of morals. But if God threatens man with the pains of hell, He must also carry out His threat if man does not heed it by avoiding sin.

For solving other objections it should be noted:

• God is not only infinitely good, He is infinitely wise, just, and holy.
• No one is cast into hell unless he has fully and entirely deserved it.
• The sinner perseveres forever in his evil disposition.
• We must not consider the eternal punishment of hell as a series of separate of distinct terms of punishment, as if God were forever again and again pronouncing a new sentence and inflicting new penalties, and as if He could never satisfy His desire of vengeance. Hell is, especially in the eyes of God, one and indivisible in its entirety; it is but one sentence and one penalty. We may represent to ourselves a punishment of indescribable intensity as in a certain sense the equivalent of an eternal punishment; this may help us to see better how God permits the sinner to fall into hell -- how a man who sets at naught all Divine warnings, who fails to profit by all the patient forbearance God has shown him, and who in wanton disobedience is absolutely bent on rushing into eternal punishment, can be finally permitted by God's just indignation to fall into hell.

In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of I Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted. If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu" etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church's liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory.

IV. IMPENITENCE OF THE DAMNED

The damned are confirmed in evil; every act of their will is evil and inspired by hatred of God. This is the common teaching of theology; St. Thomas sets it forth in many passages. Nevertheless, some have held the opinion that, although the damned cannot perform any supernatural action, they are still able to perform, now and then, some naturally good deed; thus far the Church has not condemned this opinion. The author of this article maintains that the common teaching is the true one; for in hell the separation from the sanctifying power of Divine love is complete. Many asset that this inability to do good works is physical, and assign the withholding of all grace as its proximate cause; in doing so, they take the term grace in its widest meaning, i.e. every Divine co-operation both in natural and in supernatural good actions. The damned, then, can never choose between acting out of love of God and virtue, and acting out of hatred of God. Hatred is the only motive in their power; and they have no other choice than that of showing their hatred of God by one evil action in preference to another. The last and the real cause of their impenitence is the state of sin which they freely chose as their portion on earth and in which they passed, unconverted, into the next life and into that state of permanence (status termini) by nature due to rational creatures, and to an unchangeable attitude of mind. Quite in consonance with their final state, God grants them only such cooperation as corresponds to the attitude which they freely chose as their own in this life. Hence the damned can but hate God and work evil, whilst the just in heaven or in purgatory, being inspired solely by love of God, can but do good. Therefore, too, the works of the reprobate, in as far as they are inspired by hatred of God, are not formal, but only material sins, because they are performed without the liberty requisite for moral imputability. Formal sin the reprobate commits then only, when, from among several actions in his power, he deliberately chooses that which contains the greater malice. By such formal sins the damned do not incur any essential increase of punishment, because in that final state the very possibility and Divine permission of sin are in themselves a punishment; and, moreover, a sanction of the moral law would be quite meaningless.

From what has been said it follows that the hatred which the lost soul bears to God is voluntary in its cause only; and the cause is the deliberate sin which it committed on earth and by which it merited reprobation. It is also obvious that God is not responsible for the reprobate's material sins of hate, because by granting His co-operation in their sinful acts as well as by refusing them every incitement to good, He acts quite in accordance with the nature of their state. Therefore their sins are no more imputable to God than are the blasphemies of a man in the state of total intoxication, although they are not uttered without Divine assistance. The reprobate carries in himself the primary cause of impenitence; it is the guilt of sin which he committed on earth and with which he passed into eternity. The proximate cause of impenitence in hell is God's refusal of every grace and every impulse for good. It would not be intrinsically impossible for God to move the damned to repentance; yet such a course would be out of keeping with the state of final reprobation. The opinion that the Divine refusal of all grace and of every incitement to good is the proximate cause of impenitence, is upheld by many theologians, and in particular by Molina. Suarez considers it probable. Scotus and Vasquez hold similar views. Even the Fathers and St. Thomas may be understood in this sense. Thus St. Thomas teaches (De verit., Q. xxiv, a.10) that the chief cause of impenitence is Divine justice which refuses the damned every grace. Nevertheless many theologians, e.g. Suarez, defend the opinion that the damned are only morally incapable of good; they have the physical power, but the difficulties in their way are so great that they can never be surmounted. The damned can never divert their attention from their frightful torments, and at the same time they know that all hope is lost to them. Hence despair and hatred of God, their just Judge, is almost inevitable, and even the slightest good impulse becomes morally impossible. The Church has not decided this question. The present author prefer's Molina's opinion.

But if the damned are impenitent, how can Scripture (Wisdom, v) say they repent of their sin? They deplore with the utmost intensity the punishment, but not the malice of sin; to this they cling more tenaciously than ever. Had they an opportunity, they would commit the sin again, not indeed for the sake of its gratification, which they found illusive, but out of sheer hatred of God. They are ashamed of their folly which led them to seek happiness in sin, but not of the malice of sin itself (St. Thomas, Theol. comp., c. cxxv).

V. POENA DAMNI

The poena damni, or pain of loss, consists in the loss of the beatific vision and in so complete a separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest. It is accompanied by the loss of all supernatural gifts, e.g. the loss of faith. The characters impressed by the sacraments alone remain to the greater confusion of the bearer. The pain of loss is not the mere absence of superior bliss, but it is also a most intense positive pain. The utter void of the soul made for the enjoyment of infinite truth and infinite goodness causes the reprobate immeasurable anguish. Their consciousness that God, on Whom they entirely depend, is their enemy forever is overwhelming. Their consciousness of having by their own deliberate folly forfeited the highest blessings for transitory and delusive pleasures humiliates and depresses them beyond measure. The desire for happiness inherent in their very nature, wholly unsatisfied and no longer able to find any compensation for the loss of God in delusive pleasure, renders them utterly miserable. Moreover, they are well aware that God is infinitely happy, and hence their hatred and their impotent desire to injure Him fills them with extreme bitterness. And the same is true with regard to their hatred of all the friends of God who enjoy the bliss of heaven. The pain of loss is the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned beheld God face to face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire, would be a kind of heaven. Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory. And yet the pain of loss is but the natural consequence of that aversion from God which lies in the nature of every mortal sin.

VI. POENA SENSUS

The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject, which, however, we do not wish to detail here (cf. the very minute study by Franz Schmid, "Quaestiones selectae ex theol. dogm.", Paderborn, 1891, q. iii; also Guthberlet, "Die poena sensus" in "Katholik", II, 1901, 305 sqq., 385 sqq.).

It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal. The demons suffer the torment of fire, even when, by Divine permission, they leave the confines of hell and roam about on earth. In what manner this happens is uncertain. We may assume that they remain fettered inseparably to a portion of that fire.

The pain of sense is the natural consequence of that inordinate turning to creatures which is involved in every mortal sin. It is meet that whoever seeks forbidden pleasure should find pain in return. (Cf. Heuse, "Das Feuer der Hölle" in "Katholik", II, 1878, 225 sqq., 337 sqq., 486 sqq., 581 sqq.; "Etudes religieuses", L, 1890, II, 309, report of an answer of the Poenitentiaria, 30 April, 1890; Knabenbauer, "In Matth., xxv, 41".)

VII. ACCIDENTAL PAINS OF THE DAMNED

According to theologians the pain of loss and the pain of sense constitute the very essence of hell, the formar being by far the most dreadful part of eternal punishment. But the damned also suffer various "accidental" punishments.

• Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation.
• The reprobate must live in the midst of the damned; and their outbursts of hatred or of reproach as they gloat over his sufferings, and their hideous presence, are an ever fresh source of torment.
• The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will be a special punishment for the reprobate, although there will be no essential change in the pain of sense which they are already suffering.

As to the punishments visited upon the damned for their venial sins, cf. Suarez, "De peccatis", disp. vii, s. 4.

VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PAINS OF HELL

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment -- all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl.1). [Cf. Merkle, "Die Sabbatruhe in der Hölle" in "Romische Quartalschrift" (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matt., xxvi, 24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. "Civiltà Cattolia", I, 1893, 672).

PETER LOMBARD, IV sent., dist. xliv, xlvi, and his commentators; ST. THOMAS, I:64 and Supplement 9:97, and his commentators; SUAREZ, De Angelis, VIII; PATUZZI, De futuro impiorum statu (Verona, 1748-49; Venice, 1764); PASSAGLIA, De aeternitate poenarum deque igne inferno (Rome, 1854); CLARKE, Eternal Punishment and Infinite Love in The Month, XLIV (1882), 1 sqq., 195 sqq., 305 sqq.; RIETH, Der moderne Unglaube und die ewigen Strafen in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XXXI (1886), 25 sqq., 136 sqq.; SCHEEBEN-KÜPPER, Die Mysterien des Christenthums (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1898), sect. 97; TOURNEBIZE, Opinions du jour sur les peines d'Outre-tombe (Paris, 1899); JOS. SACHS, Die ewige Dauer der Höllenstrafen (Paderborn, 1900); BILLOT, De novissimis (Rome, 1902); PESCH, Praelect. dogm., IX (2nd. ed., Freiburg, 1902), 303 sqq.; HURTER, Compendium theol. dogm., III (11th ed., Innsbruck, 1903), 603 sqq.; STUFLER, Die Heiligkeit Gottes und der ewige Tod (Innsbruck, 1903); SCHEEBEN-ATZBERGER, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, IV (Freiburg, 1903), sect. 409 sqq.; HEINRICH-GUTBERLET, Dogmatische Theologie, X (Münster, 1904), sect. 613 sqq.; BAUTZ, Die Hölle (2nd. ed., Mainz, 1905); STUFLER, Die Theorie der freiwilligen Verstocktheit und ihr Verhältnis zur Lehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin (Innsbruck, 1905); various recent manuals of dogmatic theology (POHLE, SPECHT, etc.); HEWIT, Ignis Æternus in The Cath. World, LXVII (1893), 1426; BRIDGETT in Dub. Review, CXX (1897), 56-69; PORTER, Eternal Punishment in The Month, July, 1878, p. 338.

JOSEPH HONTHEIM

Maximilian Hell

(Höll).

Astronomer, b. at Schemnitz in Hungary, 15 May, 1720; d. at Vienna, 14 April, 1792. He entered the Society of Jesus at Trentschin, 18 October, 1738, and after his novitiate was sent to Vienna, where he made his philosophical studies. From his early years he had shown a strong inclination for scientific pursuits, and in 1744 he devoted himself to the study of mathematics and astronomy, acting at the same time as assistant to Father Joseph Franz, the director of the observatory at Vienna. After teaching with much success for a year at Leutschau, he returned to Vienna to study theology, and in 1751 was ordained priest. He received a professorship of mathematics at Klausenberg in 1752, and remained there until 1755, when he was appointed director of the imperial observatory at Vienna.

Father Hell's most important work was perhaps the annual publication of the "Ephemerides astronomicæ ad meridianem Vindobonensem", which he began in 1757 and continued for many years. These contain a large number of valuable observations and data. He was invited by the King of Denmark to undertake at Vardöhuus, Norway, the observations of the transit of Venus of 1769. The transit observations were successful, and after spending some months in Copenhagen preparing his results for the press, he returned to Vienna in 1770. Owing to delays in publication Hell was afterwards suspected of manipulating his data to make them fit with others taken elsewhere. The suspicion was strengthened by Littrow when director of the Vienna Observatory, after a study of the original manuscripts (cf. Hell's "Reise nach Wardö u. seine Beobachtung des Venus-Durchgangs in Jahre 1769", Vienna, 1835). It was not until 1890 that Father Hell's reputation was cleared of the stain of forgery by Professor Simon Newcomb, who made a critical study of the journal in question, and showed conclusively that Littrow's inferences were entirely at fault. The latter, it appears, had originally been led into error by a defect in his sense of colour. Father Hell was of a gentle disposition and simple in his tastes. His devotion to the Church and to his order often cost him much persecution. Besides his "Ephemerides", he was also the author of "Elementa algebræ Joannis Crivelli magis illustrata" (Vienna, 1745); "Adjumentum memoriæ manuale chronologico-genealogico-historicum" (Vienna, 1750); "De la célébration de la Pâque" (ibid, 1761); "Elementa arithmeticæ numericæ et litteralis' (ibid, 1763); "De satellite Veneris" (ibid, 1765); "De Transitu Veneris" (Copenhagen, 1770), etc.

Schlichtegroll, Nekrolog. (Gotha, 1792), I, 282; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., IV, 238; Wolf, Geschicte der Astronomie (Munich, 1877), 645; Newcomb, Month. Notices Royal Astron. soc., XLIII, 371; idem, Reminiscences of an Astronomer (Boston, 1903); Woodstock Letters, XXI, i, 70.

HENRY M. BROCK

Helmold

A historian, born in the first half of the twelfth century; died about 1177. He was a native of, or at least he grew up in, Holstein (Germany), and received his instruction in Brunswick from Gerold, the future Bishop of Oldenburg. Later he came under the direction of the saintly Vicelinus, the Apostle of the Wends, first in the Augustinian monastery of Faldera, afterwards known as Neumünster. He finally became a parish-priest at Bosow on Plöne See. He wrote, at Gerold's suggestion, a chronicle of the Wends ("Chronica Slavorum" or "Annales Slavorum"), the purpose of this chronicle was to demonstrate how Christianity and German nationality gradually succeeded in gaining a footing among the Wends, especially in the eastern portion of Holstein. As an eyewitness he gives a clear description in fluent Latin of Vicelinus's self-sacrificing missionary labours, of the founding of the bishopric in Oldenburg, of the transfer of this bishopric to Lübeck when German commerce at the latter place had become more important than in the former city, of the spread of German influence among the Wends, of the merciless subjugation and extermination of these, and of the summoning to their lands of foreign settlers, principally Westphalian and Dutch. The work is divided into two parts: the first covers a period closing with the year 1168, while the second continues to the year 1171. This second part, however, was written subsequently to 1172. He drew his knowledge of the earliest period from the church history of Adam of Bremen and the Saxon records bearing on Henry IV, besides the life of Willehadus, the list of Ansgarius, and perhaps also a life of Vicelinus, but the summaries which he made of these records are unreliable. He is, however, our most important source of information for the history of his own period, his account of which rests on the verbal information of Vicelinus and of Gerold. His fund of information becomes noticeably meagre after the latter's death in 1163. His trustworthiness has been very seriously questioned in recent times (see particularly Sehirren, "Beiträge zur Kritik holsteinischer Geschichtsquellen", Leipzig, 1876) owing to his antagonism towards the archbishops of Bremen and his partiality for the Oldenburg-Lübeck bishopric, but it should not be supposed that be was guilty of an intentional falsification of facts [cf. with Schirren's observations and conclusions Wigger, "Ueber die neueste Kritik des Helmold" in "Jahrbücher des Vereins für Mecklenburgische Geschichte", XLII (1877), 21-63]. The chronicle was first published in 1556 at Frankfort on the Main, and finally in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", XXI (1868), 11-99, and in "Script. rer. Germ."

WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, II (1894), 338-41; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica, I (1896), 576.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

Jan Baptista van Helmont

Born at Brussels, 1577; died near Vilvorde, 30 December, 1644. This scientist, distinguished in the early annals of chemistry, belonged to a good Flemish family. He was brought up by his uncle, and studied humanities at Louvain, but refused to take his degree of Master of Arts, on the theory that it was a source of pride. The Jesuit order attracted him, but he did not enter it. He investigated the Stoic school of philosophy, and, to practice the evangelical counsel of poverty, he conveyed all his property to his sister. Urged on by a desire to relieve human suffering, he began to study medicine. He was appointed to the chair of surgery at Louvain. The course of his studies was interfered with by a sickness, scabies, which affected him. The Galenists treated him with purgatives, not recognizing that it was a parasitical disease. This disgusted him with the Galenists; and he began his travels through England, France, Switzerland, and Italy, for the purpose of investigating the practice of medicine in these different countries. Eventually he was healed by an Italian charlatan, who used sulphur and mercury. He practised as a physician and, instead of using plants, prepared his medicines in the laboratory of the day, in which the furnace, crucible, and retort were most largely employed; this made him known as the medicus per ignem. He departed somewhat from the counsel of poverty by marrying Margaret van Ranst, an heiress of Brabant, and settled down at Vilvorde. He had now acquired a wide reputation in medicine, and had received his doctor's degree at Louvain as early as 1599. Yet he failed in the treatment of his own family; and, in spite of his remedies, death carried off one of its members when attacked by scabies, the very disease of which he had been cured. His celebrity was now very great, and it is said that he was suspected of diabolism. A fantastic element appears in his work, largely due to the age in which he lived; but his scientific work is of a high order of merit. He investigated gases, notably carbon dioxide, which he discovered in various sources, and it was he who first applied the name gas (geist) to this family of substances. He applied the balance in his investigations. He discovered sulphuretted hydrogen in the human system, made hydrochloric gas, which he called gas of salt, explained the explosion of gun-powder on the theory of the expansion of gases, discovered or investigated sulphuric acid, nitric acid, and nitrogen oxide. He was one of the first to recognize the rôle played by acid in the gastric juice, attributing disease to an excess of the same. Like all other chemists of the time, he studied the transmutation of metals, naming his son Mercury, believing that he had succeeded in getting gold from mercury. His various books were published from 1622 to 1652. In 1648 a collection of his works was published posthumously under the auspices of his son.

POULTIER D' HELMOTH, Mémoires sur van Helmont et ses érits (Brussels, 1847); ROMMELAERE, Etudes sur Helmont (Brussels, 1868).

T. O'CONOR SLOANE

Society of the Helpers of the Holy Souls

(Auxiliatrices des Ames du Purgatoire)

A religious order of women founded in Paris, France, 1856, with the object of assisting the Holy Souls, by [Blessed] Eugénie Smet (in religion, Marie de la Providence), b. at Lille, 25 March, 1825; d. at Paris, 7 Feb., 1871; educated at the convent of the Sacred Heart, at Lille, she distinguished herself by intellectual acquirements and striking traits of devotion to the Holy Souls. She went to Paris on 19 Jan., 1856; the society dates its foundation from that day. On 22 Jan. [Bl.] Eugénie obtained the permission of Archbishop Sibour to establish her order in Paris. The community Mademoiselle Smet had gathered round her took possession of No. 16, Rue de la Barouillère, on 1 July, 1856. This is still the mother-house of the order. On 27 Dec., 1857, the foundress, with five of her first companions, pronounced her first vows; a Jesuit was appointed chaplain, and the Rule of St. Ignatius was adopted. Besides the three usual vows, they take a fourth obligation to "pray, suffer, and labour for the souls in purgatory", offering up the satisfactory part of all their works of mercy, their vows and prayers, as well as indulgences applicable to themselves. There are two classes of religious, the choir nuns and the lay sisters; both make the same vows, follow the same rule, and enjoy the same privileges. The subjects admitted to the first probation have a postulate of three months, followed by a two-year novitiate; the sisters then make their first profession and receive a crucifix, which they wear on their breast. After another year's probation (about ten years after their first vows), they can be admitted to perpetual vows, with the usual ecclesiastical approbation. On that day each professed religious receives a ring, a token of her eternal alliance with Jesus Christ.

On entering the novitiate their family name is replaced by a name in religion. The society is governed by a reverend mother general, who is aided by a council of at least four assistants. Each separate convent has a local superior. To facilitate their works of mercy among the poor, the Helpers adopt a simple black costume. Their principal work of mercy is the visiting and care of the sick poor. During the time which is not occupied by their spiritual exercises, they go to the home of the poor afflicted by sickness, and bring them every relief and consolation religious devotedness can devise; rendering them the humblest services their state requires. The Helpers also undertake, according to the requirements of the place in which they are settled, numerous other works of zeal and charity, such as the religious instruction of children and adults, guilds for women and girls of the working classes, mothers' meetings, meetings for governesses and business employés, free circulating libraries, catechism classes, etc. All these works are gratuitous, the rule of the order forbidding compensation for services rendered.

Soon after their institution, they adopted "honorary members", "associates", and "benefactors", who enter into a union of prayer and sacrifice with the Helpers, and participate in the privileges enjoyed by the society. Priests can become honorary members by promising to offer up the Holy Sacrifice once a month for the prescribed intentions; and religious, by offering up a monthly Communion for the same intentions.

In 1859 Pius IX blessed the Confraternity of Lady Associates and granted it a special indulgence; on 9 June, 1873, he granted the society the Lauda or first Brief of approbation, and on 25 June, 1878, the constitutions of the order were approved by Leo XIII. The first branch house was established at Nantes, July, 1864. In 1867 six nuns were conducted by Bishop Languillat to Shanghai; the works which they undertook were the superintendence of a congregation of Chinese Catholic maidens and widows; the preparation of converts for reception into the Church; the direction of a native orphanage and of European schools for the wealthier classes. The Chinese congregation, now known as Présentandines, are trained by the Helpers. They visit the sick, baptize abandoned children, and keep native schools. The Helpers have established in Shanghai a high school for the Chinese, under the name of "L'Etoile du Matin". In December, 1869, a house was established in Brussels. The Helpers did good work in the ambulances for the wounded of both nations during the Franco- Prussian War.

In 1873 the Helpers were installed in the Archdiocese of Westminster, at 23 Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square. They removed to Gloucester Road, Regent's Park, in 1882. From 1874 to 1880 communities were established at Cannes, Orléans, Tourcoing, and Montmartre. In the last twenty-five years convents have arisen at Rome, Turin, Florence, and San Remo; in Belgium at Brussels, Liège, Ghent, and Namur. There is a house in Vienna, one in Switzerland, and one at San Sebastian in Spain. There is a novitiate at Versailles; another at Beaulieu, Jersey. The Helpers are also at Lourdes, at Blanchelande in Normandy, at Lille, and at Edinburgh, Scotland. When it was decided to erect a commemorative chapel on the site of the fire of the charity bazaar in the Rue Jean Goujon, Paris (4 May, 1897), Cardinal Richard selected the Helpers as the guardians of this sanctuary. This foundation is named Notre-Dame de la Consolation.

In May, 1892, seven Helpers sailed for New York, and were heartily welcomed by Archbishop Corrigan. The first convent was a very small house in Seventh Avenue; there they laboured for nearly three years, when they removed to 114 East 86th Street. In 1906, they had five houses in the same neighbourhood. Children from the public schools come to the convents for religious instruction. The girls have sewing classes three times a week, and are allowed to take home the garments they have made. Often Protestants and Jewesses ask permission to join. Some idea of this work may be obtained when it is considered that over thirty-seven thousand general instructions were given to the classes during 1905. In the winter months a number of entertainments are held for the older women as well as for the young girls and boys, and during 1905 a course of lectures on hygiene and first aid to the injured was given. In 1903, some Helpers were sent to St. Louis, Missouri. They have now a prosperous convent in Washington Boulevard. In 1905, the Sisters went to San Francisco, where they settled in a house in Howard Street, which was destroyed in the earthquake of 1906, when they found ample scope for their zeal in the exercise of their double vocation, ministering to the sick and dying, while praying unceasingly for those who had perished. They have now a new convent in Golden Gate Avenue.

[ Note: The foundress, Eugénie Smet (in religion, Mary of Providence), was beatified in Rome on 26 May, 1957 by Pope Pius XII. Her feast is kept on 7 February, the anniversary of her death.]

Flavius Rusticius Helpidius

The name of several Latin writers. It appears in the manuscript of Pomponius Mela and Julius Paris as the signature of a reviser, in the form Fl. Rusticius Helpidius Domnulus. Julius Paris is an abbreviator of Valerius Maximus, and lived at the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth. On the other hand a correspondent of Sidonius calls himself Domnulus (Epist., IV, 25; cf. IX, 13) and wrote poetry during a stay at Aries under Majorian (457-461). Among the signatures of revisers of certain manuscripts he appears as "count of the consistory"; Sidonius calls him an ex-quæstor, i. e. the rank superior to that of count of the consistory. There is, therefore, no reason for distinguishing the author of the signatures from the Domnulus of Sidonius. On the other hand the deacon Helpidius (died about 533), friend of Ennodius and physician of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, is unquestionably another person. Under the name of Helpidius, the "former quæstor", we have twenty-four strophes of three hexameters each, on scenes from the Old and New Testaments. Sixteen of these scenes correspond to one another, e. g. as type and fulfilment. These verses were probably intended as texts for the decoration of a church. Under the title of "Rustici Elpidii carmen de Christi beneficiis" a short poem of one hundred and forty hexameters celebrates the miracles of Christ. Its opening prayer is addressed to Christ as Creator and intimately united with the Father. A very mystical tone dominates these verses. The best edition is that of W. Brandes in a programme of the Brunswick Gymnasium (1890). For the aforesaid tristichs there are only as yet the ancient editions in P. L., LXII, 545.

MANITIUS, Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie (Stuttgart, 1891), 379; BRANDES, Wiener Studien, XII, 297.

PAUL LEJAY.

Pierre Hélyot

(Usually known as HIPPOLYTE, his name in religion)

Born at Paris, in 1660; died there 5 January, 1716. He came of noble family, and at twenty-three took the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis, in a monastery (Picpus) founded by his uncle, Jerome Hélyot. The lengthy journeys which he made all over Europe afforded him opportunity to collect material for his great work on the religious orders, to the composition of which he had already devoted much time. The first four volumes appeared after twenty-five years of preparation; but he died while the fifth was still in press. The work was completed by his fellow religious, Maximilian Bullot, and treats of the history of religious and knightly orders, and of congregations of both sexes, down to his own time, and exhibits more particularly their origin, growth, deterioration, suppression, or dissolution, various offshoots and reforms; he added also the lives of the chief founders, and illustrations of different monastic habits. The work appeared at Paris in 1714-1719, and comprised eight quarto volumes entitled: "Histoire des ordres monastiques, religieux et militaires, et des congregations séculières de l'un et de l'autre sexe, qui ont été établis jusqu'à présent . . ." Being written on scientific principles, though not always with critical insight, it was very favourably received, and achieved a wide circulation. The French edition was reprinted three times (1721, 1792, and 1838). An Italian edition by Fontana appeared at Lucca in 1737; a German one in eight quarto volumes at Leipzig in 1753, and another at Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1830. Hélyot's work was made the basis of an alphabetical dictionary of religious orders, "Dictionnaire des ordres religieux, ou histoire des ordres monastiques", prepared by M. L. Badiche, which appeared in Migne's "Encyclopédie Theologique" (Paris, 1858) xx-xxiv.

Biographie Universelle, XIX, 95; HURTER, Nomenclator.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

Felix Hemmerlin

(MALLEOLUS) properly HEMERLI

A provost at Solothurn, in Switzerland, born at Zurich, in 1388 or 1389; died about 1460. He was educated at the school of the collegiate church of his native town, and afterwards entered the University of Erfurt, whence in 1408 he betook himself to the University of Bologna, where he studied law for four years. At the beginning of 1412 he became a canon of the collegiate church of Sts. Felix and Regula at Zurich. A little later a similar dignity was conferred upon him from the church of St. Mauritius, in Zofingen. In 1413 we find him once more at the University of Erfurt, where he won the degree of Bachelor of Canon Law. Soon after this he took part in the Council of Constance. He identified himself there with the Church Reform party, the principles of which were thenceforth to govern his religious activities and his attitude in matters of ecclesiastical policy. He became, in 1421, provost (prœpositus) of the collegiate church of St. Ursus at Solothurn. As such he undertook to reform the collegiate clergy, drew up new regulations bearing on Divine service on the ecclesiastical duties and the life of choir-members, and even defended energetically the rights of the collegiate church against the municipal authorities. Two years later he returned to the University of Bologna, from which he obtained in the year which followed the degrees of Licentiate and Doctor of Canon Law. His doctorate certificate is still in existence and is preserved in the public museum at Zurich. It is the most ancient doctorate diploma known to exist to-day in the original. His learning covered a very wide field. Besides his legal studies he had taken up ancient languages and knew Greek and Hebrew. On his return to Solothurn he devoted himself to theology, and was ordained a priest in 1430. He had great hopes of the Council of Basle, and took part in the deliberations which preceded the general sessions of the council, as well as in the debates with the Hussites. He also espoused at the outset the cause of the antipope Felix against Eugene IV. But the subsequent proceedings of the council offended him, and he became dissatisfied with the ecclesiastical conditions of his day. Meanwhile he reformed the clergy of the collegiate church of Zofingen. In January, 1439, he undertook the reform of the collegiate clergy of Zurich, where as early as 1428 he had become cantor. But here he met strenuous opposition. After he had written a violent pamphlet against the mode of living in this community, several members of the choir formed a plot against him, and he was seriously wounded. He recovered, however, and renewed his attacks against ecclesiastical abuses.

Hemmerlin composed more than thirty polemical treatises on various subjects, the chief of which were directed against the mendicant friars, the Beguines, and even against Nicholas of Cusa, against the cardinals, the Roman Curia, and even the pope. In politics, too, he sided earnestly with his native city, Zurich, allied with Austria against the Swiss confederates. He attacked the Swiss most violently in his work entitled: "De nobilitate et rusticitate" (completed in 1450). In this way he made numerous enemies, who sought a favourable opportunity to avenge themselves. In 1456 a popular celebration in honour of the reconciliation of the inhabitants of Zurich with the people of Switzerland was made the occasion of a popular outcry against Hemmerlin. He was seized in his own house, delivered to the Vicar-general of Constance, and was condemned by the episcopal court in that place to the loss of his canonicate at Zurich and to lifelong confinement. He was taken to Lucerne and underwent a mild imprisonment in the Franciscan monastery of that place. Numerous writings employed his time at Lucerne, and eventually he exchanged his provostship at Solothurn for the parish of Penthaz in the Diocese of Lausanne. Only a portion of his works have been printed. An edition appeared at Basic (s. d.) prepared by Sebastian Brant, and another at the same place in 1497. There is not the slightest justification for the attempt to present Hemmerlin as a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation.

REBER, Felix Hemmerlin von Zurich, neu nach den Quellen bearbeitet (Basle, 1846); FIALA, Dr. Felix Hemmerlin als Propst des St. Ursenstiftes in Solothurn (Solothurn, 1857); VÖGELI, Zum Verständniss von Meister Haemmerlis Schriften (Zurich, 1873); SCHNEIDER, Der Zürcher Kanonikus und Kantor Felix Hemmerli an der Universität Bologna (Zurich, 1888).

J. P. KIRSCH.

Issac Austin Henderson

Born at Brooklyn, 1850; died in Rome, March, 1909. His family was of Scotch and Irish extraction and had lived for many generations in America. After an early education in private schools and under tutors, he graduated from Williams College with the degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts, and Doctor of Civil Law. In 1872 he became connected with the New York "Evening Post", which his father owned in partnership with William Cullen Bryant and John Bigelow, became assistant publisher in 1875, and from 1877 was publisher, stockholder, and member of the Board of Trustees. He was a member of the Union League, University, and Mendelssohn Glee Clubs, all of New York. Selling his interest in the New York "Evening Post" in 1881, he went to Europe and lived in London and Rome. In 1886 Mr. Henderson published his first novel, "The Prelate", while still a Protestant, and followed it two years later with "Agatha Page". The latter, soon (1892) dramatized as "The Silent Battle", was produced by Sir Charles Wyndham at the Criterion Theatre, London, another dramatic version, entitled "Agatha", being produced the same year at the Boston Museum. His second drama, "The Mummy and the Humming Bird", was presented at Wyndham's Theatre, 1901, the principal male part being again taken by Wyndham. In 1902 it was played at the Empire Theatre, New York. In 1896 he became a Catholic, adopting the name of Austin at his Confirmation. In 1903 he was appointed private chamberlain to Pope Pius X. In early life he had been a prime promoter of "The New York Evening Post's Fresh Air Fund for Children"; as an ardent Catholic, his chief work was among the poor lads of the Trastevere quarter in Rome, to whom he gave a playground and a well-equipped rainy-day playroom, having kept up always his keen interest in manly sports. Mr. Henderson was a man of varied literary ability, and of versatile talents; he was a keen theologian, had an exquisite sense of humour, was a musician, and gifted with a fine tenor voice.

JULIA G. ROBINS.

Thomas Augustine Hendrick

First American and the twenty-second Bishop of Cebú, Philippine Islands, b. at Penn Yan, New York, U.S.A., 29 Oct., 1849; d. at Cebú, 29 Nov., 1909. He was ordained priest at St. Joseph's Seminary, Troy, New York, 7 June, 1873, and spent the twenty-nine subsequent years in parish work in the Diocese of Rochester. When the reorganization of the Church in the Philippines was undertaken after the Spanish American War, he was appointed Bishop of Cebú, and consecrated in Rome 23 August, 1903. Taking possession of the See 6 March, 1904, he was most successful up to the time of his death, which was due to cholera, in restoring order and discipline and providing for the spiritual needs of his large diocese. During his pastorate in Rochester he was prominent and active in public and charitable work, and served for several years as a member of the Board of Regents of the State University. (See CEBÚ, DIOCESE OF.)

America (New York, 4 Dec 1909); Catholic Union and Times (Buffaloo 4 Dec., 1909); Catholic Directory, (1904, 1910).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Lawrence Hengler

Catholic priest and the inventor of the horizontal pendulum, b. at Reichenhofen, Würtemberg, 3 Feb., 1806; d. at Tigerfeld, 1858. At the age of fourteen he entered the Latin School of Leutkirch and attended successively those of Ehingen and Tübingen. In 1828 he studied mathematics and astronomy at Munich. It was at this place, and while a pupil of Gruithuisen, that he invented the horizontal pendulum, which at present is the basis of more than half the seismographs in use the world over. In 1832 he published this invention in the "Analecta" of Gruithuisen, together with some experiments he had made. In 1835 he was ordained in Rottenburg and was pastor of Tigerfeld at the time of his death. He left a very perfect and elaborate telescope unfinished.

In modern publications the horizontal pendulum is mostly accredited to Zollner (1869), sometimes to Perrot (1862), but illustrated articles with observations in the "Analecta" of Gruithuisen, vol.I, and in Dingler's "Polytechnic Journal", 1832, secure for Hengler the indisputable right of priority. A full description of the pendulum and its history may be found in Zollner's "Abhandlungen", vol. IV, and also in Poggendorf's "Annals", vol. CL.

F.L. ODENBACH

Louis Hennepin

One of the most famous explorers in the wilds of North America during the seventeenth century, b. at Ath, province of Hainaut, Belgium, about thirty miles south-west of Brussels, in or about the year 1640; d., probably at Rome, soon after 1701. In his writings he always refers to himself as a Fleming. Very little is known of his childhood and early manhood, but, after a proper course of education, he entered upon a novitiate in the Récollet branch of the Franciscan Order, whose members adopted the most austere regimen and undertook most arduous labours (see Friars Minor, Order of). he passed his novitiate in the Récollet monastery at Béthune, province of Artois (now the department of Pas-de-Calais), France. During his youth he had been sent to Ghent in Belgium for the purpose of learning the Dutch language, and, at the time, had mentioned to one of his sisters residing there the strong inclination which he had always felt to travel about the world. His sister attempted to dissuade him from such a design, but Hennepin continued under the sway of two impulses, of which one is described in his own language thus: "I always found in myself a strong inclination to retire from the world and to regulate my life according to the rules of pure and severe virtue, and, in compliance with this humor, I entered the Franciscan Order, designing to confine myself to an austere way of living.

Naturally enthusiastic for travel and deeply impressed by the examples of the missionaries of his own order, Hennepin soon had opportunities for realizing his ambition. Shortly after his ordination to the priesthood, Hennepin made a journey to Italy, and, in obedience to the orders of his superior, visited all the great churches and most important convents of the Franciscan Order both in that country and in Germany. In narrating the next ensuing events of his life, Hennepin states; "Having returned to the Netherlands, the Reverend Father William Herenx, late bishop of Ypres, manifested his averseness to the resolution I had taken of continuing to travel by detaining me in the convent of Halles in Hainaut, where I was obliged to perform the offices of preacher for a year." After this experience, Hennepin, with the consent of his superior, went into Artois, France, and was thence sent to Calais, as he himself states, "to act the part of a mendicant there in time of herring-salting."

While at Calais he took every possible opportunity of hearing the stories of the various voyages and experiences in other lands related by shipmasters and sailors. To use his own language, he used ofttimes to frequent "victualling-houses to hear the seamen give an account of their adventures. The smoke of tobacco was offensive to me and created pain in my stomach, while I was thus intent on giving ear to their relations, but for all that I was very attentive to the accounts they gave of their encounters by sea, the perils they had gone through, and all the accidents which befell them in their long voyages. This occupation was so agreeable that I have spent whole days and nights without eating; for thereby I always came to understand some new thing concerning the customs and ways of living in remote places and concerning the pleasantness, fertility, and sights of the country where these men have been." Hennepin's desire to wander was gratified by journeys as a missionary to most of the towns of Holland. At Maastricht he remained for eight consecutive months during the year 1673, and was in the midst of the war then in progress between the French and the Spanish. He states: "During the eight months I administered the sacraments to over eight thousand wounded men. In which occupation I ventured many dangers among the sick people, being taken ill both of a spotted fever and of a dysenterie which brought me very low and near unto death; but God at length restored me my former health by the care and help of a very skillful Dutch physician."

The young monk continued his career among scenes of battle for some time, and, during the succeeding year, was present at the Battle of Seneffe (1674), where he busied himself in administering comfort to the wounded. He then received orders from his superiors to go to Rochelle, France, in order to embark there and go to Canada as a missionary. While waiting for the sailing of the ship upon which his voyage was to be made, Hennepin performed at a place near Rochelle the duties of a curate for nearly two months at the request of the local pastor, who had occasion to be absent from his charge. At last, during the summer of the year 1675, Hennepin was destined to realize his fondest hopes, because he had then set sail, 14 July, for the New World, leaving France as a member of an expedition approved by Colbert and placed by "Le Grand Monarque", Louis XIV, under the leadership of the famous cavalier, René Robert, Sieur de la Salle, who had been recently endowed with a title, and had been appointed to the governorship of Fort Frontenac, one of the principle outposts of "Le Nouvelle France", as the French dominions in America were then called. The ship arrived in Quebec in September, having successfully withstood the attacks by Turkish, Tunisian, and Algerian pirates. The first experience of the young missionary was to serve during the first four years of his life in Canada as a preacher in Advent and Lent in the cloister of St. Augustine in the hospital in Quebec, in addition to performing the usual duties of the monastic life. This appointment as preacher was due to the favour acquired by Hennepin, during his voyage, in the opinion of François de Laval de Montmorency, newly appointed bishop of Quebec, who had been a passenger on the ship which brought Hennepin to New France.

During his period of residence at Quebec, Hennepin employed his leisure time with great industry in travelling to regions within twenty or thirty leagues of that city—often on snow-shoes, his luggage being transported upon sledges drawn by dogs, sometimes travelling in a canoe—always with a view to learning the languages and customs of the Indians so as to prepare himself for missionary labours among the savages of the North American Continent. He was an acute observer, and his books contain most minute and accurate descriptions of the characteristics, arts, and customs of the Indians. Hennepin's first independent labours in America began when he was sent in company with Father Luke Buisset to take care of a mission at a place on the north shore of Lake Ontario near the headwaters of the River St. Lawrence. The mission station had borne the Iroquois name, Catarokouy, and was the place at which Count Frontenac, Governor-General of Canada, had built in 1673 a fort which subsequently bore his name. This site is now occupied by the city of Kingston, Ontario. After remaining two years and a half at Fort Frontenac, where they built with their associates a large mission-house and laboured assiduously for the conversion of the natives, the two missionaries went down the River St. Lawrence in a canoe. Upon reaching Quebec, Hennepin entered the Récollet convent of St Mary's, in order, as he states, to prepare and sanctify himself for the long expedition to the westward under the leadership of La Salle, which was then in process of preparation. On 18 September 1678, La Salle inaugurated his expedition by sending forward from Fort Frontenac in a brigantine of about ten tons burden a detachment of his followers under the command of Pierre de St-Paul, Sieur de la Motte-Lussiére, a French military officer, with directions to establish a post on the Niagara River near Lake Erie and to make preparations for the building of a ship for the navigation of the Great Lakes. This detachment arrived at the River Niagara on 6 December after encountering great perils. On 20 January La Salle arrived at the same place and took command. During the winter Hennepin went to Fort Frontenac but returned to the Niagara outpost shortly before 30 July, 1679, accompanied by two other Récollet Fathers, Gabriel de la Ribourde and Zénobe Mambré, who, in common with Hennepin, had been directed by the superior of their order to accompany the expedition of the Chevalier de la Salle. Meanwhile La Motte had disconnected himself entirely from the expedition and returned to Fort Frontenac.

On 7 August, 1679, the famous expedition sailed from the Niagara River on a ship which had been built during the preceding winter and was named "Griffon", a griffin being one of the figures on the coat of arms of La Salle. The mouth of the Detroit River was reached on 10 August, and received from La Salle the name which it has since borne. Sailing up this river and through Lake St. Clair, named by the same explorer after the saint on whose feast-day he first beheld it, they passed through the St. Clair River and up Lake Huron, and late in the same month arrived at a place, called by the Indians Michilimacinac, and christened by the famous Marquette with the more religious name, St-Ignace. Leaving this place on 2 September, the expedition soon reached Green Bay, made a short stop there, and departed for the south on 19 September. Storms prevailed and great dangers were encountered, but on 1 November, La Salle and his followers reached the mouth of a river, then called the River of the Miamis and now named the River St. Joseph, the greater part of which lies within the present State of Michigan. At the mouth of this river La Salle built a fort, and on 20 November his principal lieutenant, an Italian named Enrico di Tonti, arrived with certain members of the expedition who had come along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, while La Salle, Hennepin and the rest followed the western shore. Setting out on 3 December, the expedition traversed the River St. Joseph to a point near its headwaters, then made a portage to the Kankakee River, and went down that river to the stream called by Hennepin "the River of the Illinois" and still called the Illinois River. Down this stream the expedition travelled until they arrived, during the latter days of December, at a village of the Illinois Indians, which lies, as Hennepin states, one hundred and thirty leagues from the fort built at the mouth of the River St. Joseph.

They continued their journey, a halt was soon made and a celebration held upon the banks of the river on 1 January, 1680. Mass was celebrated and all wished a Happy new Year to M. de la Salle, the missionaries adding words of encouragement and congratulation to their leader and at the same time exhorting all the members of the expedition to preserve confidence and fidelity. On the same day the expedition passed through a lake which has since been known as Lake Peoria, and soon after reached the principal village of the Illinois Indians. The members of the La Salle expedition here smoked the calumet with the Indians and enjoyed a brief rest. A short distance below the outlet of the lake, a fort was constructed which La Salle called Fort Crève-coeur, so named, according to Hennepin, "because the desertion of our men, and the other difficulties we laboured under had almost broken our hearts". Other authorities, however, express the opinion that the name was given in compliment to Louis XIV, and in reference to his capture during the year 1672 of a fortress named Crève-coeur near Bois-le-due in the Netherlands.

Leaving Tonti in charge of the fort, La Salle departed for a journey on foot to Fort Frontenac and Quebec, having given directions to Hennepin to proceed down the Illinois River, and then up the Mississippi River as far as possible upon a voyage of discovery. The members of this expedition were the intrepid Récollet and two Frenchmen—Antoine Augelle, born at Amiens at Picardy, and surnamed Picard du Gay, and Michel Accault, a native of the province of Poitou. These three men started out from Fort Crève-coeur on 29 February, 1680, soon after reached the Mississippi River, and then turned northwards. On 12 April they were captured by a band of the Issati Sioux, living on or near the shores of a lake called by the original European explorers "the Lake of the Issati" (afterwards called Lac Baude in honour of count Frontenac, his family name being Baude), and now known as Mille Lacs, one of the largest lakes in the state of Minnesota. Hennepin's captors were on their way to make war against the Miamis and the Illinois, but abandoned their design and turned back toward their homes carrying with them the three explorers. They travelled nineteen days, passing en route Lake Pepin, which was named by Hennepin the Lake of Tears because of the demonstrative grief demonstrated at a certain place upon its banks by an Indian chief mourning for his son who had been killed in battle. On 21 April they stopped at an Indian village situated about fifteen miles below the present site of the city of St. Paul, Minnesota. At this point they left their canoes and travelled on foot to the principal village of the Issati at or near the place where a river, called by Hennepin the River St. Francis and now known as the Rum River, emerges from Mille Lacs.

Hennepin and his companions had then to undergo all of the hardships which would naturally be the lot of civilized men thrown into close associations with barbarians. Whenever the Indians moved about from place to place, according to their nomadic inclinations, they carried with them the Franciscan Father and the two other captives. During one of their excursions the wanderers stopped at the great cataract in the Mississippi which is now encircled by the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and which still bears the name of St. Anthony Falls, given to it by Hennepin in honour of St. Anthony of Padua. In July the Indians went down the St. Francis River, and, after camping there a while, permitted Hennepin and Augelle to leave them for the purpose of going down the Mississippi River to get the supplies which La Salle had promised to send and deposit at the mouth of the Wisconsin River. After making a journey down the river of about one hundred and sixty miles, a large band of Issati overtook them and carried them back to the great camp at Mille Lacs. While on the journey to that place, Hennepin and his savage companions met the famous French explorer, Daniel Graysolon Du Lhut, who had been roaming about the region in the west and south-west of lake Superior. At the end of September, owing to the vigorous and determined insistence of Du Lhut, Hennepin and his companions were released by the Indians and accompanied Du Lhut and his followers down the Mississippi to the mouth of the Wisconsin, thence upon the Wisconsin River to the famous portage between the headwaters of that river and those of the Fox River, down the Fox River to the French settlement at Green Bay, and thence to St-Ignace.

At St-Ignace, Hennepin was agreeably surprised to meet a Jesuit named Father Pierson, whose birthplace was also Ath. After spending the winter there, pleasantly interspersing with his missionary labours some recreation, Hennepin left St-Ignace during Easter week in the year 1681, and arrived safely at Fort Frontenac soon after Pentecost Sunday. A few days later he arrived at Montreal where he made a report to Count Frontenac, the Governor-General of New France, concerning his wanderings and experiences. At the request of the govenor-general and his guest, Hennepin proceeded to Quebec. On the way, at Fort Champlain, they met Bishop Laval, who was ascending the St. Lawrence River on a tour of episcopal visitation. The bishop was greatly interested in the thrilling narrative of Father Hennepin, and, knowing his need of rest, granted him permission to retire to the Franciscan monastery, "Our Lady of the Angels", in the city of Quebec. Having passed the remainder of the summer within the cloisters of this institution, Hennepin sailed for Europe in the autumn of the same year, and for a year or more was secluded in a monastery of his order at St-Germain-en-Laye, during which period he published his first book, entitled "Description de la Louisiane, nouvellement découverte au Sud-Oest de la Nouvelle France, par ordre du Roy. Avec le carte du Pays: Les Moeurs et la Manière de vivre des Sauvages. Dedièe à sa Majesté par le R. P. Louis Hennepin Missionaire Rècollet et Notaire Apostolique". The book was printed at Paris and was issued during the month of January in the year 1683. This book is regarded as not only very interesting, but as fairly accurate. In the year 1697 Hennepin published at Utrecht another book, entitled "Nouvelle Découverte d'un tres grand Pays, situé dans l'Amerique". In this book Hennepin claims for the first time that he had traversed not only the upper but the lower Mississippi, and had traced the course of the stream to its outlet in the Gulf of Mexico. As the time which elapsed between the date when Hennepin left the country of the Illinois and the date upon which he was captured by the Issati was not sufficient for a canoe voyage from Fort Crève-coeur to the mouth of the Mississippi and then upstream to a point near the present southern boundary of Mississippi, Hennepin has been denounced by many historians and historical critics as a arrant falsifier. Certain writers have sought to repel this charge by claiming that the erroneous statements are in fact interpolations by other persons. The weight of the evidence is however adverse to such a theory. The "Nouvelle Découverte" was follow by another book coming from the press at Utrecht in the year 1698. This was entitled "Nouveau Voyage". Almost simultaneously, English translations of the two last-mentioned works appeared in London under the title "A new discovery of a vast country in America". Both the "Nouvelle Découverte" and the "New Discovery" were dedicated to William the Third, King of England. At that time Hennepin had lost the favour of the French king, and the archives of the French government contain an order from Louis XIV directing the governor of New France to arrest the famous missionary and traveller in case of his appearance in America and to send him home.

Memorials of the expedition to the upper Mississippi exist in the name of certain places. The county in Minnesota wherein are situated the Falls of St. Anthony bears the name of Hennepin, and the same name appears on the map of the State of Illinois designating a township close to the site of Fort Crève-coeur. The last years of Father Hennepin were in all probability passed in Rome, since a letter is in existence written from that city by a man named Dubos, which contains mention of the fact that the famous Rècollet, then in his sixty-first or sixty-second year, was, at that time (1701), in a monastery at Rome and had hopes of returning soon afterwards to America under the protection of Cardinal Spada. The actual time and place of the death of Père Louis Hennepin are not recorded, but it is probable that he died at Rome soon after the date of the letter written by Dubos.

Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, IV (Boston, 1884), 184, 247; Van Hulst, Notice sur le Père Louis Hennepin né à Ath (Belgique) vere 1640 (Liège, 1845); Bancroft, History of the United States of America, II (Boston, 1879); Abbott, The Adventures of the Chevalier de la Salle and his companions (New York, 1875); Neill, History of Minnesota (Minneapolis, 1882).

JOHN W. WILLIS

Henoch

(Greek Enoch).

The name of the son of Cain (Gen., iv, 17, 18), of a nephew of Abraham (Gen., xxv, 4), of the first-born of Ruben (Gen., xlvi, 9), and of the son of Jared and the father of Mathusala (Gen., v. 18 sq.). The last-named patriarch is the most illustrious bearer of the name. At the time of the birth of Mathusala Henoch was sixty-five years of age, "and all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years" (Gen., v, 23). Instead of the clause "and he died", added to the sketches concerning the other patriarchs, the text says of Henoch: "And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him" (Gen., v, 24). The inspired writer of Heb., xi, 5, adds: "By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death." Ecclus., xliv, 16, and xlix, 16, intimates the same truth about the patriarch. The Epistle of St. Jude (14, 15) shows us Henoch in the light of a prophet, announcing the judgement of God upon the ungodly. Some writers have supposed that St. Jude quoted these words from the so-called apocryphal Book of Henoch (See APOCRYPHA); but, since they do not fit into its context (Ethiopic), it is more reasonable to suppose that they were interlopated into the apocryphal book from the text of St. Jude. The Apostle must have borrowed the words from Jewish tradition.

HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1907), II, 485 sq.; CHASE, Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1900), I, 705.

A.J. MAAS

Henoticon

The story of the Henoticon forms a chapter in that of the Monophysite heresy in the fifth and sixth centuries. It is the name of the unhappy and unsuccessful law made by the Emperor Zeno in order to conciliate Catholics and Monophysites. Really, it satisfied no one and brought about the first great schism between Rome and Constantinople.

When Zeno (474-91) came to the throne the Monophysite trouble was at its height. The mass of the people of Egypt abd Syria rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451) altogether, and found in Monophysitism an outlet for their national, anti-imperial feeling. The three Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were in schism. The Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Proterius, had been murdered in 457; a fanatical Monophysite, Timothy Aelurus (Ailuros), had been elected as his successor. He died in 477; the heretics elected one Peter Mongus - the "Stammerer" - to succeed him; the Catholics, John Talaia. Peter Gnapheus (Fullo), one of the most determined leaders of the heretical party, occupied the See of Antioch; Theodosius, also a Monophysite, that of Jerusalem. Over 500 bishops in these patriarchates were open partisans of Eutyches's heresy. Zeno found himself in a difficult position. On the one hand he was a friend of Peter Fullo of Antioch and sympathized with the Monophysites, on the other he was forced into the defence of the Catholic Faith by the fact that his rival Basiliscus (whom he succeeded in deposing) had made himself the protector of the heretics. Zeno, in spite of his personal feeling, came to the throne as the champion of the Catholic party. At first he protected the Catholic bishops (John Talaia, for instance). But he was anxious to conciliate his old friends in Egypt and Syria, and he realized how much harm this schism was doing to the empire. He therefore issued a law that was meant to satisfy every one, to present a compromise that all could accept. This law was the famous Henoticon (henotikon, "union"). It was published in 482.

As an attempt at conceding what both parties most desired, the Henoticon is a very skillful piece of work. It begins by insisting on the faith defined at Nicaea, confirmed at Constantinople, followed faithfully by the Fathers at Ephesus. Nestorius and Eutyches are both condemned, the anathemas of Cyril approved. Christ is God and man, one, not two. His miracles and Passion are works of one (whether person or nature, is not said). Those who divide or confuse, or introduce a phantasy (i.e. affirm a mere appearance) are condemned. One of the Trinity was incarnate. This is written not to introduce a novelty, but to satisfy every one. Who thinks otherwise, either now or formerly, either at Chalcedon or at any other synod, is anathematized, especially Nestorius, Eutyches, and all their followers. It will be noticed that the Henoticon carefully avoids speaking of nature or person, avoids the standard Catholic formula (one Christ in two natures), approves of Peter Fullo's expression (one of the Trinity was incarnate), names only the first three councils with honour, and alludes vaguely but disrespectfully to Chalcedon. There is no word against Dioscurus of Alexandria. Otherwise it offends rather by its omissions than by its assertions. It contains no actually heretical statement (the text is in Evagrius, "H. E.", III, 14; Liberatus, "Breviarium", XVII). Peter Mongus accepted it, explaining that it virtually condemned Chalcedon and thereby secured his place as Patriarch of Alexandria. His rival, John Talaia, was banished. Peter Fullo at Antioch accepted the new law too. But the strict Monophysites were not content, and separated themselves from Mongus, forming the sect called the Acephali (akephaloi, "without a head" - with no patriarch). Nor were Catholics satisfied with a document that avoided declaring the Faith on the point at issue and alluded in such a way to Chalcedon. The emporer succeeded in persuading Acacius (Akakios), Patriarch of Constantinople (471-80), to accept the Henoticon, a fact that is remarkable, since Acacius had stood out firmly for the Catholic Faith under Basiliscus. It is perhaps explained by his personal enmity against John Talaia, orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria. The Henoticon was addressed in the first place to the Egyptians, but was then applied to the whole empire. Catholic and consistent Monophysite bishops were deposed, their sees were given to people who agreed to the compromise. But the emporer had not counted with Rome. From all parts of the East Catholics sent complaints to Pope Felix II (or III: 483-92) entreating him to stand out for the Council of Chalcedon. He then wrote two letters, one to Zeno and one to Acacius, exhorting them to continue defending the Faith without compromise, as they had done before (Epp. i et ii Felicis III in Thiel, "Epistolae Rom. Pontificum genuinae" Braunsberg, 1868, vol. I, pp. 222-39). Then John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived at Rome and gave a further account of what was happening in the East. The pope wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct (Epp. iii et iv, ibid., pp. 239-241). The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed, then forced to receive Communion from Acacius in a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Monophysites named in the diptychs. The pope, having heard of this from the Acoemeti (akoimetoi, sleepless) monks at Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates, deposed and excommunicated Acacius (Epp. vi, vii, viii, ibid., 243 sq.). Acacius retorted by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Thus began the Acacian schism that lasted thirty-five years (484-519). The Acoemeti monks alone at Constantinople stayed in communion with the Holy See; Acacius put their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in schism in 489. His successor, Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-90), tried to reconcile himself with the pope, but refused to give up communion with Monophysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, Anastasius I (491-518), began by keeping the policy of the Henoticon, but gradually went over to complete Monophysitism. Euphemius (490-496), patriarch after Flavitus, again tried to heal the schism, restored the pope's name to his diptychs, denounced Peter Mongus, and accepted Chalcedon; but his efforts came to nothing, since he, too, refused to remove the names of Acacius and Flavitas from the diptychs (see Euphemius of Consstantinople). Gelasius I (492-96) succeeded Felix II at Rome and maintained the same attitude, denouncing absolutely the Henoticon and any other compromise with the heretics. Eventually, when the Emporer Anastasius died (518), the schism was healed. His successor, Justin I (518-27), was a Catholic; he at once sought reunion with Rome. John II, the patriarch (518-20), was also willing to heal the schism. In answer to their petitions, Pope Hormisdas (514-23) sent his famous formula. This was then signed by the emperor, the patriarch, and all the bishops at the capital. On Easter day, 24 March, 519, the union was restored. Monophysite bishops were deposed or fled, and the empire was once more Catholic, till the troubles broke out again under Justinian I (527-65).

EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 1-23, tells the whole story; LIBERATUS, Brevarium Historiae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum (P.L., LXVIII, 963-1096); TILLEMONT, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles, XV and XVI (Venice, 1732); Id., Histoire des Empereurs, VI (Venice, 1739); KRUEGER, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange mit der Reichspolitik (Leipzig, 1884); HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte (Freiburg, 1875), also French tr., ed. LECLERQ (Paris, 1907-); HERGENROTHER-KIRSCH, Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte (4th ed., Frieburg, 1902), I, 584-95.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Henri de Saint-Ignace

A Carmelite theologian, b. in 1630, at Ath in Hainaut, Belgium; d. in 1719 or 1720, near Liège. As a professor of moral theology he was noted for his learning, but still more for his Jansenistic tendencies. He took part in all the controversies of his time on grace and free will, and, while professing himself a follower of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, he favoured the errors of Baius and Jansenius. His long sojourn in Rome during the pontificate of Clement XI helped to save his orthodoxy, but did not diminish his antipathy towards the Jesuits, whom he opposed vigorously all his life. He published "Theologia vetus fundamentalis", according to the mind of "the resolute doctor", J. Bacon (Liège, 1677); "Theologia sanctorum veterum et novissimorum", a defence of morality against the attacks of the modern casuists (Louvain, 1700). His chief work is entitled "Ethica amoris, or the theology of the saints (especially of St. Augustine and St. Thomas) on the doctrine of love and morality strenuously defended against the new opinions and thoroughly discussed in connection with the principal controversies of our time" (3 vols., Liège, 1709). The first volume treats of human acts; the second of laws, virtues, and the decalogue; the third, of the sacraments.

In the last volume the author makes frequent use of the "Tempestas novaturiensis" written by his fellow-religious, Alexandre de Sainte-Therese (1686), and adopts all the novel opinions then in vogue with regard to the administration of the Blessed Eucharist. The theologians pointed out the errors of this work, and it was forbidden at Rome by the decrees of 12 September, 1714, and 29 July, 1722. The Parlement of Paris also condemned it. The style is so venomous that the work would have been more accurately called "Ethica odii" (the morals of hatred). Instead of explaining the teaching of the Church, the author fills his book with all the disputes about the relaxation of public morality that were then disturbing men's minds. While not explicitly approving of the errors of Jansenism, he favors them. He even praises the "Reflexions morales" of Quesnel, which, it is true, had not yet been condemned. He incurred the censure of the theologians of his own order (Memoires de Trevoux, 1715, a. 100). In 1713, before the appearance of the Bull "Unigenitus", he published "Gratiae per se efficacis seu augustiniano-thomisticae defensio", which is a defence of Jansenism. This provoked a vigorous reply from P. Meyer, S.J. (Brussels, 1715). Finally, we may mention his "Molinismus profligatus" (Cologne, 1717), in which he defends himself against the Fathers of the same society, notably "Artes jesuiticae in sustinendis pertinaciter novitatibus laxitatibusque sociorum" (4th ed., Strasburg, 1717), where doctrinal controversy is clearly replaced by venomous disquisitions against his opponents and their order.

Memoires de Trevoux, 1713 and 1715; FELLER, Biographie Universelle; HURTER, Nomenclator.

A. FOURNET

Mathieu-Richard-Auguste Henrion

Baron, French magistrate, historian, and journalist; b. at Metz, 19 June, 1805; d. at Aix, September, 1862. After completing his studies in law, he became a member of the Paris Bar as avocat à la cour royale. Under the July Monarchy he was made assistant librarian at the Bibliothèque Mazarine; Napoleon III appointed him counsellor at the court of appeals of La Guadeloupe, whence he was transferred in the same capacity to the court of Aix, a position which he occupied until his death. An untiring writer, he contributed for the greater part of his life to Catholic and royalist periodicals -- first to the "Drapeau Blanc", then the "Journal de l'Instruction Publique", and to others of lesser importance. Finally, in 1840, he assumed the editorship of "L'Ami de la Religion", which passed in 1848 under the control of Abbe Dupanloup. Besides his numerous articles in periodicals, Henrion wrote many books which breathe all the fervour of his Catholic and royalist convictions, and reveal close observation and extensive learning. They are, however, not sufficiently critical nor are they always remarkable for justice and impartiality, since the baron belonged to the generation of fiery French Ultramontanes of the middle of the nineteenth century, and his judgments are too often biased by his religious and political affiliations. His principal works are: "Histoire des ordres religieux" (Paris, 1831); "Tableau des congrégations religieuses formées en France depuis le XVIIe siècle" (Paris, 1831); "Histoire de la papauté" (Paris, 1832); "Histoire générale de l'Englise pendant les XVIIIe et XIXe siècles" (Paris, 1836; "Histoire littéraire de la France au moyen-age" (Paris, 1837); "Vie et travaux apostoliques de M. de Quélen, archevêque de Paris" (Paris, 1840); "Histoire generale de l'Eglise" (Paris, 1843-); "Vie de M. Frayssinous" (Paris, 1844); "Vie du Père Loriquet" (Paris, 1845).

LAGRANGE, Vie Mgr. Dupanloup (Paris, 1886); L'ami de la Religion, CIII, CIV, CXXXIX, CXL, etc.; HOUTIN, La controverse de l'apostolicite des eglises en France au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1903), 41, 236, 307; ARBELLOT, Documents inedits sur l'apostolat de S. Martial et sur l'antiquite des eglises de France (Paris, 1862); Annales de philosophie chrétienne (March, 1861), III, 5 sqq., 165-82.

JOHN A. NAINFA

Crisóstomo Henríquez

A Cistercian religious of the Spanish Congregation; b. at Madrid, 1594; d. 23 December, 1632, at Louvain. At the age of thirteen, after having finished his humanities, he entered the Cistercian monastery of Huerta, where he received the religious habit, and in 1612 was admitted to profession. He was then sent by his superiors to different monasteries of the order, where he studied successively philosophy and theology under the most eminent professors. During his studies he manifested a marked aptitude and taste for historical research; and, while yet a student, published his first work, the "History of the Monastery of Meyra". Having completed his studies, he returned to Huerta. During this time his parents had left Spain to take up their residence at the court of the Archduke Albert, Governor of Flanders, and at their request this prince wrote to the general of the Cistercian Congregation of Spain to ask that Henríquez be sent to the Low Countries. The general acceded to this petition, and Henríquez left Spain never to see it again.

He now received from his superiors the command to write the history of the Cistercian Order. With this end in view, he visited the various Flemish monasteries, especially those of Aulnes, of Villers, and of Dunes — then the most flourishing in all Europe — consulting their libraries, studying their archives, and seeking all the information obtainable for the realization of his great project; everywhere he received cordial co-operation, his amiable character having won the sympathy and goodwill of all. A complete list of his works cannot be given within the length of this article. From 1619 until 1632 he published upwards of forty separate works in Latin, Spanish, and Flemish, chief among them being "Thesaurus Evangelicus vel Relatio Illustrium Virorum Ordinis Cisterciensis in Hibernia", which was among his earliest works; "Sol Cisterciensis in Belgio", or "History of men remarkable for their virtues and miracles of the Abbey of Villers, so fruitful in saints"; "Fasciculus SS. O. C.", where he recounts the lives of the patriarchs, prelates, abbots, defenders of the Faith, and martyrs of the order, and also speaks of the origin of the military orders; "Coronae Sacrae O. C.", in which he gives the lives of queens and princesses who had renounced the world in order to be clothed with the Cistercian habit. In his "Bernardus Immaculatus" he explains and justifies the opinion of St. Bernard concerning the Immaculate Conception, the sanctification of St. John the Baptist, and the beatitude of the elect before the general resurrection. In "Phoenix Reviviscens" he gives interesting notices of ancient Cistercian authors in England and modern ones of Spain. It is in this work also that he gives us a short autobiographical sketch. His "Menologium Cisterciense" (2 vols., folio) was his principal work; in the first volume he gives the lives of Cistercians notable for their sanctity, while the second volume contains the rule, the constitutions, and privileges of the order, with a history of the founding of the military orders thereunto attached. It was through him, too, that portraits were engraved of very many of the beatified and other illustrious members of the Cistercian Order, for the honour and glory of which he never ceased to labour during his all too brief life.

All his works are written in a style at once elegant and concise, and manifest a profound erudition; nevertheless, they are not wholly without fault. Claude Chalemot, Cistercian Abbot of La Colombe (France), an esteemed historian, reproaches him with having omitted many saints of the order, and of having inserted persons in his menology who have no right to be there, either because they did not merit it or because they were never clothed with the Cistercian habit. Another fault is that he does not always give the dates with exactitude. He was, however, an exemplary religious from every point of view, his knowledge was only equalled by his humility, and his submission to his superiors was unqualified, while his agreeable demeanor gained for him the affection of all. His superiors were lavish in bestowing on him marks of esteem and honourable titles. He was appointed successively historian of the Spanish Congregation of the Cistercian Order, afterwards vicar-general of the same congregation, and finally Grand Prior of the Military Order of Calatrava.

DE VISCH, Bibliotheca Scriptorum S. O. Cist. (Cologne, 1656); CHALEMOT, Series Sanctorum et Beatorum illustrium Virorum S. O. C. (Paris, 1670); HURTER, Nomenclator.

EDMUND OBRECHT

Enrique Henríquez

Noted Jesuit theologian, b. at Oporto, 1536; d. at Tivoli, 28 January, 1608. At the age of sixteen, in 1552, he entered the Society of Jesus, and soon became celebrated for his philosophical and theological erudition. He taught both these branches at the Jesuit colleges of Cordova and Salamanca; in the latter place he numbered Suarez and Gregory of Valencia among his pupils. In 1593 he left the Society of Jesus and entered the Order of St. Dominic, but soon returned to his former companions. Father Alcazar (Hist. Prov. Tolet., I, 204) gives the following account of this incident. After Henríquez had printed in the preface of one of his theological works some passages not approved by the censors, Father Acquaviva ordered him to tear out the page containing these paragraphs. Henríquez felt so disturbed over this punishment that he obtained permission from the holy father to leave the society and enter the Dominican Order. It was Gregory of Valencia who advised him to return to his former associates. Father Henríquez is especially noted for two theological works: (1) The first part of his "Theologiæ Moralis Summa" was published at Salamanca in 1591, the second in 1593; the work appeared again at Venice, in 1597, and 1600; at Mentz, in 1613, under the title "Summa Theologiæ Moralis libri XV" etc. It was forbidden by decree of 7 Aug., 1603, donec corrigatur, because the author allowed confession (but not absolution) by way of letter, and held opinions too unfavorable to the rights of the Church. In the "Summa", Henríquez treats only of the end of man, of the sacraments, and of ecclesiastical censures and irregularities; but he manages to find an opportunity of declaring himself against Molina's scientia media; he defends the Dominican theory of physical predetermination, and of a predestination antecedent to the Divine foresight of our future merits. St. Alphonsus highly esteems the authority of Henríquez on moral questions, an opinion fully shared by Doujat in his "Prænot. canon.", V. xv. (2) Henríquez's second work is entitled "De pontificis romani clave, libri VI". It was published at Salamanca in 1593, but nearly all its copies were burnt by the Apostolic nuncio of Madrid on account of its allowing the king too much power over ecclesiastics. It is said that only three or four copies have been preserved among the rarities of the Escorial. The subjects treated by Henríquez in his second work are: the power and election of the Roman pontiff; the authority of the councils; the question of law. The rarity of Father Henríquez's second work is the reason why some biographers consider its treatises as part of his "Theolgiæ Moralis Summa".

Hurter, Nomenclator; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., IV (Brussels and Paris, 1893), 275 sq.; Morgott in Kirchenlex., s. v.

A.J. MAAS

Henry II

King of England, born 1133; died 6 July, 1189; was in his earlier life commonly known as Henry Fitz-Empress from the fact that his mother Matilda, daughter of Henry I, was first married to the Emperor Henry V. Henry himself, however, was the son of her second husband, Geoffrey Plantagenet, and inherited from him the three important fiefs of Anjou, Touraine, and Maine. Soon after his birth the English Witan were made to swear fealty to the infant prince as heir to the throne of England, but when Henry I died, in 1135, both Norman and English barons, who greatly disliked Geoffrey Plantagenet, lent their support to the rival claimant, Stephen of Blois. Despite the confusion and civil war which marked the ensuing years, young Henry seems to have been well educated, partly in England, partly abroad. When he was sixteen he was knighted at Carlisle by King David of Scotland, when he was eighteen he succeeded to Normandy and Anjou, when nineteen he married Eleanor of Aquitaine, the divorced wife of Louis VII of France, and secured her inheritance, and when he was twenty he came to England and forced King Stephen to submit to terms. It is plain that when, a year later, upon Stephen's death, he succeeded to the English crown, men felt that they had no novice to deal with either in diplomacy or in war. Whether through the accident of heredity or through conscious imitation, Henry II at once took up with signal success that work of constitutional and legal reform which marked the administration of his grandfather, Henry I. The Angevin Henry was not a hero or a patriot as we understand the terms nowadays, but he was, as Stubbs has said, "a far-seeing King who recognized that the well-being of the nation was the surest foundation of his own power". At home, then, he set to work from the beginning to face a series of problems which had never yet been settled, the question of Scotland, the question of Wales, the frauds of fiscal officers, the defects of royal justice, and the encroachments of the feudal courts. In all these undertakings he was loyally seconded by his new chancellor, one who had been cordially recommended to him by Archbishop Theobald and one who was sufficiently near his own age to share his vigour and his enthusiasm. There is but one voice amongst contemporaries to render homage to the strong and beneficial government carried on by Henry and his chancellor Thomas Becket during seven or eight years. All dangerous resistance was crushed, the numberless feudal castles were surrendered, and the turbulent barons were not unwilling to acquiesce in the security and order imparted by the reorganized machinery of the exchequer and by a more comprehensive system of judicial administration. The details cannot be given here. The reforms were largely embodied in the "Assizes" issued later in the reign, but in most cases the work of reorganization had been set on foot from the beginning. As regards foreign policy Henry found himself possessed of dominions such as no English king before him had ever known. Normandy, Maine, Anjou, and Aquitaine were united to the English crown in 1154, and before twenty years had passed Nantes, Quercy, Brittany, and Toulouse had all practically fallen under English rule. It has recently been maintained (by Hardegan, "Imperialpolitik Heinrichs II.", 1905) that Henry deliberately adopted a policy of competing with the emperor and that he made the empire itself, as Giraldus Cambrensis seems to state (Opera, VIII, 157), the object of his ambition, being invited thereto both by the whole of Italy and by the city of Rome. If this be an exaggerated view, it is nevertheless certain that Henry occupied a foremost position in Europe, and that England for the first time exerted an influence which was felt all over the Continent.

The prosperity which smiled on Henry's early years seems in a strange way to have been broken by his quarrel with his former favourite and chancellor. He whom we now honour as St. Thomas of Canterbury was raised to the archbishopric at his royal master's desire in 1162. It is probable that Henry was influenced in his choice of a primate by the anticipation of conflicts with the Church. No doubt he was already planning his attack on the jurisdiction of the Courts-Christian, and it is also probable enough that Thomas himself had divined it. This, if true, would explain the plainly expressed forebodings which the future archbishop uttered on hearing of his nomination. The story of the famous Constitutions of Clarendon has already been given in some little detail in the article ENGLAND (Vol. V, p. 436). In his attack on the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts Henry may have desired sincerely to remedy an abuse, but the extent of that abuse has been very much exaggerated by the anti-papal sympathies of Anglican historians, more especially of so influential a writer as Bishop Stubbs. Henry's masterful and passionate nature was undoubtedly embittered by what he deemed the ingratitude of his former favourite -- even St. Thomas's resignation of the chancellorship, on being made archbishop, had deeply mortified him -- but when, as the climax of six years of persecution which followed the saint's rejection of the Constitutions of Clarendon, the archbishop was brutally murdered on 29 December, 1170, there is no reason to doubt that Henry's remorse was sincere. His submission to the humiliating penance, which he performed barefoot at the martyr's shrine in 1174, was an example to all Europe. When the news came that on that very day the Scottish king, who was supporting a dangerous insurrection in the North, had been taken prisoner at Alnwick, men not unnaturally regarded it as a mark of the Divine favour. It is not impossible, and has been recently suggested by L. Delisle, that the restoration of the style "Dei gratia Rex Anglorum" (by the grace of God King of the English), which is observable in the royal charters after 1172, may be due to intensified religious feeling. In any case there is no sufficient reason for saying with Stubbs that St. Thomas was responsible for a grievous change in Henry's character towards the close of his life. The misconduct and rebellion of his sons, probably at the instigation of his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, are amply sufficient to account for some measure of bitterness and vindictiveness. On the other hand, after Henry by his penance had owned himself beaten upon the question of the Church Courts, his legal and constitutional reforms (such as those which developed the germs of trial by jury, the circuits of the travelling justices, etc.) were pushed on more actively than ever. This fact forms a strong argument for the view that St. Thomas was resisting nothing which was essential to the well-being of the kingdom. Moreover, it is in these last years of Henry's life that we find the most attractive presentment of his character in his relations with the Carthusian, St. Hugh of Lincoln, a saint whom the king himself had promoted to his bishopric. St. Hugh evidently had a tender feeling for Henry, and he was not a man to connive at wickedness. Again, the list of Henry's religious foundations is a considerable one, even apart from the three houses established in the commutation of his vow. Moreover, at the very end of his life he seems to have been sincere in his interest in the crusade, while his organization of the "Saladin Tithe", like that of the "Scutage" at the beginning of the reign, marked an epoch in the history of English taxation. The conquest of Ireland which Henry had projected in 1156 and for which he obtained a Bull from Pope Adrian IV (q.v.) was carried out later with the full sanction of Pope Alexander III, preserved to us in letters of unquestionable authenticity which concede in substance all that was granted by the disputed Bull of Adrian. The death of Henry was sad and tragic, embittered as it was by the rebellion of his sons Richard and John, but he received the last sacraments before the end came. "I think", says William of Newburgh, "that God wished to punish him severely in this life in order to show mercy to him in the next."

All histories of England and notably LINGARD'S contain a detailed account of Henry's important reign, but Lingard's estimate of his character seems unnecessarily severe. The prefaces to STUBBS" editions of various chronicles in the Rolls Series are important and have been printed together in a separate volume. Among more recent works DAVIS, England under the Normans and Angevins (London, 1905), and ADAMS, History of England from 1066 to 1216 (London, 1905) may be specially recommended. See also DELISLE, articles on Henry's Charters in the Bibliothéque de l'Ecole des Chartes, 1906, 1907, and 1909, and ROUND in the Archaeological Journal, 1908; EYTON, Itinerary of Henry II (London, 1878); NORGATE, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1887); THURSTON, Life of St. Hugh of Lincoln (London, 1898); HARDEGEN, Imperialpolitik König Heinrichs II. von England (Heidelberg, 1905). Fuller bibliographies are given in GROSS, Sources of Eng. Hist., and by NORGATE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

HERBERT THURSTON

Henry VIII

King of England, born 28 June, 1491; died 28 January, 1547.

He was the second son and third child of his father, Henry VII. His elder brother Arthur died in April, 1502, and consequently Henry became heir to the throne when he was not yet quite eleven years old. It has been asserted that Henry's interest in theological questions was due to the bias of his early education, since he had at first been destined by his father for the Church. But a child of eleven can hardly have formed lifelong intellectual tastes, and it is certain that secular titles, such as those of Earl Marshal and Viceroy of Ireland, were heaped upon him when he was five. On the other hand there can be no question as to the boy's great precocity and as to the liberal scope of the studies which he was made to pursue from his earliest years.

After Arthur's death a project was at once formed of marrying him to his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, who, being born in December, 1485, was more than five years his senior. The negotiations for a papal dispensation took some little time, and the Spanish Queen Isabella, the mother of Catherine, then nearing her end, grew very impatient. Hence a hastily drafted Brief containing the required dispensation was privately sent to Spain in 1504, to be followed some months later by a Bull to the same effect which was of a more public character. The existence of these two instruments afterwards caused complications. Owing, however, to some political scheming of Henry VII -- who was trying to outwit his rival Ferdinand -- Prince Henry, on attaining the age of fourteen, was made to record a formal protest against the proposed marriage with Catherine, as a matter arranged without his consent. Still, when his father died in 1509, Henry carried out the marriage nine weeks after his accession, he being then eighteen, and showing from the first a thorough determination to be his own master. Great popularity was won for the new reign by the attainder and execution of Empson and Dudley, the instruments of the late king's extortion. Besides this, it is unanimously attested by contemporaries that the young sovereign possessed every gift of mind and person which could arouse the enthusiasm of his people. His skill in manly sports was almost equalled by his intelligence and his devotion to letters. Of the complicated foreign policy which marked the beginning of his reign no detail can be given here. Thanks partly to Henry's personality, but still more to the ability of Wolsey, who soon took the first place in the council chamber, England for the first time became a European power. In 1512 Henry joined Pope Julius II, Ferdinand of Spain, and the Venetians in forming the "Holy League" against the King of France. Julius was feverishly bent on chasing the "barbarians" (i.e. the French and other foreigners) out of Italy, and Henry cooperated by collecting ships and soldiers to attack the French king in his own dominions. No very conspicuous success attended his arms, but there was a victory at Guinegate outside Therouanne, and the Scotch, who, as the allies of France, had threatened invasion, were disastrously defeated at Flodden in 1513. During all this time Henry remained on excellent terms with the Holy See. In April, 1510, Julius sent him the golden rose, and in 1514 Leo X bestowed the honorific cap and sword, which were presented with much solemnity at St. Paul's.

The League having been broken up by the selfish policy of Ferdinand, Henry VIII now made peace with France and for some years held the balance of power on the Continent, though not without parting with a good deal of money. Wolsey was made a cardinal in 1515 and exercised more influence than ever, but it was somewhat against his advice that Henry, in 1519, secretly became a candidate for the succession to the empire, though pretending at the same time to support the candidature of Francis, his ally. When, however, Charles V was successful, the French king could not afford to quarrel with Henry, and a somewhat hollow and insincere renewal of their friendship took place in June, 1520, at the famous "Field of the Cloth of Gold", when the most elaborate courtesies were exchanged between the two monarchs. The prospect of this rapprochement had so alarmed the Emperor Charles that, a month before it took place, he visited Henry in England. In point of fact a continuous game of intrigue was being played by all three monarchs, which lasted until the period when Henry's final breach with Rome led him to turn his principal attention to domestic concerns. Meanwhile the strength of Henry's position at home had been much developed by Wolsey's judicious diplomacy, and, despite the costliness of some of England's demonstrations against France, before the French king became the emperor's prisoner at Pavia, the odium of the demand for money fell upon the minister, while Henry retained all his popularity. Indeed, whatever disaffection might be felt, the people had no leader to make rebellion possible. The old nobility, partly as a result of the Wars of the Roses, and partly owing to the repressive policy dictated by the dynastic fears of Henry VII, had been reduced to impotence. In 1521 the most prominent noble in England, the Duke of Buckingham, was condemned to death for high treason by a subservient House of Peers, simply because the king suspected him of aiming at the succession and had determined that he must die. At the same period Henry's prestige in the eyes of the clergy, and not the clergy only, was strengthened by his famous book, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. This book was written against Luther and in vindication of the Church's dogmatic teaching regarding the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, while the supremacy of the papacy is also insisted upon in unequivocal terms. There is no reason to doubt that the substance of the book was really Henry's. Pope Leo X was highly pleased with it and conferred upon the king the title of Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith), which is maintained to this day as part of the royal style of the English Crown. All this success and adulation were calculated to develop the natural masterfulness of Henry's character. He had long shown to discerning eyes, like those of Sir Thomas More, that he would brook contradiction in nothing. Without being guilty of notable profligacy in comparison with the other monarchs of his time, it is doubtful if Henry's married life had ever been pure, even from the first, and we know that in 1519 he had, by Elizabeth Blount, a son whom, at the age of six, he made the Duke of Richmond. He had also carried on an intrigue with Mary Boleyn which led to some complications at a later date.

Such was Henry when, probably about the beginning of the year 1527, he formed a violent passion for Mary's younger sister, Anne. It is possible that the idea of the divorce had suggested itself to the king much earlier than this (see Brown, "Venetian Calendars", II, 479), and it is highly probable that it was motivated by the desire of male issue, of which he had been disappointed by the death in infancy of all Catherine's children save Mary. Anne Boleyn was restrained by no moral scruples, but she saw her opportunity in Henry's infatuation and determined that she would only yield as his acknowledged queen. Anyway, it soon became the one absorbing object of the king's desires to secure a divorce from Catherine, and in the pursuit of this he condescended to the most unworthy means. He had it put about that the Bishop of Tarbes, when negotiating an alliance in behalf of the French king, had raised a doubt as to the Princess Mary's legitimacy. He also prompted Wolsey, as legate, to hold with Archbishop Warham a private and collusive inquiry, summoning Henry to prove before them that his marriage was valid. The only result was to give Catherine an inkling of what was in the king's mind, and to elicit from her a solemn declaration that the marriage had never been consummated. From this it followed that there had never been any impediment of "affinity" to bar her union with Henry, but only the much more easily dispensed impediment known as publicae honestatis. The best canonists of the time also held that a papal dispensation which formally removed the impediment of affinity also involved by implication that of publicae honestatis, or "public decency." The collective suit was thereupon dropped, and Henry now set his hopes upon a direct appeal to the Holy See, acting in this independently of Wolsey, to whom he at first communicated nothing of his design so far as it related to Anne. William Knight, the king's secretary, was sent to Pope Clement VII to sue for the declaration of nullity of his union with Catherine, on the ground that the dispensing Bull of Julius II was obreptitious -- i.e. obtained by false pretences. Henry also petitioned, in the event of his becoming free, a dispensation to contract a new marriage with any woman even in the first degree of affinity, whether the affinity was contracted by lawful or unlawful connexion. This clearly had reference to Anne Boleyn, and the fictitious nature of Henry's conscientious scruples about his marriage is betrayed by the fact that he himself was now applying for a dispensation of precisely the same nature as that which he scrupled about, a dispensation which he later on maintained the pope had no power to grant.

As the pope was at that time the prisoner of Charles V, Knight had some difficulty in obtaining access to him. In the end the king's envoy had to return without accomplishing much, though the (conditional) dispensation for a new marriage was readily accorded. Henry had now no choice but to put his great matter into the hands of Wolsey, and Wolsey, although the whole divorce policy ran counter to his better judgment, strained every nerve to secure a decision in his master's favour. An account of the mission of Gardiner and Foxe and of the failure of the divorce proceedings before the papal commissioners, Wolsey and Campeggio, mainly on account of the production of the Brief, has been given in some detail in the article CLEMENT VII, to which the reader is referred. The revocation of the cause to Rome in July, 1529, owing, no doubt, in part to Queen Catherine's most reasonable protests against her helplessness in England and the compulsion to which she was subjected, had many important results. First among these we must count the disgrace and fall of Wolsey, hitherto the only real check upon Henry's wilfulness. The incredible meanness of the praemunire, and consequent confiscation, which the cardinal was pronounced to have incurred for obtaining the cardinalate and legateship from Rome -- though of course this had been done with the king's full knowledge and consent -- would alone suffice to stamp Henry as one of the basest of mankind. But, secondly, we may trace to this same crisis the rise of both Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, the two great architects of Henry's new policy. It was Cranmer who, in the autumn of 1529, made the momentous suggestion that the king should consult the universities of Europe upon the question of the nullity of his marriage, a suggestion which at once brought its author into favour.

The project was carried out as soon as possible with a lavish expenditure of bribes, and the use of other means of pressure. The result was naturally highly favourable to the king's wishes, though the universities which lay within the dominions of Charles V were not consulted. The answers were submitted to Parliament, where the king still kept the pretense of having no personal interest in the matter. He professed to be suffering from scruples of conscience, now rendered more acute by such a weight of learned opinion. With the same astuteness he persuaded the leading nobility of the kingdom to write to the pope praying him to give sentence in Henry's favour for fear that worse might follow. All this drew the king into closer relations with Cranmer, who was made ambassador to the emperor, and who, a year or two afterwards, despite the fact that he had just married Osiander's niece (his second wife), was summoned home to become Archbishop of Canterbury. The necessary Bulls and the pallium were obtained from Rome under threat that the law (referred to again below) for the abolition of annates and first-fruits would be made permanent. The vacillating Clement -- who probably hoped that by making every other kind of concession he might be able to maintain the position he had assumed upon the more vital question of the divorce -- conceded Bulls and pallium. But to benefit by them it was necessary that Cranmer should take certain prescribed oaths of obedience to the Holy See. He took the oaths, but committed to writing a solemn protest that he considered the oaths in no way binding in conscience, a procedure which even so prejudiced a historian as Mr. H.A. Fisher cannot refrain from describing as a "signal dishonesty." "If", asks Dr. Lingard, "it be simony to purchase spiritual office by money, what is it to purchase the same by perjury?" The father of the new Church of England, and future compiler of its liturgy, was not entering upon his functions under very propitious auspices.

But the Church which was soon to be brought into being probably owes even more to Thomas Cromwell than to its first archbishop. It is Cromwell who seems to have suggested to Henry as a deliberate policy that he should abolish the imperium in imperio, throw off the papal supremacy, and make himself the supreme head of his own religion. This was in fact the course which from the latter part of 1529 Henry undeviatingly followed, though he did not at first go to lengths from which there was no retreat. The first blow was struck at the clergy by involving them in Wolsey's praemunire. Some anti-clerical disaffection there had always been, partly, no doubt, the remnants of Lollardy, as was instanced in the case of Richard Hunne, 1515. This, of late years, had been a good deal aggravated by the importation into England of Tyndale's annotated New Testament and other books of heretical tendency, which, though prohibited and burnt by authority, still made their way among the people. Henry and his ministers had, therefore, some popular support upon which they could fall back, if necessary, in their campaign to reduce the clergy to abject submission. At the beginning of 1531 the Convocation of Canterbury were informed that they could purchase a pardon for the praemunire they had incurred by presenting the king with the enormous sum of 100,000 pounds. Further, they were bidden to recognize the king as "Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England." Convocation struggled desperately against the demand, and in the end succeeded in inserting the qualification "so far as is allowed by the law of Christ." But this was only a brief respite. A year later Parliament under pressure passed an edict forbidding the payment to the Holy See of Annates or first-fruits, but the operation of it was for the present suspended at the sovereign's pleasure, and the king was meanwhile solicited to come to an amicable understanding with "His Holiness" on the subject of the divorce. The measure amounted to a decently veiled threat to withdraw this source of income from the Holy See altogether if the divorce was refused. Still the pope held out, and so did the queen. Only a little time before, a deputation of lords and bishops -- of course by the king's order -- had visited Catherine and had rudely urged her to withdraw the appeal in virtue of which the king, contrary to his dignity, had been cited to appear personally at Rome; but though deprived of all counsel, she stood firm. In the May of 1532 further pressure was brought to bear upon Convocation, and resulted in the so-called "Submission of the Clergy", by which they practically renounced all right of legislation except in dependence upon the king.

An honest man like Sir Thomas More could no longer pretend to work with the Government, and he resigned the chancellorship, which he had held since the fall of Wolsey. The situation was too strained to last, and the end came through the death of Archbishop Warham in August, 1532. In the appointment of Cranmer as his successor, the king knew that he had secured a subservient tool who desired nothing better than to see the papal authority overthrown. Anne Boleyn was then enceinte, and the king, relying, no doubt, on what Cranmer when consecrated would be ready to do for him, went through a form of marriage with her on 25 January, 1533. On 15 April Cranmer received consecration. On 23 May, Parliament having meanwhile forbidden all appeals to Rome, Cranmer pronounced Henry's former marriage invalid. On 28 May he declared the marriage with Anne valid. On 1 June Anne was crowned, and on 7 September she gave birth to a daughter, the future Queen Elizabeth. Clement, who had previously sent to Henry more than one monition upon his desertion of Catherine, issued a Bull of excommunication on 11 July, declaring, also, his divorce and remarriage null. In England Catherine was deprived of her title of Queen, and Mary her daughter was treated as a bastard. Much sympathy was aroused among the populace, to meet which severe measures were taken against the more conspicuous of the disaffected, particularly the "Nun of Kent", who claimed to have had revelations of God's displeasure at the recent course of events.

In the course of the next year the breach with Rome was completed. Parliament did all that was required of it. Annates, Peter's Pence, and other payments to Rome were finally abolished. An Act of Succession entailed the crown on the children of Anne Boleyn, and an oath was drawn up to be exacted of every person of lawful age. It was the refusal to take this oath, the preamble of which declared Henry's marriage with Catherine null from the beginning, which sent More and Fisher to the Tower, and eventually to the block. A certain number of Carthusian monks, Brigittines, and Observant Franciscans imitated their firmness and shared their fate. All these have been beatified in modern times by Pope Leo XIII. There were, however, but a handful who were thus true to their convictions. Declarations were obtained from the clergy in both provinces "that the Bishop of Rome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred upon him by God in this kingdom of England than any other foreign bishop", while Parliament, in November, declared the king "Supreme Head of the Church of England", and shortly afterwards Cromwell, a layman, was appointed vicar-general to rule the English Church in the king's name. Though the people were cowed, these measures were not carried out without much disaffection, and, to stamp out any overt expression of this, Cromwell and his master now embarked upon a veritable reign of terror. The martyrs already referred to were most of them brought to the scaffold in the course of 1535, but fourteen Dutch Anabaptists also suffered death by burning in the same year. There followed a visitation of the monasteries, unscrupulous instruments like Layton, Legh, and Price being appointed for the purpose. They played, of course, into the king's hand and compiled comperta abounding in charges of disgraceful immorality, which have been shown to be at least grossly exaggerated. In pursuance of the same policy Parliament, in February, 1536, acting under great pressure, voted to the king the property of all religious houses with less than 200 pounds a year of annual income, recommending that the inmates should be transferred to the larger houses where "religion happily was right well observed." The dissolution, when carried out, produced much popular resentment, especially in Lincolnshire and the northern counties. Eventually, in the autumn of 1536, the people banded together in a very formidable insurrection known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. The insurgents rallied under the device of the Five Wounds, and they were only induced to disperse by the deceitful promises of Henry's representative, the Duke of Norfolk. The suppression of the larger monasteries rapidly followed, and with these were swept away numberless shrines, statues, and objects of pious veneration, on the pretext that these were purely superstitious. It is easy to see that the lust of plunder was the motive which prompted this wholesale confiscation. (See Suppression of the Monasteries.)

Meanwhile, Henry, though taking advantage of the spirit of religious innovation now rife among the people whenever it suited his purpose, remained still attached to the sacramental system in which he had been brought up. In 1539 the Statute of the Six Articles enforced, under the severest penalties, such doctrines as transubstantiation, Communion under one kind, auricular confession, and the celibacy of the clergy. Under this act offenders were sent to the stake for their Protestantism just as ruthlessly as the aged Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was attainted by Parliament and eventually beheaded, simply because Henry was irritated by the denunciations of her son Cardinal Pole. Neither was the king less cruel towards those who were nearest to him. Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, his second and fifth wives, perished on the scaffold, but their whilom lord only paraded his indifference regarding the fate to which he had condemned them. On 30 July, 1540, of six victims who were dragged to Smithfield, three were Reformers burnt for heretical doctrine, and the other three Catholics, hanged and quartered for denying the king's supremacy. Of all the numerous miserable beings whom Henry sent to execution, Cromwell, perhaps, is the only one who fully deserved his fate. Looking at the last fifteen years of Henry's life, it is hard to find one single feature which does not evoke repulsion, and the attempts made by some writers to whitewash his misdeeds only give proof of the extraordinary prejudice with which they approach the subject. Henry's cruelties continued to the last, and so likewise did his inconsistencies. One of the last measures of confiscation of his reign was an act of suppression of chantries, but Henry by his last will and testament established what were practically chantries to have Masses said for his own soul.

HERBERT THURSTON

Henry IV

King of France and Navarre, son of Jeanne d'Albret and Antoine de Bourbon, b. 14 December, 1553, in the castle of Pau; d. 14 May, 1610. He began his military career under Admiral de Coligny and, from 1569, played a decisive part in the wars of religion as head of the Protestant party. By the death of the Duke of Anjou, in 1584, Henry of Bourbon became heir-presumptive to the crown of France. The manifesto of Pérrone (March, 1585) issued by the Catholic princes gave proof of their uneasiness: Cardinal de Pellevé and the Jesuit Claude Mathieu expressed their anxiety at Rome. Although Sixtus V, a strong supporter of royal authority, was not in complete sympathy with the programme and the action of the League, yet relying on the public right which in the Middle Ages had been acknowledged in the whole of Christian Europe, he took decisive measures against Henry of Bourbon. Wishing France to have a king who was respected and hostile to heresy, he declared that Henry of Bourbon had forfeited his rights to the throne of France, deprived him of the crown of Navarre, and released his subjects from their oath of fidelity (9 September, 1585). The parliamentarians and the Gallican lawyers protested. Hofmann published his "Brutum fulmen Pape Sixti V" in answer to the papal Bull. Henry of Bourbon appealed to France, through his letters to the clergy and the nobility (1 January, 1586); he attempted to gain the support of the Protestant princes of Germany, and resolved to try the fortune of arms. For the account of the circumstances and the military events that assured the throne to Henry of Bourbon see Guise, the House of. To establish himself on the throne his conversion was necessary; and the conversion of Henry IV is still an historical problem which must be examined in detail. A legend attributes to Henry IV the saying "Paris is well worth a Mass"; his conversion, then, would only have been a piece of policy devoid of all contrition. No contemporary document records this epigram, though the "Caquets de l'accouchée", a satirical collection of the year 1622, speaks of Sully saying to Henry IV "Sire, Sire, la couronne vaut bien une messe", and these words, themselves doubtful, are probably the origin of the famous epigram so often attributed to the king. The opinion that the conversion of Henry IV was not sincere is refuted by the circumstances of his conversion, by the great interest Henry IV took in the so-called theological colloquies between Catholics and Protestants, and by his regarding it as a point of honour to seek and find theological reasons before carrying out that religious change necessitated by political exigency.

When, on 2 August, 1589, by the death of Henry III, Henry of Bourbon definitively inherited the royal crown, he had on his side the Protestants, the politiques, who belonged mainly to parliamentary and Gallican circles, and finally many Catholics who entreated him to become a member of the Catholic Chirch; against him he had the Guises and the League supported by Philip II of Spain and Pope Gregory XIV. Among the Catholics who stood by Henry of Bourbon, a certain number, from 1591 to 1593, seeing that he took no steps to be instructed in the Catholic Faith, began to form a tiers parti, who were in favour of selecting as king the young Cardinal Charles de Bourbon, second son of Louis I, Prince of Condé. Not having received Holy orders, Charles could have married. By the spring of 1593 the more moderate members of the League, fearing the influence of Philip II on French affairs, were in agreement with the tiers parti to elect a Catholic Bourbon, that is to say, Henry of Bourbon, if he would be converted, or, if he would not, Cardinal Charles de Bourbon. Henry IV had declared on several occasions that he would never embrace Catholicism for merely political reasons. "Religion is not changed as easily as a shirt", he wrote in 1583. "It would be setting very little value on either religion", said Villeroy, Henry's representative, in 1592, "to promise a change before being instructed and well-informed." From March, 1592, Henry IV had an intimate friend in Jacques Davy Duperron, a convert from Protestantism, later a priest and a cardinal, and the conversations with Duperron had a great influence on his mind. The theological conference at Mantes (April, 1593) in which, for seven consecutive days, Duperron argued with four Protestant pastors as to whether the whole Christian doctrine is contained in the Sacred Scriptures, ended in the defeat of the pastors. One of them, Palma Gayet, who had been Henry of Bourbon's tutor, carried away from the discussion the germs of his own conversion to the Catholic Faith. At the same time Sully, although he was a Protestant, told Henry IV that the means of salvation through Christ were to be found in the Catholic as well as in the Reformed Church, and he urged him to become a Catholic in order to win the tiers parti over definitively. Henry IV announced to the Grand Duke of Tuscany on 26 April, 1593, and to the Prince de Conti on 10 May, 1593, his coming submission to the Catholic Church; on 16 May the royal council pronounced in favour of the conversion. In the beginning of June Henry IV assisted at Mantes at another discussion on the Church and salvation, in which Duperron, who had just been named Bishop of Evreux, again vanquished two Protestant pastors; then on 22 July he went to Saint-Denis, where a score of bishops and theologians awaited him. The following morning he had a conference with Duperron, with the Archbishop of Bourges, and with the Bishops of Le Mans and Nantes; he questioned them on three points that were not yet clear to him–the veneration of the saints, auricular confession, and the authority of the pope. The discussion lasted five hours. That afternoon, after a lengthy discussion, Henry signed a formula of adhesion to the Catholic Faith, and a special promise of obedience to the Holy See. On 26 July he renewed his declaration before the assembled theologians; and on 25 July, amidst great pomp, Renaud de Beaune de Semblançay, Archbishop of Bourges and Grand Almoner of France, received his abjuration at the door of the basilica of Saint-Denis, and then heard his confession. The joy of the people was unbounded.

But it was necessary to have the situation regularized by the Holy See, which had formerly excommunicated Henry of Bourbon. An officer of the king's household, La Clielle, was dispatched to Rome in September to announce to Pope Clement VIII that Louis de Gonzague, Duke of Nevers, would soon arrive with a solemn embassy to offer the pope the obedience of Henry IV. Cardinal Toledo informed La Clielle, in the name of Clement VIII, that it was first necessary for Henry to do penance and be absolved from the crime of heresy, and that the embassy would not be received for the time being. In fact, the Jesuit, Possevino, was sent to meet it and to forbid it to come to Rome, though Nevers was permitted to enter the city alone, and even then, not as an ambassador, but as a private individual; between 21 November, 1593, and 14 January, 1594, he had five audiences with the pope, but obtained nothing, the pope refusing even to receive three of the French bishops, then in Rome, who had taken part in the ceremonies at Saint-Denis. In February, 1594, Cardinal de Plaisance, papal legate in France, learning that Henry IV was to be consecrated at Chartres on 27 February, informed the Catholics that he would not be absolved. This caused a great sensation in France, and soon Cardinal de Plaisance began to fear that a schism like that of Henry VIII in England was imminent. Cardinal de Gondi, Archbishop of Paris, finally won (May, 1584) the consent of Clement VIII to enter in to negotiations with Henry IV. Henry first charged Arnaud d'Ossat, a priest living in Rome, with the preliminary secret negotiations. The papacy first contended that Henry required not only absolution, but rehabilitation, which would render him capable of being recognized as a legitimate sovereign; d'Ossat, little by little, won some concessions. But the measures taken by the Parlement of Paris against the Jesuits in January, 1595, after the attempt of Jean Chastel on the life of Henry IV, were exploited at the papal court by the ambassador of Philip II; and Clement VIII seemed, for a time, decided to make the recall of the Jesuits the condition sine qua non of the absolution of Henry. It was a French Jesuit, Alexandre Georges, who, being presented to the pope by Father Acquaviva, general of the Society, represented to Clement VIII that the public weal demanded a prompt reconciliation between the Holy See and France. Clement allowed himself to be persuaded, and on 12 July, 1595, Duperron, the official ambassador of Henry, arrived in Rome to settle the conditions of absolution. Clement VIII did not confirm purely and simply the absolution pronounced at Saint- Denis, but took another course, and on 17 September, 1595, in the portico of St. Peter's, solemnly declared the King of France free from all excommunication. This moral triumph was followed by the victory of Fontaine Française (1595) which gave Burgundy to Henry IV, by the capture of Amiens which gave him Picardy, by the defection of the Duke of Mercœur which put him in possession of Brittany, and by the Treaty of Vervins, concluded in 1598 with Philip II. On the dissolution of his marriage with Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX, by the Holy See, in 1599, he married Marie de Medici (1600). This union resulted in an increase of French influence in Italy.

Henry's foreign policy consisted in preserving peace to allow France time to strengthen her finances and her army; he negotiated with the Low Countries against Spain, and with the Protestant princes of Germany against the empire, but without going the length of open hostilities. His plan was to gather the weaker states around France and unite against the Hapsburgs. Sully in his "Economies Royales" credits him with projecting a coalition of all the states of the empire against the Hapsburgs of Vienna and Madrid, and with planning, on their downfall, a redivision of Europe into fifteen states (six hereditary monarchies, six elective monarchies, and three republics), between wiich peace would be guaranteed by congresses of perpetual peace. It is now proved that this pretended plan, called by many historians the grand dessein of Henry IV, was entirely the product of Sully's imagination, and that he amused himself in his old age with forging letters and stories wholesale to have the history of this "great design" believed.

The domestic policy of Henry IV was marked by an increased centralization of the royal authority and by great industrial, commercial, and agricultural prosperity, due in a large measure to the intelligent solicitude of Sully. France enjoyed a period of genuine religious peace during the last twelve years of Henry's reign. The Edict of Nantes (see France, Huguenots) guaranteed security to the Protestants, and Catholicism arose from the ruin caused by the long years of religious warfare. In the name of the Assembly of the Clergy in 1596, Claude d'Augennes de Rambouillet, Bishop of Le Mans, complained to Henry IV of the appointment of unworthy candidates and of children to abbacies and bishoprics. Henry promised to give the matter his attention; he nominated d'Ossat bishop and tried to induce St. Francis de Sales to settle in France. But the abuses continued, when it suited the whims of the king; he appointed one of his illegitimate sons Bishop of Metz at the age of six, and a child of four years of age Bishop of Lodève. The reform of the Church was begun through the initiative of Catholic piety and not by the influence of royalty. Henry IV, however, contributed towards it, owing to the influence of Père Coton, by favouring the work of the Jesuits, who, although they had been banished by a decree of the Parlement of Paris, were left undisturbed in the districts under the jurisdiction of the Parlements of Bordeaux and Toulouse. The Edict of Rouen (1603) authorized them to remain in all places where they were established, and, further, to found colleges at Lyons, Dijon, and La Flèche, and in 1605 they were permitted to return to their Collège de Clermont at Paris.

Henry IV, despite the efforts of d'Ossat and Duperron, did not dare, through fear of the reformers and the parlementaires, to allow the publication of the decrees of the Council of Trent in France, but the researches of the Abbé Couzard with regard to the embassy of Philippe de Béthune, a younger brother of Sully, and a convert from Protestantism, at Rome (September, 1601-June, 1605) show that the relations of Henry towards the Holy See were marked by a very cordial respect, frankness, and a conciliating attitude. The frivolity of Henry IV in his private life won for him the nickname Vert galant; the royal mistresses Gabrielle d'Estrées and Henriette d'Entraigues are notorious. He was assassinated by Ravaillac on 14 May, 1610.

Berger de Xivrey and Guadet, Recueil des lettres missives de Henri IV (9 vols., Paris, 1845-76); Lestoule, Mémoires journaux (10 vols., Paris, 1875-88); Duperron, Ambassades et négociations (Paris, 1623); Amelot de la Houssaye, Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat (5 vols., Paris, 1708); Duplessis- Mornay, Mémoires et Correspondance (10 vols., Paris, 1824-5); Poirson, Histoire du regne de Henri IV (4 vols., Paris, 1862); de Lacombe, Henri IV et sa politique (Paris, 1877); Willert, Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France (London, 1893); Blair, Henry of Navarre and the Religious Wars (Philadelphia, 1895); Philippson, Heinrich IV und Philipp III., die Begründung des französoschen Uebergewichtes in Europe (3 vols., Berlin, 1;871-76); Pfister, Les Economies royales et la grand dessein de Henri IV in Revue historique (1804), LIV, LV, LVI; DE LA BriÈre, La conversion de Henri IV: Saint-Denis et Rome (Paris, 1905); FÉret, Henri IV et l'Eglise (Paris, 1875); Idem, Le Cardinal Du Perron (Paris, 1877); Prat, Recherches sur la Compagnie de Jésus en France au temps du P. Coton (5 vols., Lyons, 1876); Perrens, L'Eglise et l'Etat en France sous le règne du Henri IV (Paris, 1873); Couzard, Une mabassade à Rome sous Henri IV, Septembre, 1601-Juin, 1605 (Paris, 1900).

Georges Goyau

St. Henry II

German King and Holy Roman Emperor, son of Duke Henry II (the Quarrelsome) and of the Burgundian Princess Gisela; b. 972; d. in his palace of Grona, at Gottingen, 13 July, 1024.

Like his predecessor, Otto III, he had the literary education of his time. In his youth he had been destined for the priesthood. Therefore he became acquainted with ecclesiastical interests at an early age.

Willingly he performed pious practices, gladly also he strengthened the Church of Germany, without, however, ceasing to regard ecclesiastical institutions as pivots of his power, according to the views of Otto the Great. With all his learning and piety, Henry was an eminently sober man, endowed with sound, practical common sense. He went his way circumspectly, never attempting anything but the possible and, wherever it was practicable, applying the methods of amiable and reasonable good sense. This prudence, however, was combined with energy and conscientiousness. Sick and suffering from fever, he traversed the empire in order to maintain peace. At all times he used his power to adjust troubles. The masses especially he wished to help.

The Church, as the constitutional Church of Germany, and therefore as the advocate of German unity and of the claims of inherited succession, raised Henry to the throne. The new king straightway resumed the policy of Otto I both in domestic and in foreign affairs. This policy first appeared in his treatment of the Eastern Marches. The encroachments of Duke Boleslaw, who had founded a great kingdom, impelled him to intervene. But his success was not marked.

In Italy the local and national opposition to the universalism of the German king had found a champion in Arduin of Ivrea. The latter assumed the Lombard crown in 1002. In 1004 Henry crossed the Alps. Arduin yielded to his superior power. The Archbishop of Milan now crowned him King of Italy. This rapid success was largely due to the fact that a large part of the Italian episcopate upheld the idea of the Roman Empire and that of the unity of Church and State.

On his second expedition to Rome, occasioned by the dispute between the Counts of Tuscany and the Crescentians over the nomination to the papal throne, he was crowned emperor on 14 February, 1014. But it was not until later, on his third expedition to Rome, that he was able to restore the prestige of the empire completely.

Before this happened, however, he was obliged to intervene in the west. Disturbances were especially prevalent throughout the entire north-west. Lorraine caused great trouble. The Counts of Lutzelburg (Luxemburg), brothers-in-law of the king, were the heart and soul of the disaffection in that country. Of these men, Adalbero had made himself Bishop of Trier by uncanonical methods (1003); but he was not recognized any more than his brother Theodoric, who had had himself elected Bishop of Metz.

True to his duty, the king could not be induced to abet any selfish family policy at the expense of the empire. Even though Henry, on the whole, was able to hold his own against these Counts of Lutzelburg, still the royal authority suffered greatly by loss of prestige in the north-west.

Burgundy afforded compensation for this. The lord of that country was Rudolph, who, to protect himself against his vassals, joined the party of Henry II, the son of his sister, Gisela, and to Henry the childless duke bequeathed his duchy, despite the opposition of the nobles (1006). Henry had to undertake several campaigns before he was able to enforce his claims. He did not achieve any tangible result, he only bequeathed the theoretical claims on Burgundy to his successors.

Better fortune awaited the king in the central and eastern parts of the empire. It is true that he had a quarrel with the Conradinians over Carinthia and Swabia: but Henry proved victorious because his kingdom rested on the solid foundation of intimate alliance with the Church.

That his attitude towards the Church was dictated in part by practical reasons, primarily he promoted the institutions of the Church chiefly in order to make them more useful supports his royal power, is clearly shown by his policy. How boldly Henry posed as the real ruler of the Church appears particularly in the establishment of the See of Bamberg, which was entirely his own scheme.

He carried out this measure, in 1007, in spite of the energetic opposition of the Bishop of Wurzburg against this change in the organization of the Church. The primary purpose of the new bishopric was the germanization of the regions on the Upper Main and the Regnitz, where the Wends had fixed their homes. As a large part of the environs of Bamberg belonged to the king, he was able to furnish rich endowments for the new bishopric. The importance of Bamberg lay principally in the field of culture, which it promoted chiefly by its prosperous schools. Henry, therefore, relied on the aid of the Church against the lay powers, which had become quite formidable. But he made no concessions to the Church.

Though naturally pious, and though well acquainted with ecclesiastical culture, he was at bottom a stranger to her spirit. He disposed of bishoprics autocratically. Under his rule the bishops, from whom he demanded unqualified obedience, seemed to be nothing but officials of the empire. He demanded the same obedience from the abbots. However, this political dependency did not injure the internal life of the German Church under Henry. By means of its economic and educational resources the Church had a blessed influence in this epoch.

But it was precisely this civilizing power of the German Church that aroused the suspicions of the reform party. This was significant, because Henry was more and more won over to the ideas of this party. At a synod at Goslar he confirmed decrees that tended to realize the demands made by the reform party. Ultimately this tendency could not fail to subvert the Othonian system, moreover could not fail to awaken the opposition of the Church of Germany as it was constituted.

This hostility on the part of the German Church came to a head in the emperor's dispute with Archbishop Aribo of Mainz. Aribo was an opponent of the reform movement of the monks of Cluny. The Hammerstein marriage imbroglio afforded the opportunity he desired to offer a bold front against Rome. Otto von Hammerstein had been excommunicated by Aribo on account of his marriage with Irmengard, and the latter had successfully appealed to Rome.

This called forth the opposition of the Synod of Seligenstadt, in 1023, which forbade an appeal to Rome without the consent of the bishop. This step meant open rebellion against the idea of church unity, and its ultimate result would have been the founding of a German national Church. In this dispute the emperor was entirely on the side of the reform party. He even wanted to institute international proceedings against the unruly archbishop by means of treaties with the French king. But his death prevented this.

Before this Henry had made his third journey to Rome in 1021. He came at the request of the loyal Italian bishops, who had warned him at Strasburg of the dangerous aspect of the Italian situation, and also of the pope, who sought him out at Bamberg in 1020. Thus the imperial power, which had already begun to withdraw from Italy, was summoned back thither. This time the object was to put an end to the supremacy of the Greeks in Italy. His success was not complete; he succeeded, however, in restoring the prestige of the empire in northern and central Italy.

Henry was far too reasonable a man to think seriously of readopting the imperialist plans of his predecessors. He was satisfied to have ensured the dominant position of the empire in Italy within reasonable bounds. Henry's power was in fact controlling, and this was in no small degree due to the fact that he was primarily engaged in solidifying the national foundations of his authority.

The later ecclesiastical legends have ascribed ascetic traits to this ruler, some of which certainly cannot withstand serious criticism. For instance, the highly varied theme of his virgin marriage to Cunegond has certainly no basis in fact.

The Church canonized this emperor in 1146, and his wife Cunegond in 1200.

FRANZ KAMPERS

Henry III

German King and Roman Emperor, son of Conrad II; b. 1017; d. at Bodfeld, in the Harz Mountains, 5 Oct., 1056.

It was to his father's forceful personality that he owed the resources by means of which he could maintain for himself the great and powerful position which Conrad had created. Of course this position was no longer an undisputed one, especially towards the end of his reign. On the contrary it became evident by that time that through his rule Germany had reached the critical turning-point in her history. The key to the domestic and foreign policy of this emperor can be found altogether in his character. Henry was extraordinarily gifted, having a quick intellect and many-sided interests. Consequently he rapidly mastered the problems of administration and government into which his father had him initiated; but with equal rapidity he acquired the literary and artistic culture of his time which his episcopal tutors imparted to him. His profound piety and the serious, austere bent of his nature were still more important factors in his character. Putting the garment of the penitent on the same plane as the regalia of the king, he lived and moved altogether according to the Christian view of life. The Christian moral law regulated his actions. In this conception of life his stern sense of duty had its roots, and to this sense of duty was added a stubborn self-reliance. With such spiritual tendencies it is not surprising to learn that the king frequently subjected his frail body to severe penitential exercises, and that his private life bore a marked resemblance in many points to that of a monk. But at the same time it is not surprising to learn that such a man was reserved, that consequently, though a man of the utmost good faith, he remained a stranger to the spirit of his people. This basic trait of his character imparted to both his domestic and foreign policy idealistic aims which frequently disregard facts, or for that matter were even outside of the necessities of the State. According to his conception his kingship was religious in character. Like the bishops, he considered himself called to the service of God. Like Charlemagne of old, he compared himself to the priest-king David. He desired to be the ruler of God's universal State which should constitute the outward and visible form for the Church. The goodly object of his ecumenic imperialism, therefore, was to carry out the moral idea of Christianity.

With this fundamental idea as a starting-point, it was but natural that Henry should recognize the law of the Church as the arbiter of his conscience. At the very beginning of his reign the king announced that he recognized the fundamental principle of this law; that a bishop could only be judged by the ecclesiastical tribunals. He bitterly lamented his father's behaviour towards the princes of the Church in Lombardy. He considered the deposing of Aribert of Milan uncanonical. In general it soon became apparent that Henry was resolved to make religious ideas once more the determining factors in the art of government. This renewed triumph of religious ideas was straightway demonstrated at the synod of Constance in 1043. There the king, clad in the garment of the penitent, preached the peace of God to the awe-struck masses from the high pulpit. Henceforth this serious Cluniac spirit was predominant in all the imperial entourage. Minstrels and tumblers vanished from the court.

The king was still more confirmed in his austere conception of life by his second wife, Agnes of Poitou, daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine, who likewise had been brought up according to the ideas of Cluny. (Henry's first wife, the Danish princess Gunhild, died in 1038.) This attitude of the king towards the world accounts for the leniency and indulgence that characterized his domestic and foreign policy and it determined absolutely his conduct in ecclesiastical politics. At the beginning of his reign it looked as if the imperial authority were still increasing. In the East, success attended his arms. The aggressive Slavic policy of Duke Bretislaw of Bohemia was checked in 1041. After that, Bohemia was for a long time a support of the German king. Hungary also became a tributary vassal. It is due to these successes that Henry's reign is so generally considered the zenith of German history. Not altogether correctly. His leniency and indulgence fostered an opposition, especially in the interior, which he was destined never completely to overcome. This decline of his commanding position within the empire took place while the king was trying to discharge the supreme duties of his high office as priest-king.

Henry's ideal was the purity of the Church. Only a church that was immaculate might and could be a true helpmeet to him in the kingship. He himself was never party to any act of simony. But as presumptive priest-king, he held inflexibly to the right of investiture. As such he also presided over the synods; as such he also passed sentence in ecclesiastical affairs. He did not realize that this involved a striking contradiction. The Church, pure and morally regenerate in the spirit of the reform party, could not fail to resist imperial domination. This error on the part of the king resulted in the rapid rise of the papacy and the slow decline of the imperial power in its fight for its old ecclesiastical privileges. In the first period of Henry's reign, Rome saw the schism of three popes: Benedict IX, Sylvester III, and Gregory VI. Although of spotless character, Gregory had bought the tiara from the unprincipled Benedict. Perhaps he had recourse to simony as an expedient to secure the supremacy of the reform party, perhaps also merely in order to get the scandalous Benedict out of the way. Henry, however would consent to accept the emperor's crown only from hands that were pure, while those of the de facto Pope Gregory seemed to him tainted with simony. All three popes were repudiated by the Synod of Sutri on 20 December, 1046. This synod revealed Henry's attitude towards the canon law. He knew that according to this law no one can sit in judgment on a pope. Therefore the pope was not deposed by that synod, which, on the contrary, demanded that the pope himself pronounce the judgment. He went into exile in Cologne, accompanied by Hildebrand, who was soon to reveal the power of the papacy. The German popes, supported by the power of the German emperors, were now able to elevate their holy office above the partisan strife of the turbulent factions of the Roman nobility, and above the desperate moral barbarism of the age. Under Suidger of Bamberg, who called himself Clement II, Henry still asserted his claim to the right of the Roman patriciate, that of control over the nominations to the papal throne. But under Leo IX the emancipation of the papacy from the imperial authority already began to manifest itself.

Freed at last from the narrow local Roman policy, the universal point of view once more dictated the conduct of the Roman pontiffs. Immediately a great wave of reform also set in, directed first and foremost against simony and the marriage of priests. The restless and ubiquitous energy of Leo was also turned against the overweening assertions of independence on the part of the episcopal potentates on both sides of the Alps. At the same time, however, the same pope pointed the way to his successors, even for their temporal policy in Italy. He was the first to demonstrate the importance of Southern Italy to the papal policy. Of course his own plans in that part of the country were wrecked by the Normans.

Henry's ecclesiastical policy, therefore, had not only helped the reform party to victory but also led to the triumph of the idea of the supremacy of the Church, which was inseparably connected with it. The preparatory scenes of the great drama of the following epoch were over. At the same time new forces sprang up in Germany: the cities and the petty lay nobility. Marked disaffection prevailed, especially among the latter. Of course Henry was still quite strong enough to subdue these rising powers. But for how long? It was already extremely ominous that Henry did not retain in his own hands the escheated Duchies of Bavaria, Swabia, and Carinthia. His failure to do so must needs bring its revenge, for the new dukes were unreliable men. The dissatisfaction was especially clamorous in Saxony. Here the people took offence at the relations between the emperor and the strenuous Archbishop of Bremen, who sought to create a great northern patriarchate, but also strove to build up a strong temporal foundation for his bishopric.

In the natural course of events this brought him into conflict with the lay nobility. While the king was carrying on futile military operations in the year 1051 and later, against the Hungarians, who were trying to throw off the suzerainty of Germany, the discontent in Germany came to a head in the revolt of Lorraine. This revolt, which was repeated several times, assumed dangerous proportions through the marriage of Duke Godfrey of Lorraine with Beatrice, widow of the Margrave Boniface of Tuscany, who was master of an important and commanding position in Upper and Central Italy. Henry endeavoured to break up this threatening coalition by means of a journey to Rome in 1055. But Godfrey instigated a fresh insurrection in Germany. A movement in opposition to the king in Southern Germany attained alarming dimensions. Henry, it is true, deposed the rebellious dukes, Conrad of Bavaria, and Guelph of Carinthia. But Duke Conrad stirred up the Hungarians and destroyed the last vestiges of German prestige in that country. The death of both the South German dukes in the interim soon led to the overthrow of the Duke of Lorraine. It was in these domestic troubles that the disastrous results of the emperor's leniency and indulgence were to appear most clearly and fully. Unbroken now was the opposition to the Crown in Saxony and Southern Germany, unweakened the dangerous alliance of Lorraine and Tuscany in the South, unimpaired the growing power of the Normans, while the papacy grew without hindrance. All the forces with which the fourth Henry had to cope were in the field, ready for action, at Henry III's death.

STEINDORFF, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich III. (Leipzig, 1874-81); GRIESINGER, Römerzug Kaiser Heinrich III. im Jahre 1046 (Rostock Dissertation, 1900); MARTENS, Die Besetzung des päpstlichen Stuhles unter den Kaisern Heinrich III. und Heinrich IV. in Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, 20-22; GERDES, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes und seiner Kultur im Mittelalter, II (1898); MANITIUS, Deutsche Geschichte unter den s*chsischen und salischen Kaisern, 911-1125 (Stuttgart, 1889); HAMPE, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig, 1909); also the literature on the popes of this period.

FRANZ KAMPERS

Henry IV

German King and Roman Emperor, son of Henry III and Agnes of Poitou, b. at Goslar, 11 November, 1050; d. at Liège, 7 August, 1108. The power and resources of the empire left behind by Conrad II, which Henry III had already materially weakened, were still further impaired by the feebleness of the queen regent, who was devoid of political ability. The policy of Henry III, which had been chiefly directed to Church affairs, had already called forth the opposition of the princes. But now, under the regency, which continued the same policy, the hostility between the ecclesiastical and temporal nobles came to a climax on the kidnapping of the king from Kaiserswert (1062). The regency passed into the hands of of the princes after the seizure of the boy-king. At the outset Archbishop Anno of Cologne had charge of the government of the empire and supervised the education of the royal child. But he was soon compelled to accept the energetic Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, as a colleague. The boy's whole heart went out to the joyous, splendour-loving Archbishop of Bremen. That prelate was now de facto the real ruler of Germany. He returned with vigorous steps to the deserted paths of Conrad II's policy and attempted, not in vain, to restore the empire's prestige, particularly in the East. At the Diet of Tribur this masterful prelate fell a victim to the jealous hostility of the princes (1066). It now appeared that the young king was quite able to satisfy his violent craving for independence; and he determined to carry out the policy of Adalbert.

Henry IV's real political independence did not begin until 1070. When he seized the reins of government, thanks to the energetic rule of Adalbert, the condition of the empire was no worse than at the death of Henry III. But, meantime, the papacy had been entirely emancipated from the imperial power, and the German Church, on which Otto the Great had built up his power, had become more closely united to Rome and ceased to be a constitutional state church. Consequently, though this did not appear immediately, the foundations of the Othonian system were undermined. Strong and energetic popes had appeared on the scene and found allies. On the one hand the powers of Lorraine and Tuscany offered a valuable support to the papacy in Central Italy. Here Beatrice of Tuscany had contracted a matrimonial alliance with the unruly Duke Godfrey of Lorraine. On the other hand Hildebrand's admirable conciliatory policy had likewise gained allies in the southern half of the peninsula among the Normans. And finally the high Church party did not lack friends even in Northern Italy. The Pataria of Milan, a democratic movement that combined an economic with an ecclesiastical reform agitation, was won over by Hildebrand to the cause of the Papal See.

This policy inaugurated by Hildebrand had already indicated opposition to the empire. It is true that one the German side there was a reaction against violations of the legal status prevailing in papal elections and other affairs: but definiteness of aim and enduring vigour were on the side of the reform party and its masterful spokesman Hildebrand, who, as Gregory VII, was soon to come forward as the young king's opponent. (See CONFLICT OF INVESTITURES.) Hatred and passion distorted the portraits of both these men in contemporary history. Even to-day we can see only faint outlines of these two men, the central figures of a tragedy of world-wide historical import. We know that Henry IV had a good literary education, but that his literary and artistic interests were not profound and were not, as in the case of his father, submerged in unpractical idealism. He was a conscious realist. He failed altogether to understand the politico-religious aims of his father's policy. Some of his contemporaries disparaged his moral character, with some justice perhaps, but certainly with much exaggeration. Of course his nature was passionate: that is probably the reason he never in his whole life acquired a refined harmony of character. At times he was plunged in the depths of despair, but he always reacted against the most serious disasters, overcame the worst fits of despondency and was ready to renew the combat. He was also a clever, though perhaps not always an honest diplomat. This hapless king was truly the idol of his people because of his pride as a ruler, his earnest defence of the dignity of the empire and his benevolent care for the peace of the empire and the welfare of the common people.

Henry had no sooner become independent than he reverted to the principles that governed the policy of Conrad II. He also founded his military power on the ministerials, the lower nobility. These ministerials were to counterbalance the power of the spiritual and temporal princes, the latter of whom, however, were beginning to achieve territorial independence and to establish within the State a power that could not be overestimated. With his usual hopefulness Henry expected to be able to crush them: he believed that he could at least revive the power of Conrad II. Henry's strong hand first made itself felt in Bavaria. Otto von Northeim lost his duchy and important possessions in Saxony besides. The king bestowed the duchy on Guelph IV, son of Azzo of Este. We now see at once how well considered was Henry's policy; for from the Saxon lands of Otto von Northeim he sought to create a well rounded personal domain which was to provide an economic basis for his royal power. This personal domain he sought to protect by means of royal fortresses. But to the ever restless Saxons, whose ancient rights the king had indubitably violated in the consolidation of his landed possessions, these fortresses might well appear so many threats to their liberties. Soon, not only in Saxony, but elsewhere throughout the empire, the particularist princes rose to oppose the vigorous centralizing policy of the emperor. The situation assumed a dangerous aspect. Henry's diplomatic skill was now shown. Through the mediation of the spiritual princes the Treaty of Gerstungen (1074) was effected, by which, on the one hand, the king's possessions were left intact, while, on the other, the insurgents secured the dismantling of the royal fortresses and the restoration of all their rights. But soon the revolt broke out anew and was not subdued until Henry's victory at the Unstrut (1075), which resulted in the overthrow of Saxony. Henry seemed to have attained all his desires. In truth, however, the particularist forces had only withdrawn for the moment and were awaiting a favourable opportunity to break the chains which fettered their independence. The opportunity soon came.

In 1073 Hildebrand had ascended the papal throne as Gregory VII. The "greatest ecclesiastical statesman", as von Ranke calls him, directed his attacks against the traditional right of the German kings to participate in the filling of vacant sees. At the Lenten synod of 1075 in Rome he forbade investiture by laymen. The bishops were to cease being dependents of the Crown and become materially the dependents of the papacy. That foreboded a death-blow to the existing constitution of the empire. The bishops of the empire were also the most important officials of the empire: the imperial church domains were also the chief source of income of the emperor. It was a question of life and death for the German Crown to retain its ancient influence over the bishops. A bitter conflict between the two powers began. A synod at Worms (1076) deposed Gregory. Bishops and king again found their interests threatened by the papacy. Gregory's answer to Henry's action was to excommunicate him at the Lenten synod of the same year. For the particularist powers this was the signal of revolt. At Tribur Henry's opponents formed an alliance. Here the final decision in Henry's case was left to the pope, and a resolution was passed that if Henry were not freed from excommunication within a year he should forfeit the empire. At this critical juncture, Henry decided on a surprising step. He submitted himself to solemn ecclesiastical penance and thus forced Gregory as a priest to free him from excommunication (1077).

By doing so Gregory in no wise gave up his design of making himself the arbiter of Germany. In Gregory's opinion Henry's penance could only postpone but not prevent this arbitration. Henry was satisfied once more to set his feet on solid ground. But the German princes now broke out into open revolution. They set Rudolph of Rheinfelden up as a rival king. With his difficulties, however, Henry's ability grew more apparent. He had recourse to his superior resources as a diplomatist. In his struggle with the pope, who took the side of the German princes, he made use of the opposition within the Church in Italy against the hierarchical aims of the Curia; in his dispute with the princes and their rival king Henry looked for support to the loyalty of the masses, who honoured him as the preserver of order and peace. After several years of civil war, Rudolph lost his throne and his life at Mölsen in 1080. By his death the opposition in Germany lost their leader. In Italy also affairs took a more favourable turn for Henry. It is true that in 1080 the pope had excommunicated Henry anew, but the ban did not make the same impression as before. Henry retorted by setting up Guibert of Ravenna, who proclaimed himself antipope under the title of Clement III. The growing opposition within the Church aided Henry on his journey to Rome in 1081. From 1081 to 1084 he went four times to the Eternal City. Finally his antipope was able to crown him in St. Peter's. Soon after the pope was liberated by his Norman allies and escorted to Salerno, where he died, 25 May, 1085.

The struggle was continued under Gregory's second successor, Urban II, who was determined to follow in Gregory's footsteps. Germany was suffering from the horrors of civil war, and the great masses of of the people still supported their king, who in 1085 proclaimed the Truce of God for the whole empire. By means of skilful negotiation he now succeeded in winning over the greater part of the Saxons, to whom he restored their ancient rights. On the other hand the ranks of the bishops loyal to the king had been thinned out by the clever and energetic policy of the pope. Moreover a new and dangerous coalition was formed in Italy when the seventeen-year old Guelph married Matilda of Tuscany who had reached the age of forty. Henry's efforts to break up this alliance were successful at first; but at this point his son Conrad deserted him. The latter had himself crowned in Milan and formed alliances with the pope and with the Guelph-Tuscan party. This had a paralysing effect on the emperor, who passed the year 1094 inactive in Italy, while the pope became the leader of the West, in the First Crusade. Fortunately for Henry's interests the younger Guelph now dissolved his marriage with Matilda, and the elder Guelph made his peace with the king once more. The latter was now able to return to Germany and compel his enemies to recognize him. His son Henry was elected king in 1098.

Henry sought to restore order once more, even to the point of proclaiming general peace throughout the empire (1103). This policy of pacification benefited the great mass of the people and the rapidly growing cities and was directed against the disorderly lay nobility. Perhaps this may have induced the newly chosen young king to take up arms in rebellion against his father. Perhaps he wished to make sure of the sympathies of this nobility. At all events the younger Henry gathered a host of malcontents around his banner in Bavaria in 1104. Supported by the pope, to whom he swore obedience, he betook himself to Saxony, where he soon reawakened the traditional dissatisfaction. No humiliation was spared the prematurely aging emperor, who was kept prisoner in Böckelheim by his intriguing son and compelled to abdicate, while only those elements on whom he had always relied, particularly the growing cities, stood by him. Once more the emperor succeeded in gathering troops around his standard at Liège. But just as his son was drawing near at the head of an army Henry died. After some opposition his adherents buried him in Speyer. In him perished a man of great importance on whom, however, fortune frowned. Still his achievements considered from the point of view of their historical importance, were by no means insignificant. As defender of the rights of the Crown and of the honour of the empire, he saved the monarchy from a premature end, menaced though it was by the universal disorder.

See also bibliographies under HENRY III, GREGORY VII, URBAN II, and INVESTITURES, CONFLICT OF; MEYER VON KNONAU, Jahrbächer des Deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V., I-V (Leipzig, 1890-1904); DIECKMANN, Heinrich IV., seine Persönlichkeit und sein Zeitalter (Wiesbaden, 1889); ECKERLIN, Das Deutsche Reich während der Minderj*hrigkeit Heinrich IV. bis zum Tage von Kaiserswert (Halle Dissertation, 1888); SEIPOLDY, Das Reichsregiment in Deutschland unter König Heinrich IV. 1062-66 (Göttingen Dissertation, 1871); FRIEDRICH, Studien aus Wormser Synode (Greifswald Dissertation, 1905) : the most important literature issued during this period is collected in the Libelli de lite in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica.

FRANZ KAMPERS

Henry V

German King and Roman Emperor, son of Henry IV; b. in 1081; d. at Utrecht, 23 May, 1125. He was a crafty, sullen man, of far from blameless morals; but he defended tenaciously the rights of the Crown and, by his qualities as a ruler, the most conspicuous of which were prudence and energy, he achieved important results. His harshness and want of consideration for others made him numerous enemies. Henry V ascended the throne under a compact with the papacy and the territorial princes, that is, with his father's bitterest opponents. Yet he had scarcely taken up the reins of government when he forthwith adopted the very policy which his father had pursued. It is true that he saw fit to preserve toward Rome a semblance of ready submission, but he was by no means disposed to give up the royal prerogatives over the German Church, least of all the right of investiture. All negotiations opened to this end by Paschal II, who was too sanguine of results, remained barren failures. In 1110, Henry, accompanied by a numerous army, set out for the imperial coronation in Rome. The pope, though rather aggressive in temperament, was quick to lose heart, and deemed that a new conflict with this German king, who now appeared with such imposing array, would be fraught with the most serious danger. Disregarding totally the lessons of history, he suggested a radical measure, the aim of which was to end once for all the great strife between pope and emperor. He determined to realize the monastic ideal of a Church free from all worldly entanglements. Therefore bishops and abbots, the entire German Church, were to surrender to the king all their worldly possessions and rights. The king was to abandon in return the right of investiture, henceforth worthless. The latter, who saw nothing but gain in this proposal, accepted the offer. He was too shrewd not to realize that the pope's plan was impossible of execution. It is true that he had no serious intention of depriving of their possessions the ecclesiastical lords and their vassals, while he attached much importance to the unequivocal way in which the king's rights to the temporal possessions of the Church were to be recognized. However, no actual agreement was ever reached. The German princes in Rome, on reading the papal proposition, openly proclaimed their disapproval. Henry, after this vehement protest, demanded of the pope the right of investiture and the imperial crown. As the latter refused both, he carried him off a prisoner. Yielding to force, the pope agreed to Henry's demands, and at the same time swore that he would never excommunicate him. Henry, after this success, returned to Germany. He stopped on the way back, to visit Countess Matilda of Tuscany, who made him the heir of all her estates. Meanwhile the followers of the pope resumed their activity. The weakness of Paschal was loudly denounced. The Burgundian archbishop, Guido of Vienne, declared investiture a heresy and excommunicated the king. And as had happened in the days of the latter's father, this attack of the reform party on Henry found support in the opposition of the German princes. As so often in the past, Saxon particularism again manifested itself. In Saxony, the last male heir of the House of Billung had died. The new duke, Lothair of Supplinberg, placed himself at the head of a strong movement against the king, who did not meet this attack with equal vigour. The years 1114 and 1115 brought the uprising to a critical phase for Henry, who was defeated at Welfesholze, near Mansfeld, whereupon the traditional thirst for independence reasserted itself on many sides. First one and then another of the German ecclesiastical princes excommunicated the king. A papal envoy made his appearance in Saxony. Henry, despite the seriousness of this situation, hastened to Italy on learning the death of Countess Matilda in 1116, and led his army towards Rome. The pope fled and sought refuge among his friends, the Normans. The German ruler was favourably received by the Romans, had himself crowned emperor at St. Peter's (1117), and at once set out to restore order in Upper Italy. The prudent endowment of cities with privileges, coupled with his gifts to the Italian nobles, enabled him to carry out his plans. He took possession of the hereditary lands of Countess Matilda, and thus strengthened his power in Italy. In 1119, Henry's most outspoken adversary, Guido of Vienne, ascended the papal throne as Callistus II. The emperor perceived that the conflict was to begin anew with fresh violence, and in order the better to protect himself, determined to put an end to internal dissensions in his empire by a treaty of peace. But he failed to achieve this until the Diet of Würzburg, in 1121. Preliminary negotiations here resulted in an agreement that final peace should depend on a treaty between pope and emperor. Thus was the way prepared for the important Diet of Worms, which assembled in September, 1122. The distinction between the conferring of an ecclesiastical office and the conferring of temporal possessions was relied on at Worms to bring about peace. Henry's skill as a diplomat proved particularly notable at this juncture, and was not the least influential factor in bringing about the concordat of 23 September, 1122 (see CALLISTUS II). This famous agreement provided that the emperor should surrender his right to the selection of bishops and abbots in the empire, but that he should be authorized to send a representative to the ecclesiastical elections. Accordingly, the German sovereign was furthermore to abandon the symbolical ring and crosier at an investiture; but he retained the right to confer their temporal possessions on the ecclesiastical princes by investing them with a sceptre, and this was to be done before the bishop-elect received the papal consecration. In Burgundy and in Italy alone was this investiture to follow within six weeks of the consecration. This just and natural solution of the great controversy could, with the proper good will, have been brought about at a much earlier date. Like all compromises it had its defects, and was obscure in certain respects. To this day, the learned do not agree as to the important question whether or not the concordat was a personal agreement with Henry or with the empire as such. It is assumed, however, that the rights which it created were to be permanent. Was it a victory for the papacy or for the empire? To answer this question one must bear in mind, so far as the empire is concerned, that the Ottonic system of government, a principle of which was the dependency of the German episcopate on the Crown, and which made use of the German Church in striving to keep down the particularistic elements, was now seriously undermined. The subordination of the princes was already virtually done away with, and could only be enforced with difficulty. It is well to consider that in these protracted struggles between Church and State, in which rebellion often assumed the garb of religion, the power of the German princes was vitally strengthened. It was also significant that the bishops were henceforth no longer to be named by the king, whose relations with the episcopate had hitherto been almost those of lord and vassals. A new community of interests bound together for the future the ecclesiastical and temporal princes. The crown found itself face to face with a closed phalanx of territorial magnates, so that the termination of the controversy brought no advantage to the German imperial power. Henry, nevertheless, secured all that was possible under the circumstances, and he saved for the royal power the possibility of future recovery. The Concordat of Worms did not eliminate altogether the differences existing between the empire and the territorial princes. King Henry's marriage had brought him no issue, and the German princes now claimed their right to elect his successor. How they would use this right could not be foretold. In 1123, Henry was compelled once more to enter the lists against Lothair and the Saxons. The emperor's capacity as a ruler again appeared when, towards the close of his reign, he laid bare the weakest point in the constitution of the Empire, and earnestly tried to heal it by perfecting a plan for levying necessary taxes. But any effort to improve the finances of the central royal authority was opposed by the territorial princes. Henry was the last of the Salic kings.

Cf. literature on HENRY III; HENRY IV; PASCHAL II; INVESTITURES, CONFLICT OF. GULEKE, Deutschlands innere Kirchenpolitik von 1105-1111 (Dorpat Dissertation, 1882); PEISER, Der deutsche Investiturstreit unter K. Heinr. V. bis zu dem päpstlichen Privileg vom 13. April 1111 (Berlin, 1883); GERNANDT, Die erste Romfahrt Heinrichs V. (Heidelberg Dissertation, 1890); BERNHEIM, Zur Geschichte des Wormser Konkordats (Göttingen, 1878); SCHAEFER, Zur Beurteilung des Wormser Konkordats in Abhandlungen der Berl. Akademie (1905). BERNHEIM, Das Wormser Konkordat und seine Vorurkunden (1906), and RUDORFF, Zur Erklärung des Wormser Konkordats (1906), take issue with the last mentioned work.

FRANZ KAMPERS

Henry VI

German King and Roman Emperor, son of Frederick Barbarossa and Beatrice of Burgundy; b. in 1165; d. 28 September, 1197. He became German King on 15 August, 1169. In many ways he afforded a strong contrast to his father. Whereas the latter, even in his old age, was an imposing figure on account of his powerful frame and the impressiveness of his actions, his son, pale and slender, was of a more quiet and serious disposition; the former a man of action, experienced, and idolized by his people, the latter a somewhat solitary, positive character, not easy to penetrate, who took his measures according to well-considered and statesmanlike views. Henry VI was great in his conceptions, great also in the energy with which he pursued his aims, clearly conscious of passing failures but never daunted by them. The restlessness which led him ever to advance his aims, and the ambition that ever impelled him to enlarge his empire (semper Augustus), often make him appear nervous and not less frequently hard and unfeeling. It is natural that such a man living in such an age should aim at world-empire. And the key to this ambitious policy of Henry's lay in Sicily. Having married Constance, daughter of Roger II of Sicily, Henry became heir of William II upon the latter's death without issue (18 November, 1189).

Henry was the legitimate heir, but the Neapolitan princes were in no humour to tolerate a German emperor over them. Precarious as the conditions were for him in Germany, Henry was determined to act at once and with vigour. Henry the Lion had returned from exile in violation of his oath. His father-in-law, Richard Coeur de Lion of England, abetted him in his revolt. After fighting with varying success, both parties were inclined to make peace. This was especially true of the king, who wished to have his hands free for his Italian projects. The peace was a sham. It provided that Duke Henry should be left undisturbed and should have half of the revenues of Lübeck, while on the other hand Brunswick and Lübeck were henceforth to be open cities and two of the duke's sons were to remain at the king's court as hostages. Meanwhile the nationalist party in Sicily had placed the able Tancred of Lecce on the throne. Pope Clement gladly ratified the election of this national king and absolved all the Sicilian nobles from the oath they had sworn to the German king. His successor on the papal throne, Celestine III, thought that he might safely refuse the imperial crown to the German king though his power was steadily growing. By skilful diplomatic methods, and especially by taking advantage of the local conditions in the city of Rome that were the cause of so much trouble to the papacy, Henry finally managed to change the pope's mind.

Henry was crowned emperor in St. Peter's, 15 April, 1191. Thereupon he started at once for his hereditary possession, Sicily, at the head of his army. But the enterprise was doomed to complete disaster. While the emperor was besieging Naples, Henry the Lion's son, Henry, escaped from the king's camp in order to stir up the rebellion in Germany. In fact, Cologne and the Lower Rhine, as well as the Saxon Guelphs, entered into an alliance against the emperor. England was the backer of the league. Upon Henry's return to Germany the opposition was fostered by the dispute over the Liège succession. Henry now acted with offensive recklessness in filling the vacant bishoprics. In Liège this led to bloody disturbances. In that town the pope's candidate, Albert, a brother of the Duke of Brabant, was murdered by German knights (1192). The emperor was accused of complicity -- probably without reason. The insurrection now spread throughout all the provinces on the Lower Rhine. The conspiracy of the princes assumed constantly increasing proportions. It was in league not only with the King of England but also with the pope and the rival King of Sicily. In this critical situation Henry showed himself to be an able diplomat and his shrewd, statesmanlike measures checked the formidable uprising for a considerable time. Then an unexpected stroke of fortune came to the aid of the king. King Richard Coeur de Lion of England, on his return from Palestine, was taken prisoner by Duke Leopold of Austria and delivered into Henry's hands. Thereupon the dangerous opposition of the princes was paralysed. The Guelphs themselves were won over by means of a matrimonial alliance with the emperor's consent, a cousin of the emperor and daughter of the Count Palatine Conrad of the Rhine.

Richard of England had returned to his kingdom as a vassal of the German king. Thereby the first step had been taken towards a far-reaching policy of expansion. Henry was now able to start on his second expedition to Italy (1194) with a much stronger force. King Tancred had died there, 20 February, 1194. His only issue was an infant son. Henry was able to to enter Palermo without opposition. The day after his coronation his wife Constance bore him a son who was baptized and received names held in especial honour by the Normans, Frederick and Roger. This child was now the legitimate heir to the throne of Sicily. With the birth of this son the idea of an hereditary imperial crown first assumed really tangible shape in the emperor's mind. He was already thinking of the constitutional union of Sicily with the empire. Thereby -- so ran his thoughts -- the hereditary right to the throne of Sicily would accrue to the Roman imperial crown. This plan was naturally the first step to a policy looking towards world-empire and would have divested the empire of its national character. Henry pursued this design obstinately, although as he well perceived, it was unfeasible without the co-operation of the pope and of the German princes. He was prepared to purchase the assent of the German princes by concessions. Consequently he was willing to give up the right of spoils to the spiritual princes and to grant the temporal princes the right to transmit their fiefs which had become hereditary by tradition, to the female line. Perhaps they were only apparent concessions, perhaps it was Henry's purpose after the acceptance of his scheme to extend Sicilian regulations with their princely officials to Germany. The German territorial lords would have been automatically and gradually reduced thereby to the status of large landed proprietors. The emperor's power was so great that at first no serious opposition was made to his plan. But it was not long before the Saxon princes and the Archbishop of Cologne opposed it. Henry shrewdly put aside his great plan of an hereditary empire, satisfied for the time being with the election of his son Frederick as king at the Frankfort Diet.

The years 1196-97 saw the Staufian kingdom at its zenith. England and half of France were vassals to the empire, Hungary and Denmark acknowledged the suzerainty of Germany. Once more the national party in Sicily rose in rebellion against the emperor's growing power, and this time it seems to have been in league with Henry's hot-blooded wife, Constance. But a plot for a general massacre was discovered in time and suppressed in a most cruel fashion. The course was now absolutely clear for Henry's policy of world-empire. With Sicily as a centre, Henry pursued a Mediterranean policy that was to recall ancient Roman times. Already he seriously thought of conquering Constantinople and had demanded the cession of territory from the Byzantine emperor. Already the Kings of Cyprus and Armenia became the vassals of Henry. A crusade on a magnificent scale was to crown Henry's world-policy. In fact, 60,000 crusaders left Sicily in 1197, led by Henry's chancellor, Conrad. The emperor intended to follow later. However, Henry VI died at the height of his power. Of this the chronicler of St. Blasien writes: "His premature death should be mourned by the German people and by all men throughout the empire. For he increased their glory by the wealth of foreign countries, struck terror into the surrounding nations by his bravery and proved that they (the Germans) would certainly have surpassed all other nations had not death cut him short." Henry's death in truth foreboded a catastrophe for Germany.

See bibliography to the articles FREDERICK I and FREDERICK II. A recent addition to the history of the time is furnished by HAMPE, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte im Zeitalter der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig, 1909). TOECHE, Jahrbücher der deutschen Geschichte unter Kaiser Heinrich VI. (1867); CARO, Die Beziehungen Heinrichs VI. zur römischen Kurie während der Jahre 1190-97 (Berlin, 1902); BLOCH, Forschungen zur Politik Kaiser Heinrichs VI. 1191-94 (Berlin, 1892); OTTENDORF, Dir Regierung der beiden Normannenkönige Tancreds und Wilhelms III. von Sizilien und ihre Kämpfe gegen Kaiser Heinrich VI. (Bonn, 1899).

FRANZ KAMPERS

Henry of Friemar

(DE VRIMARIA)

German theologian; b. at Friemar, a small town near Gotha in Thuringia, about the end of the thirteenth century; d. probably at Erfurt about 1355. At an early age he entered the Order of Hermits of Saint Augustine, and was sent to the University of Paris, where he was made master in sacred theology, and taught there until 1318. In that year he was made regent of studies in the monastery of St. Thomas, Prague, and examiner for Germany. Later he was chosen provincial for Thuringia and Saxony. His printed works are: (1) "Opus Sermonum Exactissimorum De Sanctis"; (2) "De Quadruplici Instinctu, Divino, Angelico, Diabolico, et Humano" (Parma, 1514); (3) "Additiones Ad Libros Sententiarum" (Cologne, 1513); (4) "De Spiritibus, Eorumque Discretione"; (5) "Tractatus De Beatae, Mariae Virginis Conceptione" (Louvain, 1664); (6) "De Origine Fratrum Eremitarum Sancti Augustini".

FRANCIS E. TOURSCHER

Henry of Ghent

(HENRICUS DE GANDAVO, known as the DOCTOR SOLEMNIS)

A notable scholastic philosopher and theologian of the thirteenth century, better known by his works than by his life; d. at Paris or Tournai, 1293. He was born at Ghent in Belgium. The exact year of his birth, early in the thirteenth century, is unknown, as is also his family name, the name Goethals (Bonicollii) being an invention. He was called also Henricus de Muda or Mudanus or ad Plagam, probably from his place of residence in the town of Tournai, where we find him living in 1267 as a secular priest and canon. In 1276, the date of his first disputatio de quodlibet, he appears as Archdeacon of Bruges, and a few years subsequently as Archdeacon of Tournai. Although he does not seem to have resided permanently at the University of Paris, he must have taught for frequent and prolonged periods at the great intellectual metropolis, for he was well known and highly esteemed there. In 1277 he received the degree of Magister or Doctor of Theology. In 1282 he was selected with two others by Martin IV to arbitrate in the dispute about the privileges of the mendicant friars in regard to hearing confessions: he defended the rights of the bishops as against St. Bonaventure and the regulars. From this to the end of his life he figured prominently in the ecclesiastical affairs of Tournai as well as in the university life of Paris. Recent researches have eliminated much of the legendary from his biography, notably the story that he was a Servite or at least a member of some religious order.

As philosopher and theologian Henry ranks immediately below his great contemporaries, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and John Duns Scotus. He lived through the golden age of Scholasticism, in the midst of the intense intellectual activity which marked the close of the thirteenth century. His two greatest works, the "Quodlibeta" and the "Summa Theologica", show him to be by preference a psychologist and metaphysician. He treated all the great debated questions of the schools with an originality that gives his work quite a personal impress. His doctrine, too, forms a consistent whole, with perhaps the single exception of his teaching on the Divina Scientia, which scarcely harmonizes with the rest of his philosophy. Wherever he differs from St. Thomas (e.g. on the Principle of Individuation, the existence of Materia Prima, the plurality of the "formative" principle in man), or from his contemporaries generally (e.g. in rejecting the species intelligibilis in his theory of knowledge), his own views are seldom as sound or satisfactory as theirs, though his criticisms of the latter are often vigorous and convincing. His occasional want of clearness has exposed him to severe criticism, especially from Duns Scotus. Hence also some have claimed, but without sufficient foundation, to detect the seeds of unorthodox views in his philosophy and theology. He has been somewhat persistently described as a medieval Platonist, but such a description is misleading. Like the other great scholastics he was an intelligent, not a servile, follower of Aristotle. His philosophy is peripatetic, but he supplemented and completed it by drawing largely on Plato through St. Augustine, thus transmitting the wholesome Augustinian element in Scholasticism to Duns Scotus and his successors. Henry's writings reflect much deep and searching thought on the perennial problems of philosophy and religion. Their perusal will persuade the impartial inquirer that much of our modern knowledge about these matters is medieval.

Henry is the author of the following works: "Disputationes Quodlibetales" or "Quodlibeta" (Paris, 1518; Venice, 1608, 1613; "Summa Theologica," incomplete, containing only the prologue and theodicy (Ghent, 1520; Ferrara, 1646); "Liber de Scriptoribus Illustribus", probably not authentic (Cologne, 1580). Still unpublished: a short "Treatise on Logic" (Bruges and Erfurt libraries); a "Commentary on Aristotle's Physics" (Paris, Bib. Nat., n. 1660); "Questions on Aristotle's Metaphysics", of doubtful authenticity (Escorial library); a treatise "De Virginitate" (Brussels and Berlin libraries); "Questiones super Decretalibus" (Vienna library); many unpublished sermons.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.-DE WULF, Etudes sur Henri de Gand, a monograph from the same author's Histoire de Philosophie scolastique dans les Pays-Bas et la Principauté de Liège (Louvain and Paris, 1895); Histoire de la Philosophic médiévale (Louvain and Paris, 2nd ed., 1905); EHRLE, Heinrich von Gent in Archiv für Litteratur und Kirchengeschichte, I (1885), 365-401, 507-508; French tr. by RASKOP in Bulletins de la Soc. hist. et litt. de Tournai, XXI; WAUTERS in Bull. de la Commission royale d'histoire (1887), 185; DE PAUW, Dernières découvertes concernant le docteur solennel (ibid., 1888 and 1889), 135; DELEHAYE, in the Messager des Sciences Historiques (1886), 353, 438 (1888), 426; and in the Revista Augustiniana, IV (1882), 428; TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903). Less recent biographies: WERNER, Heinrich von Gent als Repräsentant des christlichen Platonismus im XIII Jahrh. (from vol. XXVIII of Denkschriften, etc. der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna); SCHWARTZ, Henri de Gand et ses derniers historians in Mem. de l'Acad. roy. de Belgique, X, 1860; HUET, Recherches historiques et critiques sur la vie, les ouvrages et la doctrine de Henri de Gand (Ghent, 1838).

P. COFFEY

Henry of Herford

(Or HERWORDEN; HERVORDIA)

Friar and chronicler; date of birth unknown; died at Minden, 9 Oct., 1370. He was a native of Herworden, Westphalia, and was professed in the Dominican friary at Minden. There he wrote his chronicle "Liber de rebus memorabilioribus", in which he summarizes the work of older historians from Eusebius down to the writers of his own age. The work, which is continued down to the coronation of the Emperor Charles IV in 1355, was one of the chief sources of historical information in fourteenth-century literature. It was printed under the editorship of Potthast at Göttingen in 1859. He also composed the "Catena aurea in decem partes distincta", a summary of theology, and a treatise — still unpublished — "De Conceptione Virginis gloriosae". Seven years after his death the emperor caused his remains to be solemnly transferred to a place of honour near the high altar.

FABRICIUS, Biblioth. med. aet. (1735), III, 658-9; POTTHAST, Chronicon Henrici de Hervordia (Göttingen, 1859), Diss. I; FRANKLIN, Dictionnaire des Noms, Surnoms et Pseudonymes Latins de 1'histoire littéraire du Moyen Age (Paris, 1875); WEGELE in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (1881); STREBER in Kirchenlex.; DIEKAMP in Zeitschr. Gesch. Altert. Westfal. (1899), LVII, 90-103; HURTER, Nomenclator; CHEVALIER, Répertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1905).

EDWIN BURTON

Henry of Huntingdon

Historian; b. probably near Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, between 1080 and 1085; d. 1155. Little is known of his life except from chance allusions in his own works. He refers to the Abbot of Ramsey as his lord, to Lincoln as his diocese and to Albinus of Angers as his teacher. The opening section of his "Epistola de contemptu mundi" suggests that he was educated in the household of the Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Bloet (1093-1123). In 1109 or 1110 he was made archdeacon of Huntingdon, so that he was then already a priest. His interest in history was due to a visit to the Abbey of Bec, which he made while accompanying Archbishop Theobald to Rome in 1139, for at Bec he met the Norman historian, Robert de Torigny, who brought to his notice the "Historia Britonum" of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Shortly after he was himself requested by Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, to undertake the composition of a history, using the writings of Venerable Bede as a groundwork. This he did, carrying the work down to the death of Stephen in 1154. The early part of his work is taken from the customary sources, but from 1127 he is original and writes as an eye-witness. His details are, however, occasionally invented, and his chronology is not reliable. To the later copies of his history he added two books entitled "De miraculis" and "De summitatibus", the former relating the miracles of several Anglo-Saxon saints, the latter containing his epilogue and three letters of historical subjects. One of these is the "Epistola de contemptu Mundi", printed in Migne (P.L., CXCV), Wharton (Anglia Sacra, II), and elsewhere as a separate work. Two books of epigrams are found in a Lambeth MS., and according to Leland there were six other books of these, as well as eight books "De Amore", and treatises "De Herbis", "De Aromatibus", "De Gemmis", and "De Lege Domini", but these are no longer extant. Probably he died in 1155, as a new archdeacon of Huntingdon is found in that year. His tomb is in Lincoln Cathedral. "Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum", edited by Thomas Arnold (R. S., London, 1879), is the latest and most critical edition, with a valuable introduction. The history, first printed by Saville in "Scriptores post Bedam" (London, 1596), is reprinted in Migne, P.L., CXCV. The "Epistola de contemptu Mundi" is printed in Wharton's "Anglia Sacra", II, as well as in the Rolls Series and Migne. One book of the epigrams will be found in Wright's "Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century", II, R.S. (London, 1872).

CAPGRAVE, De Henrico Archidiacono Huntingdonensi in De Illustribus Henricis (R.S., London, 1858); contains little or nothing. HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1865-71); LIEBERMANN, Heinrich von Huntingdon in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XVIII (Leipzig, 1878); LUARD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

EDWIN BURTON

Henry of Kalkar

(Egher).

Carthusian writer, b. at Kalkar in the Duchy of Cleves in 1328; d. at Cologne, 20 December, 1408. Henry began his studies at Cologne, and completed them at Paris, where he became Master of Arts in 1357. He forthwith occupied the post of procurator of the German nation in 1358, being also a professor of theology. Having obtained canonries in the collegiate churches of St. Swibert in Kaiserswerth and St. George in Cologne in 1362, he returned to his native land. Soon after, however, disgusted with the world, he retired in 1365 to the Charterhouse of Cologne, where, owing to his talents and virtues, he was rapidly raised to the most important offices. Successively prior of the Charterhouses of Arnheim (1368-72), of Ruremonde (1372-77), which he had built, of Cologne (1377-84) and of Strasburg (1384-96), which he restored, and visitor of his province for the space of 20 years, he was thus called upon to play, under the trying circumstances produced by the Great Schism, a considerable role in the Netherlands and German-speaking countries. Relieved at length, at his earnest request, of all his offices, he retired in 1396 to the Charterhouse of Cologne, and there lived in recollection and prayer until his death.

Henry of Kalkar was celebrated not only as a writer, but also as a reformer. During his priorate at Arnheim he had the happiness and honour of "converting" one of his friends and fellow-students at Paris, Gerard Groote (the future founder of the "Brothers of the Common Life"), whom he attracted into his Charterhouse and directed for three years. "Moreover by his spiritual writings . . . . he exercised on the whole school of Deventer and Windesheim the influence of a recognized master." He was to this extent the organizer of the great movement of the Catholic Renaissance, which, initiated at Windesheim and in the convents of the Low Countries, went on developing throughout the fifteenth century, finding its definite expression in the Council of Trent. He distinguished himself in the eyes of his contemporaries by his religious zeal, his great piety, and above all by his remarkable devotion towards the Blessed Virgin, who, it is said, deigned to appear to him several times. Indeed such was his reputation, that many attributed to him, though wrongly, the institution of the Rosary and the composition of the "Imitation of Christ", and [Saint Peter] Canisius went so far as to insert his name in his German martyrology for 20 December.

As a writer he has left a number of works on very diverse subjects. At once a man of learning and letters, a distinguished musician, theologian, and ascetic, he composed the treatises: "Loquagium de rhetorica", "Cantuagium de musicâ", "De Continentiis et Distinctione Scientiarum", and was also the author of sermons, letters, treatises on the spiritual life, etc. These works, which have never been printed, are scattered about in different libraries — at Basle, Brussels, St. Gall, etc. One alone has been published and has enjoyed a strange career, the "Exercitatorium Monachale" or "Tractatus utilis proficere volentibus". Inserted in a number of manuscripts of the "Imitation" between the first and third books, it has sometimes passed as an unedited book of that work, and was published as such by Dr. Liebner at Göttingen in 1842. Several times reprinted, especially by Mgr. Malou in his "Recherches sur le véritable auteur de l'Imitation", it has been translated into French (Waille, Paris, 1844) under the title "L'Imitation de J. C., livre inédit trouvé dans la bibliothèque de Quedlinbourg". Moreover it has in great part passed into the "Mystica theologia" (chap. I) of Henry of Balma, and into the treatise "De Contemplatione" (lib. I, art. xxi) of Denis the Carthusian, and, after having inspired Thomas à Kempis and Garcia de Cisneros, it furnished St. Ignatius himself with some ideas for his famous "Exercises".

LE VASSEUR, Ephemerid. Ord. Cart., IV (Montreriel, 1892), 540; PETREIUS, Bibliotheca Cartusiana, p. 131 (Cologne, 1509); HARTZHEIM, Biblioth. Coloniensis, p. 117 (Cologne, 1747); FERET, La Faculte theologique de Paris, IV (Paris, 1897), 377; HERTZOG AND HAUCK, Realencyklopedie, VII (Leipzig, 1899), 602; BRUCKERT in Etudes publiees par les Peres de la Comp. de Jesus (June, 1900), 691.

AMBROSE MOUGEL

Henry of Langenstein

(Henry of Hesse the Elder.)

Theologian and mathematician; b. about 1325 at the villa of Hainbuch (Hembuche), near Langenstein in Hesse; d. at Vienna, 11 Feb., 1397. He studied at the University of Paris, where he also became professor of philosophy in 1363, and of theology in 1375. In 1368, at the occasion of the appearance of a comet, which the, astrologers of his times claimed to be a sure foreboding of certain future events, he wrote a treatise entitled "Quæstio de cometa", in which he refutes the then prevalent astrological superstitions. At the instance of the university he wrote three other treatises on the same subject, completed in 1373. When the Western Schism broke out in 1378, Henry sided with the lawfully-elected Urban VI against Clement VII, and wrote various treatises in defence of the former. In 1379 he composed "Epistola pacis" (see "Helmstädter Program", 1779 and 1780) in which, under the form of a disputation between an Urbanist and a Clementine, he advocates tbe suppression of the schism by way of a general council or a compromise. In his "Epistola concilii pacis", composed in 1381, and based on a similar work, "Epistola Concordiæ" of Conrad of Gelnhausen, he urges still more strongly the necessity of a general council and severely criticises the many abuses that were permitted to go on within the Church. These two treatises of Henry, and the "Epistola Concordiæ" of Conrad, formed the basis of a discourse delivered by Cardinal Pietro Philargi, the future Alexander V, at the first session of the Council of Pisa (26 March, 1409); see Bliemetzrieder in "Historisches Jahrbuch" (Munich, 1904), XXV, 536-541. Henry's "Epistola concilii pacis" is printed in von der Hardt's "Concilium Constantiense", II, 1, 3-60, with the exception of the first and the second chapter, which were afterwards published by the same author in "Discrepantia mss. et editionum" (Helmstadt, 1715), 9-11.

When in 1382 the French court compelled the professors of the Paris university to acknowledge the antipope Clement VII, Henry left the university and spent some time at the Cistercian monastery of Eberbach near Wiesbaden. A letter which he wrote here to Bishop Eckard of Worms, and which bears the title "De scismate" was edited by Sommerfeldt in "Historisches Jahrbuch" (Munich, 1909), XXX, 46-61. Another letter which he wrote here to the same bishop, on the occasion of the death of the bishop's brother, is entitled "De contemptu mundi" and was edited by Sommerfeldt in "Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theologie" (Innsbruck,1905), XXIX, 406-412. A second letter of condolence, written about 1384, was edited by Sommerfeldt in "Hist. Jahrbuch" (Munich, 1909), XXX, 298-307. Following the invitation of Albert III, Duke of Austria, he came to the University of Vienna in 1384, and assisted in the foundation of a theological faculty. Here he spent the remainder of his life, teaching dogmatic theology, exegesis, and canon law, and writing numerous treatises. He refused an episcopal see which was offered him by Urban VI. Roth (see below) ascribes to him seven works on astronomy, eighteen historico-political treatises on the schism, seventeen polemics, fifty ascetical treatises, and twelve epistles, sermons and pamphlets. Among his printed works the most important are: "De conceptione", a defence of the Immaculate Conception (Strasburg, 1500); "Contra disceptationes et prædicationes contrarias fratrum Mendicantium", another defence of the Immaculate Conception against some of the Mendicants (Milan, 1480; Basle, 1500; Strasburg, 1516); "Speculum animæ" or mirror of the soul, an ascetical treatise edited by Wimpfeling (Strasburg, 1507); "Secreta Sacerdotum", treating of certain abuses in the celebration of Mass, edited by Lochmayer (Heidelberg, 1489), and often thereafter; "De contractibus emtionis et venditionis", a very important work, on the politico-economical views of his times, published among the works of Gerson (Cologne, 1483), IV, 185-224. Other valuable treatises are: "Summa de republica", a work on public law; and "Cathedra Petri", a work on ecclesiastical policy, both still unedited.

HARTWIG, Leben and Schriften Heinrichs de Langenstein (Marburg, 1857); ROTH, Zur Bibliographie des H. Hembuche de Langenstein in II Beiheft zum Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen (Leipzig, 1888); KNEER, Die Entstehung der Konziliaren Theorie. Zur Geschichte des Schismas und der Kirchen politischen Schriftsteller K. von Gelnhausen and H. von Langenstein (Rome, 1893); BLIEMETZRIEDER, Des General Konzil im grossen abendländischen Schisma (Paderborn, 1904), passim; ASCHBACH, Gesch. der Wiener Univ. (Vienna, 1865), I, 366-402; SCHEUFFGEN, Beiträge zar Gesch. des gr. Schismas (Freiburg im Br., 1889), 35 sqq.

MICHAEL OTT

Henry of Nördlingen

A Bavarian secular priest, of the fourteenth century, date of death unknown; the spiritual adviser of Margaretha Ebner (died 1351), the mystic of Medingen. Henry's many acquaintances, his travels, his influence as a director of souls, as preacher and confessor, excite a special interest because of the light they cast upon the immense development of mysticism, and the religious state of Germany at the time of Louis of Bavaria. Among the laity of both sexes, the nobility, and in monasteries of men and women, from the Low Countries across the Rhenish Provinces, Bavaria, etc., to Northern Italy, we find the mystics, the Gottesfreunde, coming into intercourse with one another; Henry is often the connecting link. He writes to, or visits, Margaretha Ebner, Tauler, Christina Ebner, Suso, Rulman Merswin, etc.; he translates into High German the book of Mechtilde of Magdeburg and urges other mystics, as Margaretha Ebner, to write their visions; his visits and instructions are received by the Cistercians of Kaisheim, etc., the Dominican nuns of Engelthal, Medingen, etc., the Bernardines of Zimmern, etc., and by the Benedictine nuns of Hohewart, etc.; to his correspondents he sends books now of theology (St. Thomas), now of mysticism, with relics, etc. But, as in the case of many other mystics of his time, the life of Henry is unhappily unknown to us save from his correspondence and the writings of the Ebners during the period between 1332 and 1351. Of these nineteen years, the first three were spent in or about Nördlingen, where Henry was the beloved director of a group of mystics which included his mother. In 1335 he set out for Avignon on a voluntary exile in consequence of the dispute between the pope and the emperor. In 1339, a short while after his return to Nördlingen, his fidelity in abiding by the interdict brought him into a critical position, and he went by way of Augsburg and Constance to Basle, where he found Tauler and whither several of the Gottesfreunde followed him from Bavaria.

At Basle (January, 1339), which he now made the centre of his activity, his success in the confessional and pulpit brought crowds to him, especially in 1345. Letters to Margaretha Ebner give an idea of his work, fears, and hopes; in 1346-7 he made several trips to Cologne, Bamberg, etc.; then he left Basle, much regretted by the Gottesfreunde, and after a wandering life of preaching in Alsace (1348-9), while the black pest was raging in Germany, he returned to his country (1350), a little before the death of Margaretha Ebner. We then find him in communication with the aged Christina Ebner of Engelthal, but after 1352 nothing more is heard of him.

His works consist of a collection of fifty-eight letters, of which but one manuscript remains (British Museum). It is the first collection of letters, properly so called, in German literature, as the letters of Henry Suso, which are an earlier composition, are practically sermons, a title which they bear in many manuscripts. We remark in these letters the tender sympathetic soul of Henry, impressionable and burning with zeal for the practice of the interior life and union with God; they are not speculative, or deep meditations on mysticism; but rather with him all was sentiment. Of Henry's preaching in Basle and Alsace nothing has been handed down to us, if indeed anything was ever written. To his letters must be joined the translation from Low German into High German of the work of Mechtilde, now at Einsiedeln; but for him, this precious jewel of German literature would have been preserved to us only in a Latin translation, inaccurate and incomplete.

STRAUCH, Margaretha Ebner und Heinrich von Nördlingen (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1882); DENIFLE in Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, III (1882), 921; DE VILLERMONT, Un groupe mystique allemand (Brussels, 1907), 312, 423, etc.

J. DE GHELLINCK.

Henry of Rebdorf

Alleged author of an imperial and papal chronicle of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, is not an historical personage. The only connexion between the chronicle to which the name of Henry of Rebdorf has been attached and the foundation of the Augustinian canons at Rebdorf, near Eichstätt, Bavaria, lay in the fact that the first editor of the said chronicle published it from a manuscript preserved there, and now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, while other manuscripts, displaying no essential points of difference, are known to exist in the monastery of Neuburg and in the Hof-bibliothek at Vienna. Its title is: "Chronica", or "Annales rerum ab imperatoribus Adolpho, Alberto, Friderico, Ludovico Bavarico et Carolo IV. gestarum", or again "Annales imperatorum et paparum". It is a chronological treatise extending from 1294 to 1362, and consists of two parts. The first part is a sequel to what is called the" Flores Temporum", a well-known chronicle of the world's history compiled by a Swabian Franciscan, and reaches to the year 1343; it was probably compiled by an unknown writer about 1346 or 1347. The second part is a history of the twenty years from 1343 to 1363. Its author was the magister Heinrich Taub, or Heinrich der Taube (Heinrich the Deaf), or Henricus Surdus of Selbach, who officiated as chaplain at St. Willibald's in Eichstätt and died about 1364. Practically nothing has been learned of his life. We only know that he journeyed to Rome in 1350, for the purpose of gaining the jubilee indulgence, and that in 1361 he admired at Nuremberg the crown jewels then exhibited in honour of the christening of the new-born imperial prince, Wenceslaus. Various conjectures have been made as to the personality of the author, but nothing certain has been established. The chronicle itself, particularly in its second part, has some importance, and was first edited by Freher in "Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores", I, 411-52 (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1600); 2nd ed., 1634; again by Gewold (Ingolstadt, 1618); later by Struve (Strasburg, 1717), and finally by Böhmer-Huber in "Fontes rerum Germanicarum", IV (1868), 507-68. It was translated into German under the title: "Annales Imperatorum et Paparum Eistettenses", by Dieringer (Eichstätt, 1883); also by Grandaur in the "Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit" (Leipzig, 1883).

SCHULTE, Die sogenannte Chronik des Heinrich von Rebdorf. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde des 14. Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1879).

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

Blessed Henry of Segusio

Usually called Hostiensis, an Italian canonist of the thirteenth century, born at Susa (in the ancient Diocese of Turin); died at Lyons, 25 October, 1271.

He gave himself up to the study of Roman law and canon law at Bologna, where he seems to have taught, and to have taken his degree "utriusque juris". He taught canon law at Paris, and spent some time in England, whence King Henry III sent him on a mission to Innocent IV.

Later he became Provost of Antibes, and chaplain to the pope and was soon promoted to the See of Sisteron (1244), afterwards to the Archdiocese of Embrun (1250). He became Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and Velletri, 4 December, 1261, whence his name Hostiensis. His health forced him to leave the conclave which, after the Holy See had been vacant for three years, elected Gregory X (1271-1276).

As a canonist Hostiensis had a great reputation. His works are:

• Lectura in Decretales Gregorii IX (Strasburg, 1512; Paris, 1512), a work begun at Paris but continued during his whole life
• Summa super titulis Decretalium (Strasburg, 1512; Cologne, 1612; Venice, 1605), also known as Summa archiepiscopi or Summa aurea; written while he was Archbishop of Embrun, a useful work on Roman and canon law, which won for its author the title "Monarcha juris, lumen lucidissimum Decretorum". One portion of this work, the Summa, sive tractatus de poenitentia et remissionibus was very popular. It was written between 1250 and 1261
• Lectura in Decretales Innocentii IV, which was never edited.

A work on feudal law has also been attributed to him, but without foundation.

A. VAN HOVE

Robert Henryson

Scottish poet, born probably 1420-1430; died about 1500.

His birthplace, parentage, and place of education are unknown, but it is conjectured that he may have been at some foreign university -- perhaps Paris or Louvain.

Little, also, is known of his later life. The earliest extant edition of his Fables (1570) described him on its title-page as "Scholemaister of Dunfermeling". It is probable that he was a master at the Benedictine school of the Abbey of Dunfermline, was in minor orders, and a notary public of that town. In 1462 he seems to have been admitted as a member of the newly-founded University of Glasgow.

The order or the date of composition of his poems is not known. As a poet he belongs to the group of Northern or Scottish Chaucerians, who, at a time when poetry in England was at a very low ebb, were practising the art of verse in a way worthy of the followers of Chaucer. Amongst these poets Henryson stands out as especially original -- perhaps the most truly Chaucerian of them all.

His work shows much variety and consists of two rather long poems, the Testament of Cresseid, and Orpheus and Eurydice, of a collection of Morall Fabillis of Esope, with a prologue attached - and of a number of miscellaneous shorter poems, of which the pastoral dialogue of Robene and Makyne is the best known.

All these poems are remarkable, and sometimes of high poetic power. The Testament of Cresseid, in the well-known rhyme-royal seven line stanza, is a not unworthy tragic sequel to Chaucer's Troylus. The thirteen pastoral Fables, also in rhyme-royal, are told with great freshness, humour, and directness, and the moral of each does not lose by being kept artistically separate from the story. The pastoral Robene and Makyne is, however, generally ranked as his most artistic achievement. Henryson, like all the Scottish Chaucerians, was a true lover of nature, which he describes carefully and vividly.

His Fables were re-edited by Gregory Smith, for the Scottish Text Society, in 1906.

K. M. WARREN

Blessed Henry Suso

(Also called Amandus, a name adopted in his writings). German mystic, born at Constance on 21 March, about 1295; died at Ulm, 25 January, 1366; declared Blessed in 1831 by Gregory XVI, who assigned his feast in the Dominican Order to 2 March.

HIS LIFE

His father belonged to the noble family of Berg; his mother, a holy woman from whom he took his name, to a family of Sus (or Süs). When thirteen years of age he entered the Dominican convent at Constance, where he made his preparatory, philosophical, and theological studies.

From 1324 to 1327 he took a supplementary course in theology in the Dominican studium generale at Cologne, where he sat at the feet of Johann Eckhart, "the Master", and probably at the side of Tauler, both celebrated mystics. Returning to Constance, he was appointed to the office of lector, from which he seems to have been removed some time between 1329 and 1334. In the latter year he began his apostolic career. About 1343 he was elected prior of a convent, probably at Diessenhofen. Five years later he was sent from Constance to Ulrn where he remained until his death.

Suso's life as a mystic began in his eighteenth year, when giving up his careless habits of the five preceding years, he made himself "the Servant of the Eternal Wisdom", which he identified with the Divine essence and, in a concrete form, with the personal Eternal Wisdom made man. Henceforth a burning love for the Eternal Wisdom dominated his thoughts and controlled his actions. He had frequent visions and ecstasies, practised severe austerities (which he prudently moderated in maturer years), and bore with rare patience corporal afflictions, bitter persecutions and grievous calumnies.

He became foremost among the Friends of God in the work of restoring religious observance in the cloisters. His influence was especially strong in many convents of women, particularly in the Dominican convent of Katherinenthal, a famous nursery of mysticism in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and in that of Toss, where lived the mystic Elsbeth Stagel, who turned some of his Latin into German, collected and preserved most of his extant letters, and drew from him the history of his life which he himself afterwards developed and published.

In the world he was esteemed as a preacher, and was heard in the cities and towns of Swabia, Switzerland, Alsace, and the Netherlands. His apostolate, however, was not with the masses, but rather with individuals of all classes who were drawn to him by his singularly attractive personality, and to whom he became a personal director in the spiritual life.

It has often been incorrectly said that he established among the Friends of God a society which he called the Brotherhood of the Eternal Wisdom. The so-called Rule of the Brotherhood of the Eternal Wisdom is but a free translation of a chapter of his "Horologium Sapientiae", and did not make its appearance until the fifteenth century.

HIS WRITINGS

The first writing from the pen of Suso was the "Büchlein der Wahrheit", which he issued while a student at Cologne. Its doctrine was unfavourably criticized in some circles -- very probably on account of its author's close relations with Eckhart, who had just been called upon to explain or to reject certain propositions -- but it was found to be entirely orthodox.

As in this, so in his other writings Suso, while betraying Eckhart's influence, always avoided the errors of "the Master". The book was really written in part against the pantheistic teachings of the Beghards, and against the libertine teachings of the Brethren of the Free Spirit. Father Denifle considers it the most difficult "little book" among the writings of the German mystics.

Whereas in this book Suso speaks as a contemplative and to the intellect, in his next, "Das Büchlein der ewigen Weisheit", published early in 1328, he is eminently practical and speaks out of the fullness of his heart to "simple men who still have imperfections to be put off". Bihlmeyer accepts Denifle's judgment that it is the "most beautiful fruit of German mysticism", and places it next to the "Homilies" of St. Bernard, and the "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas à Kempis. In the second half of the fourteenth and in the fifteenth century there was no more widely read meditation book m the German language.

In 1334 Suso translated this work into Latin, but in doing so added considerably to its contents, and made of it an almost entirely new book, to which he gave the name "Horologium Sapientiae". Even more elevating than the original, finished in language, rich in figure, rhythmic in movement, it became a favourite book in the cloisters at the close of the Middle Ages, not only in Germany, but also in the Netherlands, France, Italy, and England.

To the same period of Suso's literary activity may belong "Das Minnebüchlein" but its authenticity is doubtful.

After retiring to Ulm Suso wrote the story of his inner life ("Vita" or "Leben Seuses"), revised the "Büchlein der Wahrheit", and the "Büchlein der ewigen Weisheit", all of which, together with eleven of his letters (the " Briefbüchlein"), and a prologue, he formed into one book known as the "Exemplar Seuses".

Besides the above-mentioned writings we have also five sermons by Suso and a collection of twenty-eight of his letters (Grosses Briefbuch), which may be found in Bihlmeyer's edition.

Suso is called by Wackernagel and others a "Minnesinger in prose and in the spiritual order." The mutual love of God and man which is his principal theme gives warmth and colour to his style. He used the full and flexible Alamannian idiom with rare skill, and contributed much to the formation of good German prose, especially by giving new shades of meaning to words employed to describe inner sensations. His intellectual equipment was characteristic of the schoolmen of his age. In his doctrine there was never the least trace of an unorthodox tendency.

For centuries he exercised an influence upon spiritual writers. Among his readers and admirers were Thomas à Kempis and Bl. Peter Canisius.

A.L. McMahon

Prince Henry the Navigator

Born 4 March, 1394; died 13 November, 1460; he was the fourth son of John I, King of Portugal, by Queen Philippa, a daughter of John of Gaunt. In 1415 he commanded the expedition which captured Ceuta, Portugal's first oversea conquest, and there won his knightly spurs. Three years later he went to the assistance of the town, when it was besieged by a Moorish army, and twice afterwards fought in Africa. He was responsible for a disastrous attack on Tangier in 1437, which caused the captivity and death of his brother Fernando (Blessed Ferdinand), "the Constant Prince", while at the end of his life, in 1458, he took part in the capture of Alcacer. On the death of his brother, King Duarte, Henry acted as intermediary between his brother Pedro, who claimed the regency, and Queen Leonor, to whom it had been left by her husband, and he greatly promoted the success of Pedro's claim. But when, later on, Pedro's vaulting ambition led him into conflict with King Affonso V, Henry was unable to save him from defeat and death at the battle of Alfarrobeira. It is not, however, as a man of war or of politics that Henry has won fame, but as the initiator of continuous maritime exploration.

Fulfilling the mission of the Military Order of Christ, of which he was Grand Master, his ships carried on a constant war against the infidels, and in one of the voyages (1418) Zarco by chance discovered the Madeira Islands. Henry had entered on his career of discovery immediately after the fall of Ceuta, and his objects were:

• (1) to know the country beyond Cape Bojador, the furthest limit of the known world on the west side of Africa;
• (2) to open up trade relations;
• (3) to learn the extent of the Mohammedan power;
• (4) to find a Christian prince who would aid him in his crusading work (he had heard of Prester John);
• (5) to spread the Christian Faith.

To achieve these objects, his swift caravels made continual voyages down the African coast, and in 1434, after twelve years of failures, one of his seamen, Gil Eannes, bolder than the rest, and inspired by his master's zeal and generosity, doubled the terrible Cape. From that date events move quickly, and Henry, while still bearing in mind his crusading ideal, became more and more an explorer for the sake of knowledge, though he also endeavoured to draw commercial profit from the new-found Lands which would recoup his order for the vast expense of the voyages. He showed his scientific sagacity by obtaining from some captured natives (Azenegues) sufficient information about the Senegal to enable his men to recognize it when they reached it; moreover, he not only studied the ancient geographers and medieval maps, but engaged an expert map and instrument-maker, Jayme of Majorca, so that his explorers might have the best nautical information. This last incident probably accounts for the legend of the School of Sagres, which is now discredited. Though Henry certainly spent much time in the Algarve, of which province he was governor, the centre of his maritime activity was not Sagres or the Villa do Infante, but Lagos, where nearly all the early expeditions were equipped.

In 1436 Affonso Baldaya reached the Rio do Ouro and went 300 miles beyond Bojador; in 1441 Antam Gonçalves brought back the first captives, and Nuno Tristam penetrated as far as Cape Branco, and a year later to Arguim Bay; while in 1445 Dinis Diaz discovered Cape Verde. In two subsequent voyages, Cadamosto (1455-6) and Diogo Gomes (1458-60) explored the Senegal and the Gambia, and sailed down the coast as far as Sierra Leone. But this and the finding of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands was all the result Prince Henry saw, for he died in November, 1460, deeply in debt as the price of his lifelong service to the cause of Christianity and science. The finding of the road to India by Vasco da Gama, which completed Henry's work, and the discovery of America, to which Columbus was inspired by the achievements of Henry and his successors, led to a greater spread of the Faith than the Prince could have imagined. By his voyages he removed the imagined terrors of the deep and, in the words of Azurara, "joined East to West, that the peoples might learn to exchange their riches". Under his ægis were established the first exploring and commercial companies of modern times, and, though he has been reproached with encouraging slavery, it must be remembered that the age saw no harm in the traffic; that the Africans who were brought to Portugal by his captains were employed in domestic offices and fairly treated, and that nearly all of them became Christians. If the men who carried on his work fell short of his high ideals, Henry at least lived up to the very letter of his device, Talant de bien faire, "the desire to do well".

MAJOR, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal (London, 1868); ID., Discoveries of Prince Henry the Navigator (London, 1877); BEAZLEY, Prince Henry the Navigator (New York and London, 1895); AZURARA, Chronica de Guiné (Paris, 1841), and tr. by BEAZLEY AND PRESTAGE, The Chronicle of Guinea (2 vols., London, 1896-9); OLIVEIRA MARTINS, Os Filhos de D. Joäo I. (Oporto, 1891); Alguns Documentos da Torre do Tombo acerça das Navegaçãoes e Conquistas Portuguezas (Lisbon, 1892;) DE VEER. Prinz Heinrich der Seefahrer (Danzig, 1864); DE SOUSA HOLSTEIN, A Escola de Sagres (Lisbon, 1877). BOURNE, Prince Henry the Navigator in Yale Review (1894); RUGE, Prinz Heinrich der Seefahrer in Globus (1894), LXVI; MEES, Henri le Navigateur (Brussels, 1901).

EDGAR PRESTAGE.

Godfrey Henschen

(Or Henskens.)

Jesuit, hagiographer; b. at Venray (Limburg), 21 June, 1601; d. at Antwerp, 11 Sept., 1681. The son of Henry Henschen, a cloth merchant, and Sibylla Pauwels, he studied the humanities at the Jesuit College of Bois-le-Duc ('s Hertogenbosch) and entered the novitiate at Mechlin, 22 Oct., 1619. He taught successively Greek, poetry, and rhetoric at Bergues, Bailleul, Ypres, and Ghent, and was ordained priest on 16 April, 1634, sent to the professed house at Antwerp the following year, and admitted to the profession of the four vows on 12 May, 1636. From the time of his arrival in the city he was associated as collaborator with Father Bollandus, who was then preparing the first volumes of the "Acta Sanctorum". As has been said in speaking of this collection (see Bolandists), it was Henschen who, by his commentary on the Acts of St. Amand, suggested to Bolandus the course to follow, and gave to the scientific work undertaken by his learned master its definitive form. The same article speaks of the literary journey, undertaken by Henschen in company with Father Papebroch, to Italy, France, and Germany (22 July, 1660-21 December, 1662). He collaborated on the volumes for January, February, March, and April, and on the first six volumes for May, that is on seventeen volumes of the "Acta Sanctorum". Several of his posthumous commentaries appeared in the succeeding volumes. A list of some other works from his pen will be found in De Backer's "Bibliothèque des escrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus". Henschen was the first librarian of the museum Bollandianum at Antwerp.

Papebroch, De vitâ, operibus, et virtutibus God. Henschenii in Acta SS., VII, May; Habets, Godfried Henschenius medestichter der Acta Sanctorum (Maastricht, 1868).

HIPPOLYTE DELEHAYE

Luise Hensel

Poetess and convert; born at Linum, 30 March, 1798; died. at Paderborn, 18 December, 1876. Her father was Johann Hensel, Lutheran parson at Linum in the Mark of Brandenburg. After the father's death in 1809, the mother with her son and three daughters returned to her birthplace, Berlin, where the family dwelt, at first in somewhat needy circumstances. Luise attended the high school (Realschule), now the Elisabethschule, showing extraordinary talent. In consequence of the religious teaching there, she conceived doubts as to the truth of the Lutheran creed. When she was about to be confirmed (on 31 March, 1813), she made the following compact with God: "that by this act I only embrace Christianity in general and renew the covenant of my baptism, but that I in no way agree to bind myself to any creed concerning which I am not convinced as to whether or not it is the Church established by Christ". The political events in 1813 inspired several fervid patriotic poems. Three years later she for the first time made the acquaintance of a Catholic, Klemens Brentano. It was the poet himself who during the "Storm and Stress" period was the first to profit by this intercourse; he became once more a devout Catholic and accordingly he justly called his friend "the angel in the wilderness". Luise's gradual approach to the Catholic Church ended in her conversion, which came about, without creating the slightest sensation, on 8 December, 1818, in the Hedwigskirche, Berlin. Her subsequent career was like a perpetual journey. She left Berlin and became companion to the Princess Salm in Münster and Düsseldorf. Then (in 1820) she undertook the education of the three youngest daughters of Count von Stolberg, holding the same relation to her nephew in Wiedenbrück (Westphalia) in 1823; then, after a short sojourn in Coblenz and on the Marienberg near Boppard, she took the position of head teacher of the St. Leonard's Academy for girls at Aachen, which she held for six years. She was obliged to give up this abundantly blest activity owing to ill health and returned to her brother's pleasant home in Berlin, where she nursed her aging mother until the death of the latter in 1835. Then began another period of wandering activity in educational fields: in the seminary at Neuburg (1840-41), in Cologne (1841-50), then again in Wiedenbrück. Finally she settled in the convent of the Society of the Daughters of Christian Love at Paderborn, where the foundress, Pauline von Malinckrodt, a former pupil of hers, had set aside a home for her. There she passed the twilight of her pious life in peaceful retirement, without becoming a member of the order.

Her poetic works consist of more or less religious verses composed for special occasions. They were published in various places. Unfortunately her modesty would not admit of a complete edition of her writings. The most just and impartial judgment on her muse has been passed by R. M. Meyer in his "Deutsche Literatur des 19. Jahrhunderts" (1906, p. 79). "In her pious humility she compares herself in one place to an ugly little vase in which beautiful flowers have been put: God's special grace; it was preeminently by His grace that every prayer became a poem to her, and each poem a prayer. The result was a rich bouquet of pious songs, the impressive simplicity of which reminds one of the old songs of the Church. She wrote with little care, scribbling her verses on scraps of paper. But thousands and tens of thousands found edification in those simple prayers, a tribute denied to the admirable, spiritual poems of her friend Klemens." The most important edition of her poems is that by C. Schlüter (Paderborn, 1869), several times reprinted.

ROSENTHAL in Konvertitenbilder; REINKENS (Old Catholic Bishop), Luise Hensel und ihre Lieder (Bonn, 1877), partisan in tone, as is also IDEM, in Allgem. deutsche Biog.; BARTSCHER, Der innere Lebensgang der Dichterin Luise Hensel nach den Aufzeichnungen in ihren Tagebüchern (Paderborn, 1882); KEITER, Zeitgenössische Kath. Dichter Deutschlands (Paderborn, 1884); BINDER, Ein Lebensbild nach gedructken und ungedruckten Quellen (Freiburg im Br., 1885); DIEL, Clemens Brentano (Freiburg im Br., 1878), especially Vol. II.

N. SCHEID.

John Henten

John Henton, Biblical exegete, born 1499 at Nalinnes Belgium; died 10 Oct., 1566, at Louvain. When quite young he took the vows of religion in the Hieronymite Order in Spain, but left it about 1548 to enter the Dominican Order at Louvain, where he had gained a name at the university for sound scholarship. In 1550 he began to teach in the Dominican convent of that city, in which he became regent of studies three years later. He was made defender of the Faith and inquisitor in 1556. While prior of the Louvain convent he was chosen by the theological faculty of the university to take the place of John Hessel, Regius Professor of Sentences, who had been sent by the king to the Council of Trent, and was teaching at the university in 1565. Quétif and Echard (Script. Ord. Præd., II, 195-6) say that he was praised by the writers of his century, especially by William Seguier in "Laur. Beig.", pt. I, 5 Dec., no. I, p. 57. His principal writings are:

• (1) "Biblia Latina ad vetustissima exemplaria castigata" (Louvain, 1547, and many times elsewhere);
• (2) "Commentaria in quatuor Evangelia", consisting of commentaries by St. John Chrysostom and other early writers collected by Euthymius Zigabenus and interpreted by Henten (Louvain, 1544);
• (3) "Enarrationes in Acta Apost. et in Apocalypsin" (Louvain, 1845, and repeatedly elsewhere);
• (4) the same work, together with commentaries on the Epistles, as "Œcumenii commentaria in Acta Apost. etc." (Paris, 1631).

Arthur L. McMahon.

Heortology

(From the Greek heorte, festival, and logos, knowledge, discourse)

Heortology etymologically implies a relation to feasts or festivals in general, an exposition of their meaning. The word, however, is used to denote specifically the science of sacred festivals, embracing the principles of their origin, significance, and historical development, with reference to epochs or incidents in the Christian year.

P. J. MacAuley.

Hephæstus

A titular see of Augustamnica Prima, mentioned by Hierocles (Synecd., 727, 9), by George of Cyprus, and by certain rare documents, as among the thirteen towns of that province. It was a suffragan of Pelusium (see Parthey's "Notitia Prima" and the Coptic allusion to it published by J. de Rougé, in his "Géographie ancienne de la Basse Egypte" (Paris, 1891, 157). Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 547) mentions only two bishops: John, who took part in the two Councils of Ephesus (431 and 449), and Peter, present at the Council of Constantinople in 459. Both the native name of Hephæstus and its site are unknown.

GELZER, Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani (Leipzig, 1890), 112; SMITh, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Heptarchy

(Anglo- Saxon Heptarchy)

By the term heptarchy is understood that complexus of seven kingdoms, into which, roughly speaking, Anglo-Saxon Britain was divided for nearly three centuries, until at last the supremacy, about the year 829, fell definitely and finally into the hands of Wessex.

The use of the term is as old as the sixteenth century, and it is employed in Camden's "Britannia", but its propriety has been much questioned. One objection made against it is that, upon the analogy of other similar compounds, heptarchy ought strictly to mean a ruling body composed of seven persons. Another set of critics urge that during the period referred to there were often more than seven independent kingdoms in England, and still more frequently fewer. However, the retention of this loose term has been sanctioned by Stubbs and other modern historians on the ground of its obvious convenience; and, as Stubbs remarks, during the greater part of the early Saxon period "there were actually seven kingdoms of Germanic origin in the island".

The kingdoms in question were Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Essex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria; though in this last Deira and Bernicia were constantly regarded as separate kingdoms. Between these nominally independent states war, and as a consequence some measure of subjugation, was continually occurring. Moreover, it has to be admitted that in the early chronicles and charters persons who must have ruled over much smaller tracts of territory than are presupposed in this heptarchic division are also styled cyning (king) or rex. Edwin, King of Deira, a part of Northumbria, who was converted by St. Paulinus (c. 627), slew five "kings" when fighting against the Saxons. Again four kings were reigning at one and the same time in Sussex and three in Essex. There were also kings of the Hwiccas (Worcestershire and Warwickshire), as well as a separate Kingdom of the Middle Angles and of Lindsey.

As regards the reception of Christianity, the heptarchic kingdoms seem in a measure to have formed the earliest units of ecclesiastical organization, Kent of course being the first to accept the Gospel. But even here we find St. Augustine, before his death, consecrating St. Justin to be Bishop of Rochester, a second see within the Kingdom of Kent, at the same time that he consecrated St. Laurence to be his own successor at Canterbury, and St. Mellitus to be Bishop of London, which was included in the Kingdom of Essex.

There is of course a large literature dealing with the divisions of Anglo-Saxon England from the sixth to the ninth century. The subject of this article, so far as regards the nature of early kingship, is specially discussed in CHADWICK, Anglo-Saxon Institutions (London, 1905), 269-307. But see also LINGARD, Anglo-Saxon Church (London, 1845); GREEN, The Making of England (London, 1883); and for an exaggeratedly Anglican standpoint consult G. F. BROWNE, The Conversion of the Heptarchy.

HERBERT THURSTON

Heraclas

Bishop of Alexandria from 231 or 232; to 247 or 248. Of his earlier life Origen tells us, when defending his own philosophical studies (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xix): "In this we imitated Pantænus, who before our day assisted many and had no little knowledge of these matters, and Heraclas, who is now one of the priests of Alexandria, whom I found a hearer of my own teacher of philosophical studies, for he had already been with him for five years before I began to attend these lectures. On this teacher's account he put aside the ordinary dress he had worn till then, and assumed the garb of a philosopher, which he still wears, and he ceases not to study the books of the Greeks with all his might." Thus Heraclas was probably at least five years older than Origen, who was born in 185. Yet when Origen in his eighteenth year was obliged by his father's martyrdom and the consequent confiscation of his goods to commence teaching grammar (for a short time) and philosophy, Heraclas and his brother Plutarch were the first pupils of the young teacher. Origen converted them both to Christianity, and St. Plutarch soon suffered for the faith, being the first of Origen's pupils to gain the crown of martyrdom. Heraclas "gave a great example of philosophical life and askesis (ibid., vi, 33), and it was his reputation for knowledge of philosophy and Greek learning that drew Julius Africanus to visit Alexandria. In course of time Origen found his day so occupied by pupils that he had scarce breathing space from morn till eve, so that he chose Heraclas as his assistant in the catechetical school (of which he was himself now head in succession to Clement), to teach the beginners (ibid., vi, 15). Heraclas was made a priest by the long-lived Bishop Demetrius. When in 231 the latter condemned Origen, who remained at Cæsarea, Heraclas became head of the school. Soon afterwards he succeeded Demetrius as bishop. According to Theophilus of Alexandria (in Gennadius, "De vir. ill.", xxxiv), when Origen returned to the city, Heraclas deposed him from the priesthood and banished him (cf. the life of St. Pachomius in Acta SS., 14 May, §21, and the probably spurious "Mystagogia" of St. Alexander of Alexandria, in Routh's "Reliquiæ Sacræ", IV, 81). This statement is supported by an interesting fragment of Photius (Synag. kai apod.; 9), who probably had good authority. It runs as follows (Döllinger, "Hippol. und Kallist.", 264, Engl. transl. 245): "in the days of the most holy Heraclas, Origen, called Adamantius, was plainly expounding his own heresy on Wednesdays and Fridays; the said holy Heraclas therefore separated him from the Church and drove him from Alexandria, as a distorter of the wholesome doctrine and a perverter of the orthodox faith. Origen, thus excommunicated, on his way to Syria reached a city called Thmuis, which had an orthodox bishop named Ammonius, who committed to Origen the delivery of an instruction in his Church. The said Pope Heraclas, having heard this, went to Thmuis, deposed Ammonius for this cause, and set up in his stead as bishop a younger man named Philip, who was of great note among the Christians. Later on, Heraclas, being besought by the people of the city, received Ammonius again as bishop, and gave the episcopate of Thmuis to both Ammonius and Philip. But after the holy Heraclas had gone thence, Philip never sat upon the bishop's throne, but when Ammonius expounded or celebrated the liturgy, always stood behind him all the days of the life of Ammonius. But when the latter was dead, then Philip sat on the throne, and became one of the bishops remarkable for virtue." On the identification of this Ammonius with the author of the "Ammonian Sections", mentioned in the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus, see Harnack, "Chronol.", II, 81-2. Heraclas was succeeded in the third year of the Emperor Philip, by St. Dionysius, who had previously been his successor as head of the catechetical school. St. Dionysius describes the custom of Heraclas in receiving heretics into the Church without rebaptism, but only after a public examination of their conduct (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VII, vii, 4). Heraclas was inserted by Usuard in his martyrology on 14 July, and he has thus come into the Roman Martyrology on that day. The Copts and Ethiopians celebrate his feast on 4 Dec.

On the testimony of St. Jerome (Ep. xlvi) that "until Heraclas and Demetrius" the bishops of Alexandria were ordained by priests, see EGYPT (V). The latest discussion (with full bibliography) is by Cabrol in "Dict. d'archéol. chrét.". In close connexion with this question is the statement of Eutychius of Alexandria (933-40) that until Demetrius there was but one bishop for all Egypt; Demetrius established three suffragan sees, and Heraclas twenty more. Eutychius adds that one of the new bishops, named Eumenius (is this a mistake for Ammonius?), fell into error; Heraclas, having summoned a council of bishops, went to his city, examined the matter and brought him back to the truth. The people, hearing the bishops call their patriarch "Aba" (Father), entitled him their grandfather "Baba", hence the title "Papas" given to the Alexandrian as to the Roman bishop.

Acta SS., 14 July, and June, V (VII), Hist. Chronol. Patriarcham Alex.; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., II; HARNACK, Gesch. der altchr. Litt. I, 332, Chron., II, 24; SMITH AND WACE, Dict. of Christ. Biography, s. v.

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Heraclea

A titular see of Thracia Prima. Heraclea is the name given about four centuries before the Christian era to the town of Perinthus, a very ancient Samian colony, built like an amphitheatre on the hillside of a peninsula in the Propontis (Sea of Marmora). It became famous because of its resistance to Philip of Macedonia. Its port and its happy situation at the junction of several great sea-routes, made it a town of commercial importance. Many of its coins have come down to us, and give us information concerning the festivals held there. Justinian restored its aqueducts and a palace. It now forms part of the vilayet of Adrianople, has 2000 inhabitants, Turkish and Greek, and is known to the Turks as Eregli. The ruins of the ancient town of Heraclea are on a cape close to the modern one. Heraclea became a see at an early date: according to a Greek tradition it dates from apostolic times. It would seem that in the beginning the Bishop of Byzantium was under its jurisdiction. Later it appears to have had 5 suffragan sees, and this number gradually increased, to 15 and 17. A little before the Ottoman conquest the number stood at 6; then it fell to 5 once more; in our days it has but two (Myriophyton and Metræ.

The Metropolitan of Heraclea has retained the title of Exarch of Thrace and Macedonia. He resides at Rodosto and not at Eregli. It is his privilege to hand the newly appointed Patriarch of Constantinople his crozier. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, I, 1101 sqq.) gives a list of 48 titulars, which might easily be increased. Among the names are: St. Philip, martyr (feast 22 October); Pæderos, present at the Council of Nicæa in 325; Theodorus, an Arian, author of a commentary on the Scriptures, who played a rather important part between 335 and 351; Hypatius, a Semi-Arian, deposed in 365; Dorotheus, an Arian, 366; Sabinus, a Macedonian; John, the friend and correspondent of Photius; Nicetas, eleventh century, a writer of commentaries and other works; Pinacas, who accepted the union with Rome proclaimed at Lyons in 1274; Philotheus, a Palamite, Patriarch of Constantinople in 1354; Antonius, who signed the Union at Florence; Neophytus, Joannicius, Methodius, and Callinicus, Patriarchs of Constantinople in 1636, 1646, 1668, and 1726. At one time Heraclea treasured the relics of St. Glyceria, a virgin martyred at Trani (feast 13 May). In the thirteenth century Heraclea had Latin bishops in residence (Lequien, "Or. Christ.", III, 965; Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii ævi", I, 283). Three other towns bearing the same name were episcopal sees; two in Caria, suffragans of Stauropolis, and the Heraclea of Pontus in Honorias, suffragan of Claudiopolis.

CLARKE, Travels, VIII, 122 sqq.; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Ecclesiastical Heraldry

Ecclesiastical heraldry naturally divides itself into various branches, principally: the arms of religious corporations, and other bodies; the insignia of ecclesiastical dignity, rank, or office; the charges, terms, and forms of general heraldry having a religious or ecclesiastical origin, usage, or character; the emblems or devices attributed to or typifying particular saints or other beings venerated by the Church. Intermingled with all these categories is their symbolism, real, suggested, or imaginary; and deeply interwoven, more especially in relation to the insignia of ecclesiastical rank, lies the consideration of ecclesiastical vestments.

THE ORIGIN OF HERALDRY

In general

The origin of heraldry itself is still shrouded in much mystery. It is really a development and conjunction of three ideas, none of which alone can be regarded as heraldry.

• First came the mere personal device or emblem indicative of the individual, an idea traceable through the standards of the children of Israel, through the devices of the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians, attributed both to real and mythical personages, and through the totems of the savage.
• Next came the decorative idea of the indication of ownership evolving itself in one direction into the authentication of the seal by its device.
• Lastly came the military necessity of proclaiming identity when armour rendered ready recognition difficult; and imposed upon the combination of these ideas was evolved the heredity or continuity of these emblems, by which time heraldry was a perfected and (for the necessities of the period) a completed science, used everywhere upon seals, banners, shields, and surcoats.

It is universally admitted that armory, as we now understand the term, did not exist at the time of the Norman conquest of England. By the end of the twelfth century it had become general throughout England, France, Italy, and Germany, and no doubt it was due to the common meeting-ground of the Christian nations at and during the Crusades that the fundamental principles of the science of heraldry are and have always been cosmopolitan.

Ecclesiastical heraldry

There is no hard and fast dividing line between heraldry in general and ecclesiastical heraldry -- each has the same origin, the same lines of coeval development -- but the application of heraldry to ecclesiastical purposes first occurs in the appearance of armorial bearings of a personal and family nature on ecclesiastical seals, and of sacred or saintly devices upon vestments and ecclesiastical banners. The latter influence is of less importance because it was more ephemeral and more in the nature of pure symbolism than of armory.

The earliest ecclesiastical seals -- nearly all, in early times, vesica-shaped, as they have continued to the present day -- bore the bust, half-length or full effigy of the owner of the seal. So, at that period, did the seals of non-ecclesiastics upon which are the mounted effigies of knight and noble with (as they developed) the armorial shield and bardings fully displayed. Then we get, from about 1300, the seal showing no more than the shield of arms, and concurrently the ecclesiastical seal progressed through the canopied effigy with the shield of arms in the base to the later form with heraldic achievement and legend alone. Ecclesiastical heraldry simply progressed coevally and upon the same lines as heraldry in general.

The earliest ecclesiastical seals were unquestionably purely personal, bearing the effigy, arms, or device of bishop or abbot respectively, as the case might be, but, in England at any rate, the "Statutum de apportis religiosorum" of 1307 (35 Edward I) enacted that every religious house should have a common seal, and that all grants made to which this common seal was not affixed should be null and void. With the common seal of a community came the idea of an impersonal coat of arms for that community, but as there is no definite date at which such common seals became armorial so there is no common origin from which the devices were drawn.

It has been a matter of keen controversy in England at what date control was effectively exercised by the sovereign authority in matters armorial. It can be definitely carried back to the beginning of the fourteenth century; but in matters of religion the appeal was to Rome and not to the temporal sovereign, and there is little, if indeed any, evidence of a regularized control of ecclesiastical heraldry before the date of the Reformation. For this reason the arms of abbeys and priories have little of the exactitude that characterizes other heraldry of the period, and we find that in England, as in all other countries, the personal arms of donors, benefactors, or predecessors in office were constantly impressed into service for the purpose of impersonal arms of a community. In some cases (e.g., in the case of the arms of the See of Hereford) even these personal arms became stereotyped by repetition of usage into the impersonal arms of the office or community, though of course many, perhaps the majority, from the character of the charges and devices which make up the coat of arms, are obviously designed for, and indicative of, the purpose they serve and the community for which they may stand.

A large number of ecclesiastical, as of other public, coats of arms, are based upon the figures and effigies of patron saints originally used and represented as such and without heraldic intention. The natural consequence is that in many cases of religious communities there are two or more entirely different coats of arms doing duty indifferently. Impersonal arms of this character were borne for the sees, episcopal and archiepiscopal, and for the abbeys and priories, and for the religious orders. These arms, regarded merely as coats of arms in all matters of heraldic rule and blazon, conform to the ordinary rules and laws of general armoury so far as these may concern them; nor in character do they in any way differ therefrom, save in matters of external ornament.

One point, however, may he alluded to here. The shield is the ordinary vehicle of a coat of arms. It is obviously and essentially a military instrument, and the supposedly peace-loving ecclesiastic has often preferred to substitute for the shield the oval cartouche (Figure 1). In some countries, notably Italy, Spain, and France, the use of the cartouche for ecclesiastical purposes has been very general, but with the recognition of this ecclesiastical preference for the cartouche, it should not be overlooked that the laity have also made occasional use of it for purely personal armory and that the usage of the shield for ecclesiastics is too universally general at all periods for any suggestion of impropriety to follow its use in preference to the cartouche.

IMPERSONAL ARMS

England

Although England is a Protestant country, and her post-Reformation ecclesiastical heraldry is devoid of any subsequent Roman developments, nevertheless the official control of armory in that country has been and has remained more efficient and effective than the control in any other country, and when in England the temporal power assumed the headship of the Anglican Church, and in consequence the control of her heraldry, the armorial practice existing at that date was stereotyped and has since remained unaltered. For that reason the English law concerning episcopal arms may well be considered as indicative of the reality at a period when heraldry was of greater importance than at present.

The official arms of a bishop appertain neither to him personally nor to his rank. They attach to his jurisdiction as a part of the State and the State-established religion. For that reason a suffragan bishop (corresponding to what is known among Catholics as a bishop auxiliary), though possessing a local titular description, has no official coat of arms. For the same reason, on the disestablishment of the Scottish and Irish Episcopalian Churches the arms of the sees in law became extinct and are officially no longer recognized, although a number of prelates of those churches continue to use them. (Woodward, by the way, states that all the Irish Episcopalian arms are post-Reformation.)

For this same technical reason the English Crown declines to grant arms of office for any of the sees established in the United Kingdom by the Holy See, although request therefor with a tender of the proper fees has been made on several occasions. The result is that Catholic bishops in England, as in some other countries, use only personal arms with their exterior insignia of rank. In the case of the archiepiscopal See of Westminster arms were granted by papal Brief, but this is a solitary instance, and no official recognition of them has been made by the temporal authorities. In the registration of the personal arms of His Eminence the late Cardinal Vaughan, in the College of Arms in London, and in the matriculation of the personal arms of the Rt. Rev. Æneas Chisholm, Bishop of Aberdeen, no objection was made to the registration of the red hat of the cardinal and the green hat of the bishop.

As examples of official ecclesiastical arms, Figure 2 represents the arms of the Anglican See of Hereford; (Plate I, Figure B), the arms of the Archbishopric of Cologne, and Figure 3 the arms of the Abbey of Melk. These official arms, in the earliest cases borne upon a separate shield from the personal arms, are now at the pleasure of the individual borne alone or marshalled with his personal arms upon a single shield. In England it has always been customary when marshalling official with personal arms to do so by impalement and in no other manner, the official arms taking the precedence on the dexter side (Figure 4).

A curious consequence of the English Reformation with its abolition of the necessity of celibacy is to be found in the marshalling of the arms of a married (Anglican) bishop. This is never done upon a single shield. Two are used placed accollé. On the dexter shield the official arms of the see are impaled with the personal arms of the bishop and on the sinister shield these personal arms are impaled with those of the wife (Figure 5).

Italy

In Italy most of the sees have official arms, but these are not often made use of, but when they are used they frequently occupy the upper, or "chief", portion of a shield divided per fesse.

Germany

In Germany the official and personal arms, though sometimes marshalled by impalement, are usually quartered, the official coat being placed in the first and fourth quarters. Where several sees are united in one person the various official arms are quartered, and the personal arms are placed en surtout; but on the contrary, where the personal arms consist of a quartered coat the official arms will sometimes be found en surtout, which illustrates a diversity of practice to which the English rigid exactitude of rule would seem preferable.

France

In France the ecclesiastical peers (the Archbishop-Duke of Reims, the Bishop-Dukes of Laon and Langres, and the Bishop-Counts of Beauvais, Chalons, and Noyons) all had official arms which they sometimes quartered and sometimes impaled with their personal arms.

The Holy See

Strictly speaking there are no official arms for the papal sovereignty. Although the crossed keys of St. Peter displayed upon an azure field, have occasionally been used for that purpose, and with such intention, they are more properly a device in the nature of external ornaments to the shield, and as such will be again referred to later.

PERSONAL ARMS

In relation to the use of personal arms, although in England the ordinary rule and practice were usually observed, elsewhere an ecclesiastic seldom made use of any marks of cadency. Even marks of bastardy are found to have been discarded. The reason is simply that, ecclesiastics being celibate, there would be no descendants to claim pedigree whom it would be necessary to place correctly in a family, whilst for the individual concerned his ecclesiastical ornaments of rank were sufficient distinction. But the omission of cadency marks does not appear to have been a matter of universally accepted rule.

The chief distinction in the bearing of personal arms by an ecclesiastic is found in the use of the mitre, the crosier, and the ecclesiastical hat. Though there are a few examples which might be mentioned of the use of the biretta, both scarlet and black, these may be regarded as merely freaks based upon personal inclination.

The ecclesiastical hat

The heraldic use of the ecclesiastical hat undoubtedly originates in the red hat of the cardinal, which, as a vestment, dates from 1245. The sending of the actual hat was of course a matter of ceremony and of importance, and for that reason the armorial use of the hat as indicative of the rank was a foregone conclusion.

Its heraldic use dates from the early part of the fourteenth century. There is abundant evidence in England of this heraldic use before the Reformation, but the writer is unaware of a single instance in which any other ecclesiastical hat than that of a cardinal was ever employed heraldically. This would seem to show, as was indeed the fact, that the extended use of the ecclesiastical hat was a subsequent development even in Italy and France, though it must be admitted that in Spain the green hat of bishops and archbishops had had some usage since 1400, a practice which grew in that country, where it was an alternative, and preferred to the use elsewhere of the cross and mitre.

In the seventeenth century the use of the ecclesiastical hat for the lower ranks of the Church became, as it has since remained, fairly universal. The ecclesiastical hat is low, flat, wide-brimmed and depending from either side are cords and tassels. Though usually referred to as tassels, they are sometimes termed houppes or fiocci. Originally the number of tassels was indeterminate, the natural consequence of the exclusive use of the hat by cardinals; there are even examples to be found in which no tassels are shown, the strings of the hat being simply knotted. But in early representations six tassels on either side are most usually to be found, these being arranged in three rows containing one, two, and three tassels respectively. In later times, with the extension of the use of the ecclesiastical hat, differentiation was made both in the colour and in the number of the tassels, but in attempting to make use of such differentiation it should be remembered that even after an established rule and usage had come into being adhesion thereto was far from being universal.

In the Catholic clergy and in the Anglican as well (where many of the archbishops have preferred and assumed the coroneted mitre of the Bishop of Durham) there seems to have been a constant desire to appropriate more than belonged to them of right. In the armorial display made by ecclesiastics there is a far greater amount of bogus and incorrect heraldry than is to be met with elsewhere.

The assumption of personal arms by those of plebeian birth and the invention of arms of office where none have been assigned by any competent authority, bring armory into grave disrepute, and its study into hopeless confusion. Some excuse may be urged in mitigation in America and other republican countries which do not officially countenance the granting and creation of arms, which is admittedly an attribute of sovereignty, but there is no such excuse as to personal arms in monarchical countries, as the religious sovereignty of the papacy is universal and surely sufficient to apply what may be lacking in matters which are purely ecclesiastical. But to this unfortunate habit of the ecclesiastical mind is due the fact that in a very large number of cases it will be found that, whatever the rank, one more row of tassels has been added than should be the case.

The rules which follow are those which are recognized in Rome, and in recent years there has been a healthy reversion in many cases to the proper procedure in matters heraldic.

• Scarlet hat
  • The cardinal's hat is scarlet and has on either side fifteen tassels arranged in five rows of one, two, three, four, and five tassels respectively (Plate I, Figure C and Plate II, Figure C).
• The green hat is employed by patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and archabbots.
  • The patriarch has fifteen tassels, as a cardinal, but the cords and tassels of a patriarch's hat are interwoven with gold (S. Congr. Cærem., 3 Nov., 1826).
  • An archbishop has ten tassels arranged in four rows of one, two, three, and four respectively (Plate I, Figure B).
  • A bishop (Plate II, Figure D) has six tassels on each side arranged in three rows of one, two, and three respectively. But as far back as the seventeenth century bishops were using ten tassels, and a hat with that number appears in the matriculation of the arms of the Bishop of Aberdeen previously referred to.
  • Archabbots possess episcopal rank and use the same hat as a bishop.
• Black hat
  • Generals of orders are assigned six tassels.
  • Three tassels are assigned to provosts, mitred abbots, and provincial superiors of orders (Plate II, Figure E).
  • Two tassels are assigned to local superiors (prior guardian, and rector).
  • The ordinary ecclesiastical hat of the simple priest is black, but of the same shape, and had originally on either side a single tassel of the same colour (Figure 6) but following upon the ecclesiastical habit of taking the next higher emblem than was proper the single tassel later developed into a double one (Figure 7). This practice has been followed so widely that one almost hesitates to say it is wrong, and there has been a subsequent unauthorized progression to three tassels arranged in two rows of one and two on either side. Nevertheless, the rules for the black hat which are recognized in Rome assign a single tassel to the simple priest.
• White hat
  • The General of the Order of the Premonstratensians (White Canons) uses a white hat with six white tassels.
• Violet hat
  • The prelates of the papal chamber use a violet hat with ten red tassels on either side.
  • Apostolic prothonotaries are entitled to a violet hat with six red tassels at each side.
  • Domestic prelates, privy chamberlains, and privy chaplains of His Holiness have a violet hat with six violet tassels.
  • Honourary chamberlains and chaplains have the violet hat, but only three violet tassels.

The heraldic mitre is placed above the arms of all persons who in the Catholic, Eastern, Anglican, or Episcopalian Churches are in theory or fact entitled to wear the mitre. Archbishops and bishops use it. Most abbots use it and did in England before the Reformation, though some abbots are not mitred abbots and have therefore no justification for its display. The mitre as a vestment, of course long antedates the existence of heraldry, and in fact exists in three forms, termed respectively pretiosa, auriferata and simplex.

The auriferata (which is made of cloth of gold or of thin gold plates, and is not jewelled) is the one always used in English heraldry for an Anglican bishop or archbishop. The shape of the heraldic mitre has varied somewhat according to the varying styles of heraldic art in vogue, and there is at present a tendency to revert to the ancient wider and lower shape in armorial representations. It is always represented as of gold, and the lappets or infulæ depending from within it are of the same colour (Figure 8). It has been asserted that in pre-Reformation usage a distinction was drawn between the mitre of a bishop and an abbot by the omission in the case of the latter of the infulæ. Certainly, in England and France it was usual, for heraldic purposes, to place the mitre of an abbot slightly in profile. In most continental countries it has been more usual to represent the mitre of white ornamented with gold, no doubt an attempt to represent the pretiosa mitre, which, though heavily jewelled, is really on a foundation of gold. The representation of the simplex mitre cannot be intended, as this is really of plain white linen. In spite of many statements to the contrary, the mitre (in fact and heraldically) of bishop and an archbishop are identical.

The cornoneted mitre

The coroneted mitre (Figure 9), which has so often been used by archbishops under the belief that it appertained to archiepiscopal rank, is really and exclusively the mitre of the Bishop of Durham. The See of Durham, until early in the nineteenth century, was in fact and law also a temporal palatinate, and, though latterly its attributes of temporal sovereignty had declined, anciently the temporal power was of wide extent, the Bishops of Durham having their own separate parliament. In token of the temporal power the bishop had his coronet, in token of his spiritual power he had his mitre. Alone amongst the English bishops, his arms were surmounted by a helmet [they so appear in the famous "Armorial de Gelre" (Figure 10) where the helmet, with its mantling, is shown with the small shield tilted in the fashion of early heraldic displays], and on his helmet was placed his coronet. Within the coronet was his mitre and the representation of the two together led to the appearance of the coronet as the rim of the mitre, and coronet and mitre have been armorially depicted together. But no evidence of the wearing or actual existence of a coroneted mitre is known, and the present form is the heraldic conjunction of a coronet and a mitre. Whether since the abolition of the palatinate the right to the coronet still remains, is open to argument, but officially its use is still sanctioned.

The crosier

The crosier, which is another external ornament to the shield widely made use of by ecclesiastics, must not be confounded, as it often has been, with the processional cross of an archbishop. Nor is the name, crosier, a confusion of terms. The crosier is, as it has always been, the pastoral staff. Originally nothing more than a staff used for assistance in walking, it has been conjectured that its ceremonial use and ecclesiastical status is a consequence of its convenience to aged prelates as an assistance and support during lengthy services.

The crosier as a sign of episcopal dignity is said to be traceable to the fourth century and to have been used by abbots in the fifth. In its early form it was surmounted only by a boss or a simple bend, and in the Eastern Churches the crosier terminates not in a crook but in a tau, the ordinary form of a crutch. This, however, has now developed into an elaborated form, much as if the crook of the Western crosiers were duplicated at the other side of the staff (Figure 11). The development of this crook is merely artistic and decorative the symbolism of the shepherd's crook has been invoked. In this, as in all other matters of symbolism, it is exceedingly difficult to determine whether the form followed the symbolism or whether this is a later attribution. Certain it is, however, that there is a widespread belief that, whilst the crook in the case of an abbot should terminate inwards (Figure 12), that of a bishop should terminate outwards (Figure 13), the suggested symbolism being that, whilst the jurisdiction of an abbot was strictly confined to his abbey, that of a bishop was not so restricted. The same symbolism has been read into a heraldic practice, which undoubtedly has much acceptance, by which the crosier of an abbot placed in bend sinister behind the shield was represented with the crook turned inwards towards the mitre (Figure 3) whereas the contrary position was adopted for the crosier of a bishop (e.g., Figure 2). But no such distinctions appear ever to have been recognized in relation to the actual crosiers carried by bishops or abbots. The sudarium or veil, which really has no symbolism, and is attached to the crosier for mere purposes of cleanliness, is sometimes met with in armorial representations (Figure 13).

In England, in the Anglican Church, two crosiers are placed in saltire behind the shield of a bishop or archbishop (Figure 2, Figure 5, and Plate I, Figure D). Woodward questions the propriety of this fully established practice, unless in a case of a double episcopate, but that writer has apparently overlooked the fact that, whereas in other countries a crosier, e.g., is represented singly in bend, or most frequently in bend sinister. It has been the invariable custom in England to duplicate insignia of this character and place them in saltire behind the shield, e.g. the batons of the Earl Marshal or of Lyon King of Arms.

The Bishop of Durham alone amongst the Anglican bishops substitutes a naked sword (indicative of the temporal palatinate of Durham) for one of the crosiers. The seal of Bishop Gilbert Burnett of Salisbury. Chancellor of the Order of the Garter, shows his shield encircled by the Garter and imposed upon a crosier and key in saltire -- the latter, no doubt, an allusion to his office of chancellor. In no other case is temporal jurisdiction united with a spiritual office in England, but in Germany and elsewhere a number of cases can be alluded to, and in such cases the naked sword is similarly disposed in saltire with a crosier, or these are placed in pale one on either side of the escutcheon. The use of the temporal sword is said to have been originated by Erlang, Bishop of Würzburg, 1106 to 1121, but its heraldic use is not nearly so ancient.

The processional cross

The processional cross (Figure 14), which, within his province, is carried in front of (but not by) an archbishop -- a privilege granted to all archbishops by Gregory IX -- is also used armorially, being represented in pale behind the shield. Its use in this form by an Anglican archbishop is very rare -- certainly no ancient examples exist -- but elsewhere its use is practically universal. The cross of an ordinary archbishop has but a single traverse; in practice it is really a crucifix placed on the summit of a staff; but heraldry distinguishes the cross of an archbishop from the primatial cross which has the double traverse (Figure 15) and the papal cross with the treble traverse. The last named, however, is never placed behind the papal arms. Unfortuneately the bearing of the cross with the double traverse has become very far from unusual by archbishops, under the belief that the double traverse is indicative of an archbishop.

The pallium

The use of the pallium has received no little attention in recent years. As a vestment, its form is well known, and as a rule (to which there have been few exceptions, if any) archbishops alone have the right to wear it. It is made of fine white lamb's wool, and now has upon it six crosses pattée of black silk edged with cord. Originally the number of these crosses was indeterminate; in early examples we find two of a bright purple or, occasionally, of red, later we find four. The pallium in continental Europe has only had a limited heraldic use and that curiously disposed as an external ornament of the shield. The English method of display is nowhere else employed. In England the pallium has been the principal charge in the official archiepiscopal coats.

ARMS OF PARTICULAR SEES

Canterbury

The arms of the See of Canterbury (Plate I, Figure D) are "azure, an episcopal staff in pale or, ensigned with a cross pattée argent, surmounted of a pall of the last, edged and fringed of the second charged with four crosses pattée fitchée sable."

Armagh and Dublin

The arms of the archiepiscopal See of Armagh are identical with those of Canterbury except that the staff is of argent ensigned with a cross pattée or. The arms of the archiepiscopal See of Dublin are the same as those of Armagh, except that the pall has five crosses pattée fitchee upon it, instead of four.

York

Anciently the arms of the archiepiscopal See of York were the same as Canterbury, but, for some reason which is not now known, the arms of the see were changed to "gules two keys in saltire argent in chief a royal crown or". Woodward asserts that the crown was originally the papal tiara, and if this be correct one is inclined to hazard the suggestion that the emblems of the papacy were granted to York as a solatium after the long enduring contest between Canterbury and York had been decided in favour of Canterbury who was to be Primate of All England, whilst York ceded the precedence and was only Primate of England. The right to use the tiara in lieu of a mitre was granted to the Patriarchs of Lisbon by Pope Clement XII, and the change from the papal tiara to the royal crown would be a natural consequence of the Reformation.

Westminster

The arms granted by the papal Brief to the Archbishopric of Westminster consist of the pallium (without the cross in pale as in the Anglican shields) upon a field of gules, and the same device is used by the Archbishop of Glasgow.

The Holy See

The emblems of the papacy consist of the tiara and the crossed keys of St. Peter "to bind and to unloose", one key being of gold and one of silver, the two being usually tied together with a cord. These are usually, and most properly, placed in saltire behind the personal arms of His Holiness (a practice originated by Adrian VI, in 1522), the shield being surmounted by the tiara, but the keys are frequently disposed in saltire below the tiara and above the shield, and, as the emblem of the papacy, the tiara and keys are often used alone without any shield at all.

OTHER INSIGNIA

Crests and helmets

Crests and helmets are not usually borne by ecclesiastics. The possession of a crest is not denied to an Anglican ecclesiastic, who of course transmits it to his male descendants, but it is not correct (except in Germany) to use a crest concurrently with a mitre or ecclesiastical hat, both of which, of course, are substitutes for the helmet, to which the crest appertains. The Bishop of Durham, however, was an exception, by reason of his temporal sovereignty. In Germany, the land of many crests, it is considered quite correct to display mitre and crests simultaneously and a central helmet to carry the mitre is not unusual.

Motto

The use of a motto by a bishop or other ecclesiastic is quite correct, though rather unusual in the case of an Anglican bishop.

Coronet

In Rome itself the use of all coronets of rank by cardinals was forbidden by a Bull of Innocent X, but elsewhere the coronet is not discarded if such an ornament appertains to the personal arms. In England the mitre would surmount the coronet with its cap, but in Continental Europe it is more general to use the circlet (Continental coronets have no cap, which is really the English parliamentary cap of dignity) disposed along the top of the escutcheon and enclosing the mitre, cross, and crosier, as may be correct. In Germany temporal lordships are often attached as endowments to ecclesiastical dignities, and in such cases the coronets of the latter are made use of.

Supporters

No ecclesiastic in any country by reason of ecclesiastical rank alone acquires a right to use supporters, but where a personal right to these has been inherited ecclesiastical rank or office places no prohibition whatever upon their use. There is one exception: the arms of the papacy are frequently depicted with angels as supporters, each of which holds in the exterior hand a papal cross (i.e. with three traverse bars).

Pavilion

At the funeral ceremonies of a deceased pope, the papal arms are shown surmounted by the tiara, but the keys are omitted, these taking their place above the shield, but below the "pavilion de l'Eglise" of the Cardinal Camerlengo, who, whilst holding that position, surmounts his arms with the curious canopy of red and yellow which belongs to the office (Plate II, Figure E).

Impalement

Members of a regular order frequently impale (on the dexter side) the arms of the order with their personal arms, but how far such a practice has authoritative sanction is at least open to argument. As arms of patronage, cardinals have frequently impaled with their personal arms those of the pope who has raised them to that rank, but the practice (except in the case of the majordomo of the papal household) is now falling into disuse.

Miscellaneous insignia

Precentors denote their office by placing a baton behind their shields, and the arms of a canon are often displayed upon the almuce (the tippet or hood) which forms a part of his official dress. Priors and prioresses place a bourdon (or knobbled staff) of silver in pale behind their shields. An abbess uses her arms upon a lozenge and her crosier in pale behind. Frequently the lozenge is surrounded by branches of palm, or a crown of thorns, or, more usually, by a knotted girdle of black, or black and white, silk disposed in the form of a cordelière. Armenian archbishops use a green hat with ten green tassels. Behind the shield are placed a Latin crosier and a Greek crosier in saltire, the shield is ensigned by a mitre, and in pale is a cross with a double traverse.

WOODWARD, Ecclesiastical Heraldry (London, 1894); FOX-DAVIES, Art Of Heraldry (London, 1904); CHEVALIER, Topo Bibl. (Montbéliard, 1894-99), s. vv. Armoiries, Blason; BATTANDIER, Ann. Pont. Cath. (Paris, 1889) 269-323; (1900), 389-393; (1902), 366-84; (1904), 127.

C. FOX-DAVIES

Herbart and Herbartianism

The widespread and increasing influence of Herbart and his disciples in the work of education makes a brief treatment of this German philosopher and educationist desirable in the present work. John Frederick Herbart, b. at Oldenburg, 1776; d. at Göttingen, 1841. He was the son of a lawyer whose wife, a woman of brilliant parts, was subsequently divorced from her husband. The child was delicate and was at first educated by an able tutor under the supervision of his mother. He exhibited extraordinary precocity, was of quick intelligence and retentive memory, and showed remarkable aptitude for mathematics, physical science and music. He began logic at eleven and metaphysics at twelve; he went to the gymnasium of his native town at thirteen and, after a distinguished course there, passed to the University of Jena at the age of eighteen to study law. This subject he neglected, becoming an enthusiastic student of philosophy under Fichte, then at the zenith of his fame. Herbart, however, was of too critical a mind to be content with Fichte's Idealism, and at the age of twenty began the elaboration of a philosophic system of his own. In 1807, after three years, his course still incomplete, he left the University to become a private tutor in the family of a German nobleman. The education of the three sons aged 14, 10, and 8 was entirely entrusted to Herbart on condition that he should write a lengthy report by letter to the father every two months. This was Herbart's first and most important experience in the work of teaching. Five of the letters which remain are amongst his most interesting writings and contain some of his main educational ideas. During this period he visited Pestalozzi at Burgdorf. In 1799 he resigned his tutorships, devoted himself for a couple of years to the study of philosophy and wrote some small works on education including appreciations of Pestalozzi's writings. In 1802 he went to Göttingen, obtained his degree of doctor and began lecturing on philosophy and pedagogics at the modest stipend of $225 per annum. Between 1802 and 1808 he published several pedagogic works, including the "Æsthetic Revelation of the World" and the "Science of Education"; also works on metaphysics and logic. In 1809 he was appointed to the chair at Königsberg formerly occupied by Kant, where he lectured on philosophy and pedagogics for over twenty years. His chief interest, however, was in the latter subject. With the approval of the Minister of Education he founded a pedagogic seminary having a practicing school attached. In this he himself taught for an hour daily. In 1809 he married an Englishwoman. During the remainder of his life he lectured to large audiences, and published sundry works on education. He returned to profess at Göttingen in 1833, where he laboured till his death in 1841.

General Philosophical Views

Though Herbart was an able and original thinker his influence in philosophy has not been considerable. In metaphysics his scientific temper led him to advocate a system of Realism in opposition to the Idealism then in vogue. In ethics he approximates towards Kant's teaching in some respects; but instead of Kant's Categorical Imperative he puts forward five Practical or Moral Ideas--the Ideas of Inner Freedom, Perfection, Benevolence, Right, and Equity--as the frame-work of his moral system. In psychology he rejected the doctrine, generally accepted from Aristotle to Kant, of a soul endowed with certain native faculties or powers. For this he substitutes a simple soul with presentations, states, or impressions. As, however, in his view, we know nothing about this simple soul in itself, after it has once been postulated as the arena for the operations of the presentations, the soul becomes, for all practical purposes, merely the series or mass of these presentations, whilst their permutations, interactions, and combinations constitute the entire fibre of our mental life. Herbart strove to apply mathematics to the working of these presentations and to establish quantitative laws describing their mutual interactions. This attempt had in itself no success, but indirectly stimulated the subsequent allied movement in favour of experimental measurement of mental states carried on by Fechner Weber, Wundt, and others. There is remarkable similarity between Herbart and the English Associationist school in their common mechanical view of the nature of mental life, though Herbart is spiritualistic whilst their tend towards Materialism.

Herbart's main interest in philosophy however, is the problem of Education--its object, its method, its possibilities. Education is in fact both the starting point and the goal of all his philosophical inquiries. The end of education is, he holds, determined by ethics. It is the formation of noble, cultivated, moral character. Morality is goodness of will. Moral conduct cannot be embraced, as Kant imagined, under one principle. It is best included under the five practical ideas. Ideal character is to be attained by "many-sided interest". The full development of the individual, the realization of all his capabilities should be then the constant aim of the process of education. The main foundations on which Herbart's whole theory of education rests are his doctrines of apperception and interest. Apperception, with Herbart means the act or process of assimilating, appropriating and identifying an object, impression or idea. All progress in knowledge after the first percipient act is a process of apperception, and the character of each new perception is determined by those which have gone before. The first sensation or impression affords no knowledge, but results in a presentation which persists in existence gradually sinking down below the surface of consciousness. This original presentation existing in the sub-conscious state of our mental life will be partially wakened and called up into conscious activity by the next impression. Thus aroused it modifies the reception of the latter and partially fuses with it. Again this pair of presentations or this compound state similarly sinking down into subconscious life still remains ready to appropriate the next impression assimilating it in like fashion. But the method of the reception and the character of the appropriation is constantly varying with the increasing collection of presentations or ideas already in the mind. The facility and completeness with which each fresh idea is assimilated is determined by what has gone before. Herein, according to the Herbartian school, lies the importance of directing the process of apperception by judicious selection of the materials which are to constitute the experience of the child. As the mind, in this view is simply built up entirely out of the ideas which it has received, the kinds of ideas presented to it and the order in which they come are of the utmost moment in the work of education. Ideas or objects are assimilable or apperceivable when partially familiar; a totally foreign idea has no friends already lodged in the mind to welcome it.

In the pleasure of the process of apperception lies the great fact of interest. Interest depends on what is already in the mind. It is the factor of most vital importance in education--and in moral life, as a whole. Interest and knowledge react on each other. Interest stimulates voluntary attention and sustains involuntary. It thus ties at the root of the mental activity of observation. It determines what we shall see and also what we shall desire and will. With Herbart interest is not simply a means: it is an end in itself. "Many-sided interest" frees from narrow prejudices and counteracts evil possessions, but it is also an ideal worthy of all admiration in se. Ignorance is really the main factor in vice. All action springs out of "the circle of thought"; hence the decisive influence of the matter or content of instruction in the work of character building. "Make your instruction educative," is the great Herbartian maxim. Connected with the insistence on the psychological agencies of apperception and interest is the Herbartian principle of correlation and the five formal steps of instruction. The former should, according to the school, govern the drawing up of the curriculum. Organize the course of studies so that the matter of the different branches simultaneously treated, e.g. the literature, history and geography, may be connected with one another; and as far as possible let the subsidiary subjects be arranged in concentric circles around the chief study. The five formal steps prescribe the order and method of procedure in an ideal lesson. Prepare the mind for the reception of the new matter by repetition of questions which freshen the pupil's recollection of ideas related to the subject of the coming lesson. Next present the matter clearly, developing it in an orderly method. Then, or pari passu by comparison or illustration associate the new ideas or facts with those already familiar. After this generalize the results and finally apply the knowledge gained in some form of practical exercise. These latter doctrines and other deductions from Herbart's principles--some of them very disputable--have been elaborated in very pedantic fashion by certain of the later Herbartians. Besides instruction, practical education includes two other factors,--government and discipline. Though character, according to Herbart, is formed in very large measure by the instruction, i.e. by the ideas apperceived and absorbed by the mind, yet he allows something to these other agencies. Government is mainly repressive, checking disorder and providing the conditions for instruction. Training and discipline are of greater importance. They look to the future building up of the will and forming lasting habits. But as discipline is effected not merely by the form but also by the matter of the school exercises, we come back once more to instruction as the essential factor.

Criticism

Undoubtedly there is much that is stimulating and valuable in Herbart's works on Education. His insistence on certain psychological laws established by experience; his frequent invocation of rational principles in opposition to mere empiricism in education; his accentuating the value of interest; his earnest advocacy of an ethical aim; his demand for wide culture; his faith in the potency of education, and his enthusiasm for the vocation of the teacher are all deserving of warm commendation But there are other features in his theory to which serious objections are made. Firstly, his account of the soul, as being capable originally only of simple reactions to impressions and as being then virtually swallowed up by, or dissolved into the stream of subsequent presentations or ideas, is metaphysically erroneous, and in educational practice exceedingly dangerous if carried to its logical conclusions. For it implies an entirely mechanical view of the mind, as rigidly determinist as that of the English Associationists, with which indeed, notwithstanding Herbart's spiritualism, it has sundry points of similarity. It leaves no place for free-will, nor, if logically pressed, for individual responsibility. The soul seems to be conceived merely as the arena for chance experiences coming from without. Our whole mental life is solely the resultant of the collision or coalescence of the presentations flowing in upon us. Every volition is the inexorable product of the circle of thought. Yet Herbart himself, as well as the best educationists of today, insist much on the duty of respecting and developing the individuality of the pupil; but where the individuality is seated, or in what it consists, is not easy to understand in the Herbartian system. Here especially lies the strength of the rival doctrine of the Fröbelian School, which so earnestly inculcates the importance of self-activity. Again, the ethical aim of Herbartianism is after all the Ego. It is not God--not an end outside of self, not even humanity--but self-culture. Further, knowledge and intellectual culture, however varied or refined, are not virtue. Herbart has here fallen into the old Socratic error. Knowledge is desirable and its attainment may be a duty; but virtue is essentially a quality of the will, not of the intellect. Its essence lies in self-control, and self-denial, often in "action in the line of greatest resistance" as Professor James well calls it. Asceticism, so obnoxious to the Herbartian, is therefore not unintelligent. Many-sided interest, too, though ethically helpful is not virtue. Intellectual ignorance and narrow-mindedness may and often are combined with a high quality of moral fibre, whilst men of abundantly many-sided interest as e.g., Francis Bacon or Goethe, may fall sadly short of being ethical models.

Furthermore, although, as Catholic doctrine insists, the positive moral and religious teaching of the young and the ethical quality of the ideas on which their intellects are fed exert a real influence on the will and moral disposition of the child, yet the value of mere instruction in comparison with that of discipline is exaggerated by the Herbartian school. It is not the mere cognition of the facts of history and literature, or in general the content of the instruction in these subjects, that makes for morality, but the exercise of our faculties, our moral judgment, imagination, sympathy, aversions etc. upon these facts. Moral sensibility is developed by action in harmony with the intimations and suggestions of conscience, rather than by the acquisition of moral information. Again, whilst interest is to be fostered and advantage taken of every psychological law which facilitates learning, we must not forget the educational worth of effort and the conquest of difficulties, nor the disciplinary value of stiff formal studies such as mathematics. Strenuousness of character will not be cultivated by a "soft" pedagogy which would eliminate all obstacles from the student's path--though this latter attempt is not the outcome of the true Herbartian spirit. The evil also of an unenlightened formalism has exhibited itself in a somewhat slavish adhesion to details of the Herbartian method by certain members of the school. Nevertheless it remains true that Herbart has given a substantial contribution of permanent value to educational theory and educational method.

MICHAEL MAHER

Herbert of Bosham

A biographer of St. Thomas Becket, dates of birth and death unknown. He was probably born in the County of Sussex at the place from which he took his name, and he must have joined Becket's household before 1162, as, on his elevation in that year, the new archbishop immediately promoted him to a responsible position. He was to give his master advice on the performance of his duties, and to assist and even direct his studies of Scripture. Herbert remained closely attached to St. Thomas during the arduous and troubled years of his episcopacy and exile down to the very eve of the final scene in Canterbury Cathedral. Of all the archbishop's followers he was the keenest antagonist of the king and the royal "customs", quite ready on occasion to beard Henry II to his face or to undertake dangerous missions to England. After the martyrdom Herbert seems to have lived mainly on the Continent, and he complains that he was neglected by the friends and adherents of the master whom he had served so faithfully; he records, however, a friendly interview with the king himself. We know nothing of him after the year 1189. As a biographer Herbert had many advantages. He shared St. Thomas's ideals and was an eyewitness of most of the incidents of his episcopacy. He had sat by him, for instance, during the stormy scenes of the trial at Northampton. On the other hand he did not begin to write till 1184, many years after the events which he records, and Dom L'Huillier has given good reasons to doubt the accuracy of Herbert's reminiscences. The biographer certainly exaggerated his own personal influence over St. Thomas. Herbert of Bosham's work has not, therefore, the historical value of that of Fitzstephen, and it is also extremely verbose. Besides the "Life of St. Thomas", he wrote a very lengthy "Liber Melorum" in praise of the martyr. The best edition of the "Life" is that contained in vol. III of the "Materials for the History of Thomas Becket" (Rolls Series) edited by Canon Robertson; the volume also contains some extracts from the "Liber Melorum".

Introduction to vol. III of the Materials; NORGATE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; L'HUILLIER, St. Thomas de Canterbury, I (Paris, 1891), note A.

F.F. URQUHART.

St. Herbert of Derwentwater

(Hereberht).

Date of birth unknown; d. 20 March, 687; an anchorite of the seventh century, who dwelt for many years on the little island still known as St. Herbert's Isle, in the Lake of Derwentwater. He was for long the friend and disciple of St. Cuthbert of Lindisfarne. Little is known about him, save that it was his custom every year to visit St. Cuthbert for the purpose of receiving his direction in spiritual matters. In the year 686, hearing that his friend was visiting Carlisle for the purpose of giving the veil to Queen Eormenburg, he went to see him there, instead of at Lindisfarne as was usual. After they had spoken together, St. Cuthbert said, "Brother Herbert, tell to me now all that you have need to ask or speak, for never shall we see one another again in this world. For I know that the time of my decease is at hand." Then Herbert fell weeping at his feet and begged that St. Cuthbert would obtain for him the grace that they might both be admitted to praise God in heaven at the same time. And St. Cuthbert prayed and then made answer, "Rise, my brother, weep not, but rejoice that the mercy of God has granted our desire." And so it happened. For Herbert, returning to his hermitage, fell ill of a long sickness, and, purified of his imperfections, passed to God on the very day on which St. Cuthbert died on Holy Island. It is said that the remains of St. Herbert's chapel and cell may still be traced at the northern end of the island on which he lived. In 1374 Thomas Appleby, Bishop of Carlisle, granted an indulgence of forty days to all who, in honour of St. Herbert, visited the island in Derwentwater and were present at the Mass of St. Cuthbert to be sung annually by the Vicar of Crosthwaite.

Acta SS., 20 March, III, 110, 123, 142-43; BEDE, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxix, in Mon. Hist. Brit., 245; RAINE, Saint Cuthbert (Durham, 1828), 32-33; RAINE in Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v.; STANTON, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 127-8.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Johann Georg Herbst

Born at Rottweil, in Würtemberg, 13 January, 1787; died 31 July, 1836. His college course, begun in the gymnasium of his native city, was pursued in the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter in the Black Forest and in 1806 Herbst registered at the University of Freiburg. After some time spent in completing his mathematical and philosophical studies, he devoted his talents to mastering Oriental languages and Biblical science under the tutorship of Johann Leonard Hug. From the university Herbst went, in 1811, to the seminary of Meersburg, to prepare himself for Holy orders, and was ordained to the priesthood in March, 1812. Called at once to the seminary of Ellwangen to discharge the office of repetent, he at the same time accepted the chair of Hebrew and Arabic at the newly-erected University of Ellwangen, and, two years later, was promoted to the professorship of Oriental languages and Old Testament exegesis. In 1817 the theological faculty of Ellwangen was transferred to Tübingen, and there, in addition to the courses already entrusted to him, Herbst taught introduction to the Holy Scriptures and Biblical archæology; he also occasionally was prevailed upon to lecture on New-Testament exegesis, church history, and pastoral theology. Those were heroic times for the young faculty of theology, which, with such men as Sebastian Drey, J. B. Hirscher, and Möhler on its staff, and pupils of the stamp of J. C. Hefele, was rapidly winning a conspicuous place in the realm of scholarship.

What the intellectual activity of Herbst was amidst his manifold occupations as a professor, may be gathered from his works. His first publication was a volume entitled: "Observationes quædam de Pentateuchi quatuor librorum posteriorum auctore et editore" (Gmünd, 1817). From the foundation, in 1819, of the Tübingen "Theol. Quartalschrift", he was a steady contributor thereto; but his principal work, left unfinished, and perhaps slightly tainted by the then prevalent tendencies to rationalism, is an introduction to the Old Testament, which was completed and edited by his pupil Welte (1841-44). In 1832 Herbst was appointed head librarian of the Royal University; but through overwork his health soon failed, and he died after a short sickness borne with admirable resignation. A remarkable linguist, thoroughly conversant with the vast literature of his favourite studies, endowed with true critical acumen, Herbst possessed, moreover, in a high degree, the gift of imparting his knowledge in a most clear, attractive, and appealing manner.

Theol. Quartalschrift (Tübingen, 1836), 767; FRITZ in Kirchenlex., s. v.; RUCKGABER, Geschichte der Frei- und Reichstacdt Rottweil (Rottweil, 1835).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY.

Alejandro Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo

Born at Lisbon, 28 March, 1810; died near Santarem, 13 Sept., 1877. Because of his liberal principles, he was forced to flee from his native land during the despotic times of Dom Miguel, and therefore he was in Paris in 1828, and during 1830 and 1831 in England. When he returned home, in 1832, he was already imbued with the doctrines of romanticism which Almeida Garrett preached so loudly in Portugal, and which he had seen exemplified in the literatures of England and France. Prominent already as a liberal in politics, he now attracted attention by his poetical work, such as the "Voz do Propheta" (1836), which reflects the influence of Lamennais' "Paroles d'un croyant", and dealt in rhythmical prose with the future of Portugal in the "Harpa do Crente" (Lisbon, 1838), which also testified to the robustness of his Catholic Faith. He entered into journalism also with the periodical "O Panorama" (1837), which he himself founded and conducted. As a romanticist, he now started upon his career as an historical novelist, with his "Monasticon", of which the first part, "Eurico o Presbytero", appeared in 1844, and the sequel, "O Monge de Cister", in 1848. With these stories, of which the second has its scene laid in the reign of John I of Portugal, he really naturalized the historical novel in Portuguese. He continued the tradition with his story "O Bobo", which turns upon events in Portuguese history of the early twelfth century, and in his "Lendas e Narrativas" (1851). In this latter he gave modern form to some old legends, such as "A dama Pê-de-Cabra", "O bispo negro", "O morte do Lidador", etc. To the period from 1846 to 1853 belongs his "Historia de Portugal" (4 vols.), which stops short with events of the end of the thirteenth century. Before retiring to his place near Santarem, he produced still other historical works, especially "Da origem e estabelecimento da inquisição em Portugal" (2 vols., Lisbon, 1854-55); afterwards he wrote the essays and treatises contained in collected form in his "Opusculos" (6 vols., 1873-84). To his patience as an historical investigator he bears testimony with the collection of documents drawn from the national archives, which he, as a member of the Lisbon Academy of Sciences, published (Portugalliæ Monumenta Historica).

DE SERPA PIMENTEL, Herculano e o seu tempo (Lisbon, 1881); VON DÖLLINGER, Gedächtnisrede auf A. Herculano in his Akademische Vorträge; ROMERO ORTIZ, La literatura portuguesa en el siglo XIX (Madrid, 1870); DE VASCONCELLOS, Portugiesische Litteratur in GROEBER, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, vol. II, pt. II, pp. 372 sqq.

J.D.M. FORD

Herder

The name of a German firm of publishers and booksellers.

Bartholomäus Herder

Founder of the present publishing firm, b. at the Swabian free- town of Rottweil on the Neckar, 22 August, 1774; d. at Freiburg im Breisgau, 11 March, 1839. Originally destined for Holy orders, he was elaborating, while yet a student at the abbey school of St. Blasien and at the University of Dillingen, his plan of "gaining his livelihood by the dissemination of good books" as a "scholarly publisher". In 1801, during the turbulent period prior to the dissolution of the old German Empire, he began his career, at the instance of the Prince-Bishop (soon afterwards Prince Primate) Karl Theodore von Dalberg, in the capacity of "publisher to the princely episcopal court of Constance", at Meersburg on the Lake of Constance, the episcopal residence and seat of a seminary. Among his first publications, which were mainly of a theological and pedagogic character, we find Wessenberg's "Archiv für pastorale Conferenzen in den Landkapiteln des Bisthums Constanz" (1802-27). In 1810 Bartholomäus transferred his business to Freiburg im Breisgau, where, in close connexion with the university, he gave a more comprehensive character to his publications and developed his miscellaneous stock in new directions. One of his most important publications was Karl von Rotteck's "Allgemeine Geschichte vom Anfang der historischen Kenntniss bis auf unsere Zeiten" (9 vols., 1812-27; the 15th edition being issued by another firm), which for more than a generation was "the gospel of the educated liberal middle classes". Being entrusted with the publication of the official war bulletin, the "Teutsche Blätter", by the royal and imperial authorities at head- quarters as early as the end of 1813, Herder went to Paris with the allied armies in 1815 in Metternich's train as "Director of the Royal and Imperial Field Press". Subsequent to the conclusion of peace he founded an art institution for lithography, copperplate engraving, and modelling in terra cotta, in connexion with his publishing business. In the course of time upwards of three hundred pupils were turned out from this institution, while the sumptuous illustrations and maps that were issued mark an epoch in the history of this branch of technic–especially the "Heilige Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testamentes in 200 biblischen Kupfern" (the Holy Writ of the Old and the New Testament in 200 biblical engravings), of which he reproduced numerous impressions by an original lithographic process, and Woerl's "Atlas von Central-Europa in 60 Blättern" (Atlas of Central Europe in 60 plates, 1830), which was the earliest employment of two-colour lithography. As late as 1870 this atlas rendered important service to the German army by reason of the map of France it contained. Although such great achievements won a European reputation for the house, the commercial profits derived therefrom were entirely disproportionate to the expenditure. Consequently the condition of the house at Bartholomäus Herder's death in 1839 was by no means a satisfactory one. His two sons succeeded to the heritage.

Karl Raphael Herder

(Born 2 November, 1816; died 10 June, 1865), the older son of Bartholomäus, took up the commercial side of the business, while the younger Benjamin Herder (b. 31 July, 1818; d. 10 November, 1888), took charge of the publishing department until his brother's retirement in 1856, when he undertook the sole management. Equipped with a thorough, scholarly education, trained in the book business by his father and under Gauthier de Laguionie in Paris, Benjamin had had his views further broadened early in life by travels through Germany, Austria, France, England, and Italy. Of a character earnest and religious, he was strongly impressed by the Cologne troubles of 1837, and, as in the case of so many of his contemporaries, they gave a direction to his life, and this youth of twenty-one set to work with the definite aim of taking his part in the liberation and revival of the Catholic Church in Germany. First of all he gradually abandoned fine-art publications in favour of book-publishing, being thus enabled to devote the full measure of his energies to the service of religious learning. Herein he displayed such activity in the encouragement of particular branches of erudition that the history of his theological publications, for instance, would comprise a considerable fragment of the history of modern theological literature, and the catechetical branch thereof would constitute one of the most important divisions of the history of catechetics. After theology Herder applied himself with the greatest zest to pedagogies, to the lives and learning of the saints as well as to other edifying biographies; also after a long and cautious delay to the publication of sermons. He next took up works dealing with the religious and political problems of the day, with questions of ecclesiastical policy and social controversies and issues. Finally, passing beyond the limits which previously Catholic literature had seldom ventured to transcend, he began the publication of works on the general sciences–history and philosophy, the natural sciences, geography, and ethnology, including the publication of atlases, school textbooks, music, art and its literature, the history of literature, and belles-lettres. His governing purpose throughout was to avoid wasting his energies on particular publications, but to build up the various branches gradually and systematically by the publication of more comprehensive "collections" and "libraries" and by the issue of scientific periodicals.

The "Kirchenlexikon" (Church Lexicon) was the great centre of his fifty years' activity as a publisher. It was the first comprehensive attempt to treat everything that had any connexion with theology encyclopedically in one work, and also the first attempt to unite all the Catholic savants of Germany, who had hitherto pursued each his own path, in the production of one great work. Herder had nursed this project since 1840. The difficulties encountered even in the preliminary work were almost inconceivable. Then, when its appearance was made possible and its issue was begun in 1847 under the direction of Welte, the exegete of Tübingen, and Wetzer, the Orientalist of Freiburg, followed the even graver difficulties of ensuring its continuation, difficulties which were heightened at the beginning by the terrors of the Revolution of 1848, and towards the end by the oppression of the Church in Baden. But finally, after sixteen years of struggling and striving on the part of Herder, all obstacles were overcome, and the work was brought to completion in 1856, thanks chiefly to the never-failing, self-sacrificing support of Hefele. It had a decisive influence on the subsequent intellectual activity of Catholicism, and the importance which the Protestant scientific world attributed to it was eloquently demonstrated in the fact that, while it was still in process of issue, the Protestant scholars made use of Herder's scheme, even down to the smallest details, for the "Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie". It was sixteen years more before the preliminary work could be begun on the new edition which soon became necessary, and ten years more before its publication could be started. While the historical element had been especially emphasized in the first edition, the dogmatic and exegetical side was expanded to equal dimensions in the second edition, in view of the far-reaching change which had taken place in the domain of theology. The subjects to be treated were chosen by Adalbert Weiss, professor at the Freising lyceum, and the editorial chair was held by Hergenröther until his elevation to the cardinalate, and afterwards by Kaulen, the exegete of Bonn.

The stupendous plan, which Benjamin had cherished since 1841, of building up a "Theologische Bibliothek" (Theological Library) according to an equally logical and symmetrical scheme, he was unable to realize until thirty years later. When the "Kirchenlexikon" was nearing completion, Herder sought, by the publication of the "Konversations-Lexikon" (Universal Encyclopedia, 1st ed., 1853-7), to make the Catholic public independent of the hostile literature which ruled unchallenged in the highly important domain of works of general information. Although, out of regard for the limited purchasing capacity of the Catholic public in Germany, he confined himself to the modest limits of five medium-sized volumes, still the undertaking was for his day a very courageous one. Of the very great number of other works published by him, we can draw attention only to the most notable, which spread the reputation of the house far beyond the limits of Germany. Among the earliest were the works of Alban Stolz, a man endowed by nature with all the gifts of the popular theologian and teacher of the people, whose "Kalender für Zeit und Ewigkeit", assailing in powerful and eloquent language the fundamental evils of the world and the age, achieved an extraordinary success in strengthening and deepening the faith of the people. Alongside of Stolz we find Ignaz Schuster, whose catechisms and Biblical histories, issued in constantly improved editions and based upon the tradition of the Church and the text of Holy Writ, were scattered over the world, like Stolz's works, in hundreds of thousands of copies, the larger editions of the Biblical histories being translated into no less than twenty-five languages. Even before the completion of the "Kirchenlexikon" Hefele began his monumental "Conciliengeschichte". The strong religious revival that set in with the sixties was heralded by Hettinger's pioneer work, the "Apologie des Christentums", which set forth the religious teachings of Christianity to the cultured world in well-timed fashion, and which, reprinted again and again, and constantly improved, continues to exercise a potent influence in five foreign civilized languages even to this day. The "Apologien" of Weiss and Schanz were subsequently issued to support and supplement Hettinger's "Apologie". Of these works the one contrasts Christian life and its historical and cultural development with a purely worldly knowledge and the outlook of the age, while the other strives to harmonize the doctrines of the Church and the results of scientific research.

The Encyclicals of December, 1864, and the question of infallibility called forth in the pages of the "Stimmen aus Maria Laach" the comprehensive defence of the authority of the pope, as pastor and teacher, while the controversies concerning the Vatican Council occasioned Hergenröther's masterly "Anti-Janus", afterwards expanded and strengthened in the almost inexhaustible hisorico-theological essays, the "Katholische Kirche und christlicher Staat in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung und in Beziehung auf Fragen der Gegenwart". The "Stimmen", which at first appeared irregularly, inaugurated those relations between the house of Herder and the German Jesuits which have proved of so great importance to Catholic learning and Catholic life, and have kept the Jesuits in such close touch with their native country even while they were in exile during the persecution of the Kulturkampf. Of the abundant fruits of these relations we may mention the great "Collectio Lacensis" of the more recent councils, which displays a Benedictine industry in the collection of materials, and the "Philosophia Lacensis", nor can we forget the vigorous "Stimmen", which rapidly developed into the organ of the current intellectual movement, and its thoroughly stimulating and very instructive "Ergänzungshefte" (Supplementary Numbers), which already number more than one hundred. After the promulgation of the fundamental decrees of the Vatican Council, the "Theologische Bibliothek" was opened under brilliant auspices with Scheeben's profound "Handbuch der Dogmatik". While the Kulturkampf was threatening to silence every expression of Catholic life, Janssen's epoch-making "Geschichte des deutschen Volkes" began its triumphant course, and carried, for the first time, Cathlic research into wide Protestant circles. The last ten years of Herder's existence crowned his life-work. Quite apart from the individual volumes of the various Collections and of the Apologies already mentioned, he produced, among other works, the "Real-Encyklopädie der christlichen Alterthümer" by F. X. Kraus, the new edition of the "Kirchenlexikon", Knecht's "Praktischer Kommentar zur biblischen Geschichte", the "Bibliothek für Länder- und Völker-kunde", the "Jahrbuch der Naturwissenschaften", Pastor's "Geschichte der Päpste", the "Staatslexikon der Görres-Gesellschaft", the "Archiv für Literature und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters" by Denifle and Ehrle, and the "Bibliothek für katholische Pädagogik".

Thus Benjamin Herder's activity as a publisher was always a faithful mirror of the Catholic revival in Germany in the nineteenth century, and furthermore a powerful lever exerted in favour of the Catholic cause. This was so much the more creditable, since Herder was not merely the agent, but also in general the originator of his enterprises. Possessing a clear and profound knowledge of the needs of Catholic literature, it was usually he who selected the themes for literary treatment. When he once recognized a project to be right, he clung to it tenaciously until conditions proved favourable, although decades elapsed before his scheme could be realized. Almost always on the watch for competent collaborators, he discovered the majority by his own exertions, personal acquaintance usually developing into lifelong friendship. In no undertaking did he allow material gain to be the deciding factor; even in times of crisis–and of such he encountered more than one, beginning with the Baden uprising of 1848, right through the wars which raged between 1859 and 1871, down to the dreary years of the Kulturkampf which crippled the resources of both clergy and people–the end in view alone determined his decision. Thoroughly alive to his grave responsibility as a publisher, he devoted extraordinary care to the training of capable and conscientious assitants. His partner, Franz Joseph Hutter (b. at Ravensburg, 25 November, 1840) issued from the ranks of these "pupils". His essentially practical nature happily complemented Benjamin's idealism, which even repeated warnings had not been able to shake. New branches were established to open a wider market than the older establishments at Freiburg and Strasburg afforded. In 1873 were founded the St. Louis (U. S. A.) branch, under the management of Joseph Gummersbach, and the Munich branch under Herder's brother-in-law, Adolf Streber, and in 1886 that at Vienna, while enterprises of even greater promise were contemplated. In 1863 Herder married Emilie Streber, the accomplished daughter of Franz Streber, professor at the Munich University, and celebrated as a numismatist. His alliance with the Streber family introduced Herder to that very circle of men who played the most important part in the Catholic revival in Germany. It was also contemporaneous with a more active movement in the Church, in which Herder took a notable part. Though handicapped throughout by great physical sufferings, he bore all to the end without complaining, striving unceasingly onwards and upwards.

Under the new management, conducted by Hermann Herder, a series of collections, chiefly theological and historical, have been issued, and also a steadily increasing number of publications in foreign languages, principally Spanish and English, while in recent years various annuals have been published. We may here mention the monumental undertakings, the "Geschichte der Weltliteratur" of Baumgartner, the definitive collection of sources for the Tridentine Council, the third, completely revised, edition of the "Konversations-Lexikon", which now ranks with the great Leipzig encyclopedias, and Wilpert's superb work on the catacombs. In 1906 a branch of the firm was established at Berlin.

Weiss, Fünfzig Jahre eines geistigen Befreiungskampfes (Freiburg im Br., 1890); Anon. (Hutter), Barth. Herder und seine Buchhandlung (manuscript printed 1880); Katalog der Herderschen Verlagshandlung (1801-1895); Mitteilungen der Herderschen Verlagshandlung (1896-1906; new series, 1906–); Auswahl-Katalog (1909).

Franz Meister

Christian Wolfgang Herdtrich

(According to Franco, Christianus Henriques; Chinese, Ngen).

An Austrian Jesuit missionary in China; born at Graz, Styria, 25 June, 1625; d. 18 July, 1684. He entered the Austrian province of the Society of Jesus on 27 October, 1641, and in 1656 was chosen for the Chinese mission. For two years he laboured on the island of Celebes, and after 1660 was in the Chinese provinces of Shan-si and Ho-nan. In 1671 he was called to the court of Peking as mathematician, and was one of that group of scholarly Jesuits with whom the great emperor Kang-he surrounded himself. He professed a profound knowledge of the Chinese language and literature, and was a collaborator in the great work: "Confucius, Sinarium Philosophus, sive Scientia Sinensis latina exposito studio et operâ Properi Intorcetta, Christiani Herdtrich, Francisci Rougemont, Philippi Couplet, PP. Soc. Jesu" (Paris, 1778). This earliest translation and elucidation gave European scholars their first insight into the teachings of the Chinese sage. Herdtrich was also the author of a large Chinese-Latin dictionary (Wentse-Ko), probably one of the first of its kind. The last nine years of his life were spent as superior of the mission of Kiang-tcheon, province of Shan-si. Emperor Kang-hi himself composed his epitaph (cf. "Welt-Bott", Augsburg, 1726, Nos. 16, 49).

Huonder, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäire (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 188; Dahlmann, Die Sprachenkunde und de Missionen (Freiburg im Br., 1891), 32-37; Hazart-Sontermann, Kirchengesch., I (Vienna and Munich, 1707), 706 sqq. Letters of Herdritch may be found in: Intorcetta, Compendiosa Narratione della Missione Cinense (Rome, 1672), 115-128; Greslon, Histoire de la Chine sous la domination des Tartares (Partis, 1670), 56; Kathol. Missionen (Freiburg im Br.) for 1901-02, pp. 25 sqq.; 1905-05, pp. 4 sqq.

A. HUONDER

Heredity

The offspring tends to resemble, sometimes with extraordinary closeness, the parents; this is heredity. This definition omits the cases of (1) alternation of generations, where the offspring resembles a more remote ancestor in the direct line, the alternation being in regular or irregular rhythm; (2) the production of neuters, like their equally neuter uncles and aunts but unlike their (fertile) parents. On the other hand there is almost always, amongst higher forms at any rate, a certain unlikeness as well as a likeness; this is variation. In these two sentences is summed up most of what is absolutely certain respecting these two subjects in spite of the enormous amount of attention which has been devoted to them and the voluminous literature consecrated to them. Some have conceived these two processes as at variance with one another, but this conception is false or at least wholly inadequate. Two methods are employed in studying the processes of heredity, the biometrical method, which seeks to work out the problem by mathematical means, and the method which follows the lines laid down by Abbot Mendel of Brunn, whose long-forgotten observations have led to many very profitable results and give greater hope of a real solution of the difficult questions involved in the subject of heredity than any others which have so far been made public. Particularly do they seem to throw light upon the much-discussed but most imperfectly explained matter known as reversion. Where a unicellular organism divides into two cells it is hard to say which is mother and which is daughter, but there is no difficulty in understanding why both of them closely resemble the cell from which both of them have been derived since both of them are that cell or part of it. This is heredity in its simplest terms. The matter becomes more complicated when the descendant is the offspring of a multicellular organism, even asexually, and infinitely more complicated when ordinary sexual reproduction comes into question. In the asexual case, however, if it could be shown that in the first division of an ovum a certain portion of the substance was set aside for future reproductive purposes, and that this was always the case, the condition would approximate to that of the unicellular organism above mentioned and the heredity would be explained by the fact that the offspring was actually a portion of the original ancestor. Similarly in sexual reproduction, though the matter is more complex, still the offspring would be the result of two ancestors whose reproductive substance had been handed down in the manner indicated above.

This is practically Weismann's "germ-plasm theory". He supposes that each individual consists of two portions, somato-plasm, making up the main portion of the body, and germ-plasm stored away in the sex-gland. This last he believes arises always from germ-plasm, that substance being set aside at the earliest stages of development and finally deposited in the sex-gland, when that organ becomes developed. It is obvious that this theory of a potentially immortal germ-plasm entails great difficulties when the question of variation and especially variation induced by environment, comes into consideration. Moreover, there is no available evidence in higher forms that there is any such setting aside of germinal substance at early stages of development, and all the facts of regeneration are against the theory, as has been pointed out by Hertwig, Weismann's great opponent. If it be true, as it undoubtedly is, that a hydra, cut into several pieces can produce as many new individuals, and a begonia, by cuttings, propagate any number of new plants, it is difficult to see how it can be argued that all the reproductive substance is stored up in one only portion of the animal or plant. Weismann's views, which have undoubtedly exerted great influence on biologists and at one time met with a very large amount of acceptance, have, it must be admitted, failed to meet a great deal of the criticism which has been directed against them, and do not at all hold the position which they occupied some years ago in scientific favour.

Another method of explaining heredity is that which presupposes that fragments from the different portions of the body become aggregated in the sex-cells and thus become the progenitors of the different portions of the offspring. Darwin's theory of "pangenesis" and other similar explanations are of the character, and of them it may be said that they not only rest upon no demonstrable evidence but require so complicated a machinery as to become practically inconceivable. There remains the remarkable theory of "unconscious memory" put forward by Hering, and more recently by Semon and Francis Darwin, and developed in the writings of Samuel Butler. Psychological explanation seems destined to receive more attention in the future than it has in the past. Much doubt remains as to what portion of the cell is the bearer of the hereditary characteristics. Some years ago it was firmly held that these were borne by the nucleus, and further, by the chromosomes of the nucleus alone. Recent experiments have tended to make this theory, if not untenable, at least most doubtful, and it now seems that it may be the nucleus, the protoplasm, or the centrosome, or a combination of any or all of these, which may be held to occupy this position, if indeed it must be held that some definite part of the cell has to be indicated. The inheritance of acquired conditions is a point around which controversy rages and has raged for some time. It may at least be said that Weismann has proved, as far as such a matter can be proved, that mutilations are not inheritable and this may be said in spite of the still doubtful explanation of Brown-Séquard's experiments in connexion with the production of epilepsy in guinea-pigs. Weismann denies the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characters and has invented a cumbrous and, many would say, fanciful explanation to account for variation otherwise. Haeckel, on the contrary, would rather, as he says, believe in the Mosaic theory of creation than doubt the inheritance of acquired conditions.

This matter has often been complicated by the question of inherited disease, which is a wholly different question and of which all that can here be said is that, where it is not a case of bacterial or toxic infection of the germ, it is not the disease which is inherited, but a certain character, or organ, or structure which renders its owner predisposed to the attacks of that disease, should he come in its way. As to the true inheritance of acquired conditions, however, there is, as above indicated, great difference of opinion, the Lamarckians and the so-called neo-Lamarckians holding that in this and in this alone, according to the straiter sect, we have the true explanation of variation and evolution, whilst the Weismannites take up a wholly opposite point of view. It must be admitted that the extremer views of Weismann as to the impossibility of the inheritance of acquired conditions are daily losing ground. The same may be said as to the theory of telegony. It is well known that breeders consider that if a valuable bitch has borne pups to an under-bred dog, she is ruined for breeding purposes, since she is liable at any time to throw ill-bred pups, even though the sire of later litters may be a highly-bred male. The same view is held by horse-breeders. And the condition, which supposes that the maternal organism is, so to speak, infected, by the male congress, is called telegony. The most important argument in its favour is that it is implicitly held by persons whose bread is earned by attention to the laws of inheritance, yet it must be owned that Professor Cossar Ewart's careful experiments, at Penicuik, do not lend authority to the view, and it may perhaps turn out that the true explanation of this puzzling variety of heredity depends on some law of reversion, at present misunderstood, but which may be cleared up by further researches along Mendelian lines. (See Mind.)

The subject is well summed up in THOMSON, Heredity (London 1908) written by one belonging to the Weismannite side See also WILSON, The Cell in Development and Inheritance (London and New York, 1896, 1900), the best book on the cellular question which involves so much in the matter of heredity; BATESON Mendel's Principles of Heredity (London 1900); HUTTON The Lesson of Evolution (1907); BUTLER, Life and Habit (London 1878); IDEM, Unconscious Memory (London 1880); BROOKS, The Law of Heredity (Baltimore, 1891); RIBOT L'hérédité (Paris 1873; Eng. tr., London, 1875); MIVART in Dublin Review, CV (1889), pp.269-296; SPENCER, The Inadequacy of Natural Selection in Contemporary Review, LXIII (1893).

B.C.A. WINDLE

Ancient Diocese of Hereford

(HEREFORDENSIS)

Located in England. Though the name of Putta, the exiled Bishop of Rochester, is usually given as the first Bishop Of Hereford (676), Venerable Bede's account merely states that he was granted a church and some land in Mercia by Sexulf, Bishop of Lichfield. This, however, was probably the nucleus from which the diocese grew, though its limits were not precisely fixed even by the end of the eighth century. In 793 the body of the martyred Ethelbert, King of the East Saxons, was buried at Hereford, and his shrine became a place of pilgrimage famous for miracles. His name was joined with that of the Blessed Virgin as titular, so that the cathedral, which was served by secular canons, was known as the Church of St. Mary and St. Ethelbert. The shrine was destroyed by the Welsh in 1055, when the cathedral, which had been recently rebuilt, was much damaged. It was restored after the Norman Conquest by Bishop Robert de Losinga, the intimate friend of St. Wulstan of Worcester. His immediate successors made further additions, and the great central tower was built about 1200. The clerestory to the choir, the beautiful Early English Lady Chapel and the north transept were added during the thirteenth century. Unfortunately the cathedral has suffered much from unskilful restoration, and some of the medieval work has been replaced by eighteenth-century architecture, notably the west front, which was ruined by the fall of a tower in 1786. The cathedral was remarkable for not conforming to the Sarum Rite, but for maintaining its own "Hereford Use" down to the Reformation. It had its own Breviary and Missal, and portions of the antiphonary have also survived. The diocese was generally fortunate in its bishops, two of whom are specially prominent: John de Breton, the great English lawyer (1268-1275); and his successor, Thomas de Cantilupe, better known as St. Thomas of Hereford, the last English saint to be canonized. He was chancellor to King Henry III when he was elected bishop, and had wide experience of government. In the disputes which arose between Archbishop Peckham and his suffragans, St. Thomas was chosen to lay the cause of the bishops before the pope, and while on this mission he died. His relics were buried at Hereford, where his shrine became the scene of numerous miracles. Part of the relics were saved at the Reformation and are now at Stonyhurst, but it would appear that some remained at Hereford, for as late as 1610 they were carried in procession by the people during the plague. In the cathedral is still preserved the celebrated "Mappa Mundi", designed by Richard of Battle in the thirteenth century. The diocese consisted of nearly all Herefordshire, with part of Shropshire, and parishes in the counties of Worcester, Monmouth, Montgomery and Radnor. It was divided into two archdeaconries, Hereford and Salop. There were about thirty religious houses in the diocese, the Augustinians having seven, including the priory of Wigmore, and the Benedictines ten, among which was the great priory of Leominster. There were Cluniacs at Clifford, Wenlock and Preen, Cistercians at Dore and Flaxley. Dominicans and Franciscans both had priories in Hereford; at Ludlow there were Carmelites and Austin Friars.

The following is the list of bishops of Hereford, with dates of appointment, the chronology before 1012 being partly conjectural: —

The arms of the see were: Gules, three leopard's heads reversed, jessant as many fleurs-de-lys, or.

HAVERGAL, Fasti Herefordenses (1869), giving full bibliography of cathedral and city; PHILLOTT, Hereford: Diocesan History (London, 1888); FISHER, Hereford: The Cathedral and See (London, 1898). For the Hereford Use, see Hereford Missal, reprinted by HENDERSON (London, 1874), and Hereford Breviary, edited by FRERE AND BROWN for Henry Bradshaw Society, I (London, 1903), vol. II in preparation. The Mappa Mundi was published in facsimile in 1869. See also MILLER, Die Herefordkarte (1896).

EDWIN BURTON.

St. Hereswitha

(HAERESVID, HERESWYDE).

Daughter of Hereric and Beorhtswith and sister of St. Hilda of Whitby. She was the wife of Aethelhere, King of East Anglia, to whom she bore two sons, Aldwulf and Alfwold. By the "Liber Eliensis" she is stated to have been the wife of King Anna, the leder brother of King Aethelhere, but this is certainly a mistake. Her husband having been killed in the battle of Winwaed (655), St. Hereswitha became a nun at the Abbey of Chelles, then in the Diocese of Paris, where she remained until the end of her life. Her feast is variously assigned -- by Stanton to 3 September, by the second edition of the English Martyrology to 20 September, by the first edition and by Ferrari to 23 September. Bucelinus, however, assigns it to 1 December, and the Bollandists propose to discuss her cultus on that date.

Acta SS., 20 Sept., VI, 106; BEDE, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxiii, in Mon. Hist. Brit., 234; ECKENSTEIN, Woman under Monasticism (Cambridge, 1896), 82, 96-7; FLORENCE OF WORCESTER, Genaelogia and Ad Chron. Append. in Mon. Hist. Brit., 628, 636; HOLE in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; Liber Eliensus, ed. STEWART (London, 1848); STANTON, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 435.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Heresy

I. Connotation and Definition
II. Distinctions
III. Degrees of heresy
IV. Gravity of the sin of heresy
V. Origin, spread, and persistence of heresy
VI. Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers on heresy
VII. Vindication of their teaching
VIII. Church legislation on heresy: ancient, medieval, present-day legislation
IX. Its principles
X. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over heretics
XI. Reception of converts
XII. Role of heresy in history
XIII. Intolerance and cruelty

I. CONNOTATION AND DEFINITION

The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State.

Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts, xxiv, 5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: "Concerning this sect [airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted" (Acts, xxviii, 22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: "There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition [aireseis apoleias]". In later Greek, philosophers' schools, as well as religious sects, are "heresies".

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".

Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity, as distinct from wanton opposition, supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create "good faith". Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the reins and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.

II. DISTINCTIONS

Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.

III. DEGREES OF HERESY

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly "defined" or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see CENSURES, THEOLOGICAL).

IV. GRAVITY OF THE SIN OF HERESY

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief (infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity." And he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.

V. ORIGIN, SPREAD, AND PERSISTENCE OF HERESY

(a) Origin of Heresy

The origin, the spread, and the persistence of heresy are due to different causes and influenced by many external circumstances. The undoing of faith infused and fostered by God Himself is possible on account of the human element in it, namely man's free will. The will determines the act of faith freely because its moral dispositions move it to obey God, whilst the non-cogency of the motives of credibility allows it to withhold its consent and leaves room for doubt and even denial. The non-cogency of the motives of credibility may arise from three causes: the obscurity of the Divine testimony (inevidentia attestantis); the obscurity of the contents of Revelation; the opposition between the obligations imposed on us by faith and the evil inclinations of our corrupt nature. To find out how a man's free will is led to withdraw from the faith once professed, the best way is observation of historical cases. Pius X, scrutinizing the causes of Modernism, says: "The proximate cause is, without any doubt, an error of the mind. The remoter causes are two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity, unless wisely held in bounds, is of itself sufficient to account for all errors. . . . But far more effective in obscuring the mind and leading it into error is pride, which has, as it were, its home in Modernist doctrines. Through pride the Modernists overestimate themselves. . . . We are not like other men . . . they reject all submission to authority . . . they pose as reformers. If from moral causes we pass to the intellectual, the first and most powerful is ignorance . . . . They extol modern philosophy . . . . completely ignoring the philosophy of the Schools and thus depriving themselves of the means of clearing away the confusion of their ideas and of meeting sophisms. Their system, replete with so many errors, had its origin in the wedding of false philosophy with faith" (Encycl. "Pascendi", 8 September, 1907).

So far the pope. If now we turn to the Modernist leaders for an account of their defections, we find none attributing it to pride or arrogance, but they are almost unanimous in allowing that curiosity--the desire to know how the old faith stands in relation to the new science--has been the motive power behind them. In the last instance, they appeal to the sacred voice of their individual conscience which forbids them outwardly to profess what inwardly they honestly hold to be untrue. Loisy, to whose case the Decree "Lamentabili" applies, tells his readers that he was brought to his present position "by his studies chiefly devoted to the history of the Bible, of Christian origins and of comparative religion". Tyrrell says in self-defence: "It is the irresistible facts concerning the origin and composition of the Old and New Testaments; concerning the origin of the Christian Church, of its hierarchy, its institutions, its dogmas; concerning the gradual development of the papacy; concerning the history of religion in general--that create a difficulty against which the synthesis of scholastic theology must be and is already shattered to pieces." "I am able to put my finger on the exact point or moment in my experience from which my 'immanentism' took its rise. In his 'Rules for the discernment of Spirits' . . . Ignatius of Loyola says . . . etc." It is psychologically interesting to note the turning-point or rather the breaking-point of faith in the autobiographies of seceders from the Church. A study of the personal narratives in "Roads to Rome" and "Roads from Rome" leaves one with the impression that the heart of man is a sanctuary impenetrable to all but to God and, in a certain measure, to its owner. It is, therefore, advisable to leave individuals to themselves and to study the spread of heresy, or the origin of heretical societies.

(b) Spread of Heresy

The growth of heresy, like the growth of plants, depends on surrounding influences, even more than on its vital force. Philosophies, religious ideals and aspirations, social and economic conditions, are brought into contact with revealed truth, and from the impact result both new affirmations and new negations of the traditional doctrine. The first requisite for success is a forceful man, not necessarily of great intellect and learning, but of strong will and daring action. Such were the men who in all ages have given their names to new sects. The second requisite is accommodation of the new doctrine to the contemporary mentality, to social and political conditions. The last, but by no means the least, is the support of secular rulers. A strong man in touch with his time, and supported by material force, may deform the existing religion and build up a new heretical sect. Modernism fails to combine into a body separate from the Church because it lacks an acknowledged leader, because it appeals to only a small minority of contemporary minds, namely, to a small number who are dissatisfied with the Church as she now is, and because no secular power lends it support. For the same reason, and proportionately, a thousand small sects have failed, whose names still encumber the pages of church history, but whose tenets interest only a few students, and whose adherents are nowhere. Such were, in the Apostolic Age, the Judeo-Christians, Judeo-Gnostics, Nicolaites, Docetae, Cerinthians, Ebionites, Nazarenes, followed, in the next two centuries, by a variety of Syrian and Alexandrian Gnostics, by Ophites, Marcionites, Encratites, Montanists, Manichaeans, and others. All the early Eastern sects fed on the fanciful speculations so dear to the Eastern mind, but, lacking the support of temporal power, they disappeared under the anathemas of the guardians of the depositum fidei.

Arianism is the first heresy that gained a strong footing in the Church and seriously endangered its very nature and existence. Arius appeared on the scene when theologians were endeavouring to harmonize the apparently contradictory doctrines of the unity of God and the Divinity of Christ. Instead of unravelling the knot, he simply cut it by bluntly asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time. The simplicity of the solution, the ostentatious zeal of Arius for the defence of the "one God", his mode of life, his learning and dialectic ability won many to his side. "In particular he was supported by the famous Eusebius of Nicomedia who had great influence on the Emperor Constantine. He had friends among the other bishops of Asia and even among the bishops, priests, and nuns of the Alexandrian province. He gained the favour of Constantia, the emperor's sister, and he disseminated his doctrine among the people by means of his notorious book which he called thaleia or 'Entertainment' and by songs adapted for sailors, millers, and travellers." (Addis and Arnold, "A Catholic Dictionary", 7th ed., 1905, 54.) The Council of Nicaea anathematized the heresiarch, but its anathemas, like all the efforts of the Catholic bishops, were nullified by interference of the civil power. Constantine and his sister protected Arius and the Arians, and the next emperor, Constantius, assured the triumph of the heresy: the Catholics were reduced to silence by dire persecution. At once an internecine conflict began within the Arian pale, for heresy, lacking the internal cohesive element of authority, can only be held together by coercion either from friend or foe. Sects sprang up rapidly: they are known as Eunomians, Anomoeans, Exucontians, Semi-Arians, Acacians. The Emperor Valens (364-378) lent his powerful support to the Arians, and the peace of the Church was only secured when the orthodox Emperor Theodosius reversed the policy of his predecessors and sided with Rome. Within the boundaries of the Roman empire the faith of Nicaea, enforced again by the General Council of Constantinople (381), prevailed, but Arianism held its own for over two hundred years longer wherever the Arian Goths held sway: in Thrace, Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul. The conversion of King Recared of Spain, who began to reign in 586, marked the end of Arianism in his dominions, and the triumph of the Catholic Franks sealed the doom of Arianism everywhere.

Pelagianism, not being backed by political power, was without much difficulty removed from the Church. Eutychianism, Nestorianism, and other Christological heresies which followed one upon another as the link, of a chain, flourished only so long and so far as the temporal power of Byzantine and Persian rulers gave them countenance. Internal dissension, stagnation, and decay became their fate when left to themselves.

Passing over the great schism that rent East from West, and the many smaller heresies which sprang up in the Middle Ages without leaving a deep impression on the Church, we arrive at the modern sects which date from Luther and go by the collective name of Protestantism. The three elements of success possessed by Arianism reappear in Lutheranism and cause these two great religious upheavals to move on almost parallel lines. Luther was eminently a man of his people: the rough-hewn, but, withal sterling, qualities of the Saxon peasant lived forth under his religious habit and doctor's gown; his winning voice, his piety, his learning raised him above his fellows yet did not estrange him from the people: his conviviality, the crudities in his conversation and preaching, his many human weaknesses only increased his popularity. When the Dominican John Tetzel began to preach in Germany the indulgences proclaimed by Pope Leo X for those who contributed to the completion of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, opposition arose on the part of the people and of both civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Luther set the match to the fuel of widespread discontent. He at once gained a number of adherents powerful both in Church and State; the Bishop of Würzburg recommended him to the protection of the Elector Frederick of Saxony. In all probability Luther started on his crusade with the laudable intention of reforming undoubted abuses. But his unexpected success, his impetuous temper, perhaps some ambition, soon carried him beyond all bounds set by the Church. By 1521, that is within four years from his attack on abuse of indulgences, he had propagated a new doctrine; the Bible was the only source of faith; human nature was wholly corrupted by original sin, man was not free, God was responsible for all human actions good and bad; faith alone saved; the Christian priesthood was not confined to the hierarchy but included all the faithful. The masses of the people were not slow in drawing from these doctrines the practical conclusion that sin was sin no longer, was, in fact, equal to a good work.

With his appeal to the lower instincts of human nature went an equally strong appeal to the spirit of nationality and greed. He endeavored to set the German emperor against the Roman pope and generally the Teuton against the Latin; he invited the secular princes to confiscate the property of the Church. His voice was heard only too well. For the next 130 years the history of the German people is a record of religious strife, moral degradation, artistic retrogression, industrial breakdown; of civil wars, pillage, devastation, and general ruin. The Peace of 1648 established the principle: Cujus regio illius et religio; the lord of the land shall be also lord of religion. And accordingly territorial limits became religious limits within which the inhabitant had to profess and practise the faith imposed on him by the ruler. It is worthy of remark that the geographical frontier fixed by the politicians of 1648 is still the dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism in Germany. The English Reformation, more than any other, was the work of crafty politicians. The soil had been prepared for it by the Lollards or Wycliffites, who at the beginning of the sixteenth century were still numerous in the towns. No English Luther arose, but the unholy work was thoroughly done by kings and parliaments, by means of a series of penal laws unequalled in severity.

(c) Persistence of Heresy

We have seen how heresy originates and how it spreads; we must now answer the question why it persists, or why so many persevere in heresy. Once heresy is in possession, it tightens its grip by the thousand subtle and often unconscious influences which mould a man's life. A child is born in heretical surroundings: before it is able to think for itself its mind has been filled and fashioned by home, school, and church teachings, the authority of which it never doubted. When, at a riper age, doubts arise, the truth of Catholicism is seldom apprehended as it is. Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable. In the absence of good faith worldly interests often bar the way from heresy to truth. When a government, for instance, reserves its favours and functions for adherents of the state religion, the army of civil servants becomes a more powerful body of missionaries than the ordained ministers. Prussia, France, and Russia are cases in point.

VI. CHRIST, THE APOSTLES, AND THE FATHERS ON HERESY

Heresy, in the sense of falling away from the Faith, became possible only after the Faith had been promulgated by Christ. Its advent is clearly foretold, Matt., xxiv, 11, 23-26: " . . . many false prophets shall rise. and shall seduce many. . . . Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall rise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. "Christ also indicated the marks by which to know the false prophets: "Who is not with me is against me" (Luke, xi, 23); "and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt., xviii, 17); "he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16). The Apostles acted upon their Master's directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. "If any one", says St.Paul, "preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema" (Gal., i, 9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (I John, iv, 3; II John, 7); "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you" (II John, 10). St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: " . . . lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved" (II Pet., ii, 1, 17). St. Jude speaks in a similar strain throughout his whole epistle. St. Paul admonishes the disturbers of the unity of faith at Corinth that "the weapons of our warfare . . . are mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God . . . and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience" (II Cor., x, 4, 5, 6).

What Paul did at Corinth he enjoins to be done by every bishop in his own church. Thus Timothy is instructed to "war in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim., i, 18-20). He exhorts the ancients of the Church at Ephesus to "take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, . . . I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock . . . Therefore watch, . . ." (Acts, xx. 28, 29, :31). "Beware of dogs", he writes to the Philippians (iii, 2), the dogs being the same false teachers as the "ravening wolves". The Fathers show no more leniency to perverters of the faith. A Protestant writer thus sketches their teaching (Schaff-Herzog, s. v. Heresy): "Polycarp regarded Marcion as the first-born of the Devil. Ignatius sees in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin and Tertullian condemn their errors as inspirations of the Evil One; Theophilus compares them to barren and rocky islands on which ships are wrecked; and Origen says, that as pirates place lights on cliffs to allure and destroy vessels in quest of refuge, so the Prince of this world lights the fires of false knowledge in order to destroy men. [Jerome calls the congregations of the heretics synagogues of Satan (Ep. 123), and says their communion is to be avoided like that of vipers and scorpions (Ep. 130).]" These primitive views on heresy have been faithfully transmitted and acted on by the Church in subsequent ages. There is no break in the tradition from St. Peter to Pius X.

VII. VINDICATION OF THEIR TEACHING

The first law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation. Neglect of self-preservation leads to ruin and destruction. But the life of a religious society, the tissue that binds its members into one body and animates them with one soul, is the symbol of faith, the creed or confession adhered to as a condition sine qua non of membership. To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul. In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live. This instinct is by no means peculiar to the Catholic Church; being natural it is universal. All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.

But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It is certainly not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, whichever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials: if he resumes his liberty he ipso facto separates himself from his church. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society--in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the faith. Nor can it be said that this principle unduly curtails the play of human reason. That it does curtail its play is a fact, but a fact grounded in natural and Divine law, as shown above. That it does not curtail reason unduly is evidenced by this other fact: that the deposit of faith (1) is itself an inexhaustible object of intellectual effort of the noblest kind, lifting human reason above its natural sphere, enlarging and deepening its outlook, soliciting its finest faculties; (2) that, side by side with the deposit, but logically connected with it, there is a multitude of doubtful points of which discussion is free within the wide bounds of charity--"in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas." The substitution of private judgment for the teaching magisterium has been the dissolvent of all sects who have adopted it. Only those sects exhibit a certain consistency in which private judgment is a dead letter and the teaching is carried on according to confessions and catechisms by a trained clergy.

VIII. CHURCH LEGISLATION ON HERESY

Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ's work of salvation. Her Founder, who foretold the disease, also provided the remedy: He endowed her teaching with infallibility (see CHURCH). The office of teaching belongs to the hierarchy, the ecclesia docens, which, under certain conditions, judges without appeal in matters of faith and morals (see COUNCILS). Infallible decisions can also be given by the pope teaching ex cathedra (see INFALLIBILITY). Each pastor in his parish, each bishop in his diocese, is in duty bound to keep the faith of his flock untainted; to the supreme pastor of all the Churches is given the office of feeding the whole Christian flock. The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church. Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. When erroneous doctrines gathered volume and threatened disruption of the Church, the bishops assembled in councils, provincial, metropolitan, national, or ecumenical. There the combined weight of their authority was brought to bear upon the false doctrines. The first council was a meeting of the Apostles at Jerusalem in order to put an end to the judaizing tendencies among the first Christians. It is the type of all succeeding councils: bishops in union with the head of the Church, and guided by the Holy Ghost, sit as judges in matters of faith and morals. The spirit which animates the dealings of the Church with heresy and heretics is one of extreme severity. St. Paul writes to Titus: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10-11). This early piece of legislation reproduces the still earlier teaching of Christ: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt., xviii, 17); it also inspires all subsequent anti-heretical legislation. The sentence on the obstinate heretic is invariably excommunication. He is separated from the company of the faithful, delivered up "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Cor., v, 5).

When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. "In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned." (Vide "Codex Theodosianus", lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis".)

This legislation remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS). The Congregation of the Index, instituted by St. Pius V, has for its province the care of faith and morals in literature; it proceeds against printed matter very much as the Holy Office proceeds against persons (see INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS). The present pope [1909], Pius X, has decreed the establishment in every diocese of a board of censors and of a vigilance committee whose functions are to find out and report on writings and persons tainted with the heresy of Modernism (Encycl. "Pascendi", 8 Sept., 1907). The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance. Even in countries where the cleavage between the spiritual and secular powers does not amount to hostility or complete severance, the death penalty, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, etc., are no longer inflicted on heretics. The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae. The former are incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required; the latter are inflicted after trial by an ecclesiastical court, or by a bishop acting ex informata conscientia, that is, on his own certain knowledge, and dispensing with the usual procedure

The penalties (see CENSURES, ECCLESIASTICAL) latae sententiae are: (1) Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman pontiff, which is incurred by all apostates from the Catholic Faith, by each and all heretics, by whatever name they are known and to whatever sect they belong, and by all who believe in them (credentes), receive, favour, or in any way defend them (Const. "Apostolicae Sedis", 1869). Heretic here means formal heretic, but also includes the positive doubter, that is, the man who posits his doubt as defensible by reason, but not the negative doubter, who simply abstains from formulating a judgment. The believers (credentes) in heretics are they who, without examining particular doctrines, give a general assent to the teachings of the sect; the favourers (fautores) are they who by commission or omission lend support to heresy and thus help or allow it to spread; the receivers and defenders are they who shelter heretics from the rigours of the law. (2) "Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff incurred by each and all who knowingly read, without authorization from the Apostolic See, books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is defended; likewise readers of books of any author prohibited by name in letters Apostolic, and all who retain possession of, or print, or in any way defend such books" (Apost. Sedis, 1869). The book here meant is a volume of a certain size and unity; newspapers and manuscripts are not books, but serial publications intended to form a book when completed fall under this censure. To read knowingly (scienter) implies on the reader's part the knowledge that the book is the work of a heretic, that it defends heresy, and that it is forbidden. "Books . . . prohibited by name in letters Apostolic" are books condemned by Bulls, Briefs, or Encyclicals emanating directly from the pope; books prohibited by decrees of Roman Congregations, although the prohibition is approved by the pope, are not included. The "printers" of heretical books are the editor who gives the order and the publisher who executes it, and perhaps the proof-reader, but not the workman who performs the mechanical part of printing.

Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences: Apostates and heretics are irregular, that is, debarred from receiving clerical orders or exercising lawfully the duties and rights annexed to them; they are infamous, that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured. This note of infamy clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics. Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church. Baptism received without necessity by an adult at the hands of a declared heretic renders the recipient irregular. Heresy constitutes an impedient impediment to marriage with a Catholic (mixta religio) from which the pope dispenses or gives the bishops power to dispense (see IMPEDIMENTS). Communicatio in sacris, i. e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

IX. PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH LEGISLATION

The guiding principles in the Church's treatment of heretics are the following: Distinguishing between formal and material heretics, she applies to the former the canon, "Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every heretic or schismatic is to have part with the Devil and his angels in the flames of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be incorporated with, and restored to the Catholic Church." No one is forced to enter the Church, but having once entered it through baptism, he is bound to keep the promises he freely made. To restrain and bring back her rebellious sons the Church uses both her own spiritual power and the secular power at her command. Towards material heretics her conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: "Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected" (P. L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160). Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: "It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not wilfully guilty" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", n. 1529). X.

X. ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION OVER HERETICS

The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e. g. by the Six Commandments of the Church.

XI. RECEPTION OF CONVERTS

Converts to the Faith, before being received, should be well instructed in Catholic doctrine. The right to reconcile heretics belongs to the bishops, but is usually delegated to all priests having charge of souls. In England a special licence is required for each reconciliation, except in case of children under fourteen or of dying persons, and this licence is only granted when the priest can give a written assurance that the candidate is sufficiently instructed and otherwise prepared, and that there is some reasonable guarantee of his perseverance. The order of proceeding in a reconciliation is: first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith; second, conditional baptism (this is given only when the heretical baptism is doubtful); third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution.

XII. ROLE OF HERESY IN HISTORY

The role of heresy in history is that of evil generally. Its roots are in corrupted human nature. It has come over the Church as predicted by her Divine Founder; it has rent asunder the bonds of charity in families, provinces, states, and nations; the sword has been drawn and pyres erected both for its defence and its repression; misery and ruin have followed in its track. The prevalence of heresy, however, does not disprove the Divinity of the Church, any more than the existence of evil disproves the existence of an all-good God. Heresy, like other evils, is permitted as a test of faith and a trial of strength in the Church militant; probably also as a punishment for other sins. The disruption and disintegration of heretical sects also furnishes a solid argument for the necessity of a strong teaching authority. The endless controversies with heretics have been indirectly the cause of most important doctrinal developments and definitions formulated in councils to the edification of the body of Christ. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics prepared the way for the canon of Scripture; Patripassian, Sabellian, Arian, and Macedonian heresies drew out a clearer concept of the Trinity; the Nestorian and Eutychian errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of Christ. And so down to Modernism, which has called forth a solemn assertion of the claims of the supernatural in history.

XIII. INTOLERANCE AND CRUELTY

The Church's legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d'être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt., x, 34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ (see INQUISITION).

J. WILHELM

Joseph Hergenröther

Church historian and canonist, first Cardinal-Prefect of the Vatican Archives, b. at Würzburg, 15 Sept., 1824; d. at Mehrerau (Bodensee), 3 Oct., 1890. He was the second son of Johann Jacob Hergenröther, professor of medicine in the University of Würzburg. In 1842 Hergenröther completed with notable success his gymnasium course in his native town, and entered the University of Würzburg to take up a two-year course of philosophical studies, to which he added certain branches of theology. His historical tendencies exhibited themselves at this early age in a dramatic poem entitled "Papst Gregor VII" (Würzburg, 1841). Bishop von Stahl took a lively interest in the promising youth, and in 1844 sent him to the Collegium Germanicum at Rome, whither he had already sent Denzinger and Hettinger. Among his scholarly teachers were Perrone and Passaglia in doctrinal theology, Tomei in moral theology, Ballerini in church history, Patrizi in Scriptural exegesis, and Marzio in canon law. The political troubles of 1848 prevented the completion of his theological studies at Rome; he was ordained to the priesthood 28 March of that year, and returned to Würzburg, where he pursued his ecclesiastical preparation for another year. In 1849 he was appointed chaplain at Zellingen, and for some time devoted himself with zeal to the duties of his office. In 1859 he stood successfully for the degree of doctor of theology before the University of Munich, and offered as his dissertation a treatise on the Trinitarian teaching of St. Gregory Nazianzen (Die Lehre von der göttlichen Dreieinigkeit nach d. heil. Gregor von Nazianz, Ratisbon, 1850). The brilliant qualities of the young doctor induced the theological faculty of Munich to offer him a place as instructor (privatdozent) in theology, which he accepted. Following ancient usage, he justified the confidence of the university by a printed thesis (Habilitationschrift) on the later Protestant theories of the origins of the Catholic Church (De catholicæ ecclesiæ primordiis recentiorum Protestantium systemata expenduntur, Ratisbon, 1851). Henceforth he devoted himself without reserve to his professional duties. In 1852 he was called to Würzburg, as professor extraordinary of canon law and church history; after three years (1855) he was promoted to the full possession of that chair. To his other duties he added the teaching of patrology. In those years Würzburg rejoiced in the possession of such brilliant theologians as Hettinger, Denzinger, Hähnlein, and Hergenröther; their reputation spread far and wide the fame of this old Franconian school. Hergenröther was often honoured by election to the office of dean of his faculty, and occasionally to the University Senate; the latter office he never held after 1871, because of his opposition to Döllinger. For a similar reason he was never chosen to be rector of the university. Until 1869 Hergenröther was occupied as teacher and writer, chiefly with early Christian and Byzantine ecclesiastical history. The discovery (1851) of the Greek Christian text known as the Philosophoúmena led him to examine its disputed authorship in a series of studies in the "Tübinger Theol. Quartalschrift" (1852) and in the supplementary volume (1856) to the first edition of the "Kirchenlexikon" of Wetzer and Welte. He again defended the authorship of Hippolytus in the "Œsterreichische Vierteljahrschrift f. kath. Theol." (1863).

Hergenröther was especially interested in the career of Photius and in the origins of the Greek Schism, and kept up continuous research in the principal libraries for manuscripts of the works of Photius, in order to exhibit the original materials in as perfect a text as could be established. This led to the publication (Ratisbon, 1857) of the work, "Photii Constantinopolitani Liber de Spiritus Sancti mystagogia". He contributed essays on the same work and on the "Amphilochia" of Photius to the "Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift" (1858). In 1860 appeared at Paris the Migne edition of "Photius" (P. G., CI-CIV). It offered many textual emendations that were owing to Hergenröther, particularly in the "Amphilochia"; it was against his will that his earlier edition of the "Liber de Sp. Sancti mystagogia" was reprinted by Migne. When Pichler's work on the history of the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches appeared (Munich, 1864), Hergenröther was prepared to criticize it in the most thorough manner, which he did in a series of studies in a Würzburg theological periodical, the "Chilianeum" (1864-65), and in the "Archiv. f. kath. Kirchenrecht" (1864-65). The results of his twelve years of research in the history of the Greek Schism appeared finally in the classical work, "Photius Patriarch von Constantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften, und das griechische Schisma" (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1867-69). An additional volume bears the title: "Monumenta Græca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia" (Ratisbon). In this monumental work it is difficult to say whether the palm belongs to the author's extensive knowledge of all the manuscript material, to his profound erudition, or to his calm objective attitude. Krumbacher, the historian of Byzantine literature, says that the work cannot be surpassed. In these volumes Hergenröther laid here in minute detail the origins of the Byzantine Church, its development since the fourth century, and after the death of Photius until the unfortunate completion of the schism in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

While professor of canon law at Würzburg, Hergenröther published several important historico-canonical essays on such subjects as early ecclesiastical reordinations (Ester, Vierteljahrsch. f. kath. Theol., 1862), the canonical relations of the various rites in the Catholic Church (Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, 1862), the politico-ecclesiastical relations of Spain and the Holy See (ibid., 1863-66), and the canon law of the Greeks to the end of the ninth century (ibid., 1870). His interest in the ecclesiastical vicissitudes of his own day was manifested by valuable essays on the States of the Church after the French Revolution (Hist.-polit. Blätter, 1859), spirit of the age (Zeitgeist) and papal sovereignty (Der Katholik, 1861), and the Franco-Sardinian Treaty (Frankfort, 1865). Among his historico-apologetic essays we may count his treatises on the modern errors condemned by the Holy See in the Encyclical (Syllabus) of 8 Dec., 1864 (in the Chilianeum, 1865), the veneration of the Blessed Virgin in the first ten centuries of the Christian Era (Münster, 1870). He was a regular contributor of similar but briefer articles to the Würzburg periodicals, "Die katholische Wochenschrift" and the "Chilianeum". Hergenröther was constantly engaged in attempting to develop a genuine Catholic sentiment and truly Christian life among the faithful. He preached frequently, and was always a welcome speaker at the general assemblies of the German Catholic associations (Vereine; 1863-77). For the Fulda meeting of the Prussian bishops (1870) he prepared an exhaustive historical study on the spoliation of the Papal States, in which he developed at length the arguments for the temporal power of the papacy.

Together with other Catholics of prudence and insight, Hergenröther deplored the attitude that certain Catholic theologians assumed from about 1860, in particular that of the celebrated historian Döllinger. The latter's work "Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat" (1861) was criticized by Hergenröther in "Der Katholik". At the Munich meeting of Catholic savants (1863), Hergenröther was one of the eight who sent in a written protest against the opening discourse of Döllinger on the past and present of Catholic theology. Among the other signers were Heinrich Moufang von Schäzler, Haffner, Philipps, Hettinger, and Scheeben. Hergenröther was soon called on to answer the pamphlet of Dr. Michelis, "Kirche oder Partei? Ein offenes u. freies Wort an den deutschen Episkopat" (Church or Faction? A Frank Address to the German Episcopate), in which this writer attacked violently the "Mainz" and the "Roman" theologians. Hergenröther's answer appeared in the "Chilianeum" (1865) under the title of "Kirche u. nicht Partei. Eine Antwort auf die jüngste Broschüre des Herrn Dr. Fr. Michelis" (Church and not Faction: an Answer to the latest Brochure of Dr. Michelis). In the same review (1863) Hergenröther had written a critical account of the latest efforts of Western Catholics for ecclesiastical reunion with the Oriental Churches.

The opening of the Vatican Council (1870) brought to a head the domestic conflict in Germany. Hergenröther was the foremost defender of the council and its decrees; as early as 1868 he had been appointed, with Hettinger, consultor for the preparation of the council's work and had taken up his residence at Rome. His inexhaustible knowledge of ecclesiastical history, canon law, and Catholic dogma made him a valuable co-labourer in the many careful and detailed preliminary meetings of the council commission. In the meantime he prepared, with Hettinger, and published in the "Chilianeum" (1869) a memorial of the theological faculty of Würzburg in reply to five questions, submitted by the Bavarian Government, concerning the approaching council. He also publsihed (Der Katholik, 1871) another outlined memorial concerning the Vatican Council, in reply to eleven questions submitted by the Bavarian Minister of Worship to the theological and law faculties of Würzburg. This memorial, though projected, was never formally called for by the Government. The oppositon to the Vatican Council reached its acme in the notorious work, "Der Papst und das Concil", by "Janus" (Döllinger). In the same year (1869) Hergenröther prepared his "Anti-Janus", an historico-theological critique (Freiburg, 1870). He also publsihed a number of small brochures in favour of the council and against Döllinger, e. g. "Die Irrthümer logischer Censor" (Freiburg, 1870), and a critique of Dr. Döllinger's declaration of 28 March, 1871 (Freiburg, 1871). His pen was also active in the "Historisch-politische Blätter", where he published (1870) a series of articles on the "Allgemeine Zeitung" and its letters from the council, on papal infallibility before the Vatican Council, and on ancient Gallicans and modern Appellants. In 1871 he published the solid study "Das unfehlbare Lehrant des Papstes" [The Infallible Magisterium (teaching office) of the pope, Passau, 1871]. These grave and exhausting labours were crowned and partially summarized by a new work, "Katholische Kirche u. christlicher Staat in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung u. in Beziehung auf die Gegenwart" (The Catholic Church and the Christian State, in their historical development and their relations to the present), together with an "Anti-Janus vindicatus" (Freiburg, 1872, 2nd annotated ed., Freiburg, 1876). The former is a thesaurus of information concerning politico-ecclesiastical conflicts of the past, and is marked throughout by an uncompromising Catholic tone. It was translated into Italian (Pavia, 1877) and into English (London, 1876; Baltimore, 1889).

The friends and disciples of Hergenröther had often urged him to compose a manual of ecclesiastical history, but the labours of the Vatican Council had left him no time for such a task; moreover, he had been considering an extensive work on Church and State in the eighteenth century. He yielded, however, to the general desire, and published his "Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte" (Manual of General Church History) in the "theological Library" of Herder (Freiburg, 1876). A second annotated edition appeared in 1879; in 1880 a third volume was added, containing the notes and documentary evidence. This work was then and remains yet unsurpassed for abundance of information, accuracy of narrative, and manifold sources of historical proof. A third edition appeared (1884-86), in which the notes are no longer printed apart, but accompany the text. The writer of this article is the editor of a fourth edition (3 vols., Freiburg, 1902-1909). When it was proposed to bring out a new edition of the "Kirchenlexikon" of Wetzer and Welte, Hergenröther was naturally suggested as the savant most capable of executing this gigantic task. He accepted it, but was compelled to abandon it when scarcely begun; his elevation to the dignity of cardinal with the obligation of a Roman residence, left him no freedom for the enterprise. The first volume contains many articles from his pen, some of them quite lengthy. He was unable to do as much for the other volumes–in all there are eighty-seven articles signed by him. Other minor literary tasks consumed his spare hours in the last period of his life at Würzburg. The various subjects were Pius IX (Würzburg, 1876); Athanasius the Great (Cologne, 1876); Cardinal Maury in "Katholische Studien" (Würzburg, 1878); a short history of the popes (Würzburg, 1878); the vow of poverty among the Oriental monks in "Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht" (1877); the canonical significance of nomination (ibid., 1878). Hergenröther's solid and important works in the departments of church history and canon law, and his firm attitude on the great ecclesiastical questions of the day, won for him the confidence of all the bishops and Catholic scholars of Germany. In 1877 Pius IX had recognized his services to the Vatican Council and the ecclesiastical sciences by making him a domestic prelate. When Leo XIII detmined to open the Vatican Archives to the scholars of the world, he found in him the savant to whom he might safely entrust the practical execution of this generous act. Hergenröther was made Cardinal-Deacon of San Nicolò in Carcere, 12 May, 1879, to the great joy of all German, and particularly Bavarian, Catholics. At a later date he was transferred to Santa Maria in Via Lata. He was also appointed Cardinal-Prefect of the Apostolic Archives, a new office, which he was the first to fill, and in which he was charged with the establishment of research work in the Vatican Archives and the systematizing, on scientific lines, of scholarly work amid these rich treasures. That he executed the views of Leo XIII in a satisfactory and even generous manner, is acknowledged by the numerous historical workers who have laboured in the archives since 1879. Hergenröther was also a member of several Roman congregations (Index, Studies, and Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs), and protector of several religious institutes. He undertook, moreover, to edit the official correspondence (Regesta) of Leo X, a rather thankless task, and one of great difficulty, because of the exceedingly bad handwriting of that day. He was efficiently aided by his younger brother, Franz Hergenröther, who had accompanied him to Rome. Before his death the cardinal published eight parts or fasciculi of this extensive work, "Leonis X Pont. Maximi Regesta", Vol. I (Freiburg, 1884-85). A small part of the second volume was brought out (Freiburg, 1891) by his brother and fellow-editor, since which time the publication has ceased by reason of the latter's return to Würzburg as canon capitular of the cathedral.

Despite the grave burdens that now weighed upon him, Cardinal Hergenröther undertook another work of the most exacting nature, the continuation of Hefele's "History of the Councils", two volumes of which he published before his death (vol. VIII, Freiburg, 1887; vol. IX, 1890). The latter volume contains the preliminary history of the Council of Trent and is also a history of the Lutheran Reformation. He suffered much in the last years of his life, as the result of an apoplectic attack which crippled him grievously though it did not affect the brightness and vigour of his intellect. He was able to keep up his literary labours to the day of his death. During the summer vacation of 1880 he took up his residence in the Cistercian Abbey of Mehrerau (on the Bodensee) the hospitality of which he had more than once enjoyed. In this secluded spot he met with another apoplectic stroke, and died. He was laid to rest in the church of the abbey. In 1897 a suitable monument was erected to his memory by his friends, and dedicated (25 March).

Steiner, Cardinal Hergenröther in Der Episcopat der Gegenwart in Lebensbildern dargestellt (Würzburg, 1882); Heinrich, Cardinal Hergenröther in Der Katholik (1890), II, 481-99; Hollweck, Ein bayerischer Cardinal in Historisch-politische Blätter, CVI (1890), 721-29; Stamminger, Rede zum Gedächtnisse Cardinal Hergenröthers (Freiburg, 1892); Zobi, Trauerrede beim Leichenbegängnisse Sr. Eminenz des Cardinals Hergenröther (Feldkirch, 1890); Nirschl, Gedächtnissrede (Würzburg, 1897); Lauchert in Allgem. deutsche Biogr., s. v.

J.P. Kirsch

St. Heribert

Archbishop of Cologne; born at Worms, c. 970; died at Cologne, 16 March, 1021. His father was Duke Hugo of Worms. After receiving his education at the cathedral school of Worms, he spent some time as guest at the monastery of Gorze, after which he became provost at the cathedral of Worms. In 994 he was ordained priest; in the same year King Otto III appointed him chancellor for Italy and four years later also for Germany, a position which he held until the death of Otto III on 23 January, 1002. As chancellor he was the most influential adviser of Otto III, whom he accompanied to Rome in 906 and again in 997. He was still in Italy when, in 999, he was elected Archbishop of Cologne. At Benevento he received ecclesiastical investiture and the pallium from Pope Sylvester II on 9 July, 999, and on the following Christmas Day he was consecrated at Cologne. In 1002 he was present at the death-bed of the youthful emperor at Paterno. While returning to Germany with the emperor's remains and the imperial insignia, he was held captive for some time by the future King Henry II, whose candidacy he first opposed. As soon as Henry II was elected king, on 7 June, 1002, Heribert acknowledged him as such, accompanied him to Rome in 1004, mediated between him and the House of Luxemburg, and served him faithfully in many other wys; but he never won his entire confidence until the year 1021, when the king saw his mistake and humbly begged pardon on the archbishop. Heribert founded and richly endowed the Benedictine monastery and church of Deutz, where he lies buried. He was already honoured as a saint during his lifetime. Between 1073 and 1075 he was canonized by Pope Gregory VII. His feast is celebrated on 16 March.

MICHAEL OTT

Heribert

(ARIBERT)

Archbishop of Milan (1018-1045)

An ambitious and warlike prince of the Church; died at Monza, 16 January, 1045. After Conrad II was elected King of Germany in 1024, Heribert visited the new king at Constance in 1025, and in consideration of various privileges promised to help him to secure the crown of Lombardy. On 23 March, 1026, Heribert crowned Conrad II at Milan with the iron crown of Lombardy, and a year later was present at his imperial coronation, which was performed in Rome by John XIX on 26 March, 1027. In 1034 he assisted Conrad II in the conquest of Burgundy. In his ambition to be the supreme spiritual ruler of Upper Italy, he disregarded the rights of other dioceses, and consequently came into collision with the Metropolitan of Ravenna. He, moreover, committed many acts of violence against the inferior nobility, the so-called valvassores, who in consequence revolted against him. Upon his request the emperor came to Italy to quell the revolt. When, however, the emperor demanded that the archbishop should give an account of his actions, the latter refused to do so on the plea that he was not a subject, but the equal of the emperor. Upon this the emperor had him arrested. The Milanese looked upon this act as a national insult, and, after the archbishop's escape, assisted him loyally against all the attempts of the emperor to gain possession of Milan, even after the archbishop was excommunicated by Benedict IX in March, 1038. In the same year Heribert introduced the famous carroccio as the military insignia of Milan. It was afterwards accepted by the cities of Lombardy and Tuscany and by Rome. After the death of Conrad II, Heribert made peace with the new emperor, Henry III, at Ingelheim in 1040.

PABST, De Ariberto II Mediol. primisque medii œvi motibus popularibus (Berlin, 1864); Archivio storico Lombardo, Anno XXIX. See also the biographical sketches of Heribert by ANNONI (Milan, 1872) and by BONFADINI (Milan, 1883).

MICHAEL OTT.

Heriger of Lobbes

A medieval theologian and historian; born about 925; died 31 October, 1007. After studying at the cathedral school of Liege, he became a Benedictine monk at the monastery of Lobbes, where for many years he was scholasticus of the monastic school. He was an intimate friend of Bishop Notger of Liege, whom he accompanied to Rome in 989, and at whose instance he wrote a few works. In 990 he was elected to succeed the deceased Folcwin as Abbot of Lobbes. By long and assiduous study of the Fathers of the Church and the writers of classical antiquity he amassed an amount of learning quite unusual in those times. On the whole, he wrote with more historical criticism than most of his contemporaries, though as a hagiographer he at times sinks to the level of an ascetical novelist. His chief work is a history of the bishops of Liège, "Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium", which, however, reaches only to the death of St. Remaclus in 667. It was first published by Chapeauville in "Auctores de Gestis Pontificum Tungrensium . . . . . . et Leodiensium" (Liège, 1618), 1-98; a better edition was issued by Martène and Durand in "Veterum Scriptorum Amplissima Collectio" (Paris, 1724-33), IV, 837-912; finally, it was published with a valuable historical disquisition on the writings of Heriger by Köpke in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", VII, 134-94, whence it was reprinted in Migne, P. L., CXXXIX, 958-1068. The history was continued to the year 1048 by Anselm of Liège. Heriger's other writings are: the "Life of the Virgin St. Berlendis", published in "Acta SS.", February, I, 378-81; the "Life of St. Landoald", ibidem, March, III, 35-42; a metrical "Life of St. Ursmar", of which only a few fragments remain; a treatise on the Body and Blood of Christ, "De Corpore et Sanguine Dormini", which is little else than a compilation of excerpts from the Fathers, and must not be confounded with another work of the same title, generally ascribed to Gerbert; and a few other works on hagiological and liturgical subjects. Most of these works are printed in Migne, P.L., CXXXIX, 999-1136. Heriger is also the author of an arithmetical work entitled "Regulæ de numerorum abaci rationibus", which was published by Bubnov in the "Opera Mathematica" of Gerbert (Berlin, 1899), 205-25.

KÖPKE, loc. cit. above; KURTH in Biographie nat. de Belgique, IX (Brussels, 1886), 245-51; BERLIÈRE, Monasticon Belge (Bruges, 1890-7), I, 209; DÜMMLER in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XXVI (Hanover, 1900), 755-9; EBERT, Allgem. Gesch. der Litteratur des Mittelalters im Abendlande (Leipzig, 1879-87), III, 405-9.

MICHAEL OTT.

William Herincx

A theologian, born at Helmond, North Brabant, 1621; died 17 Aug., 1678. After receiving his preliminary education at 'S Hertogenbosch he entered the University of Louvain, where he devoted himself with great ardour to the study of the ancient classics and obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. As a student he was distinguished for his diligence, modesty, and piety. After completing his university course, he resolved to embrace the religious state and entered the Franciscan Order. In 1653 he was appointed lecturer in theology at Louvain. His superiors, who had observed his great talents and success in teaching, ordered him (1658) to draw up a course of theology for use in the Franciscan schools, and the first volume of his work was published in 1660. The style is concise and clear. A spirit of piety pervades the work. In the preface to his "Summa Theologica", he writes: "The teaching of theology does not consist alone in the search after truth, but it behooves us to make use of the truth for our own sanctification and for the sanctification of others, and above all for kindling and nourishing in ourselves and in others the love of God." According to the constitutions of his order, Father Herincx propounds the doctrine of Duns Scotus, but he does not neglect the teachings of St. Bonaventure or St. Thomas.

Father Herincx was a Probabilist, and his tractate "De conscientia" is a masterpiece. He shows that the system of Probabilism is not altogether new, and he draws his proofs from St. Thomas, St. Bonaventune, St. Antonine, and Scotus, although the Subtle Doctor is not so explicit on the matter as the other ancient writers. According to Herincx, the tempest that arose in the seventeenth century against Probabilism had its origin in Jansenism, for Rigorism was unknown among the theologians of the Middle Ages. The decrees of Alexander VII, issued in 1665 and 1666, after the publication of Herincx's work, called for some modifications in the latter, and Father Van Goorlacken, lector jubilate, was commissioned to bring out a new edition. After fifteen years spent in teaching theology, Father Herincx was honoured with the title of Lector Jubilate, equivalent to the university degree of Doctor of Divinity. He was twice elected minister provincial, then definitor general, and finally commissary general for the northern countries of Europe. On 28 April, 1677, whilst making a canonical visitation in England, he received word at Newport that Charles II had nominated him Bishop of Ypres. He was consecrated on 24 October in the same year, in the Franciscan church, Brussels. He left immediately for his diocese but ruled it for less than a year; he died while making his first diocesan visitation. The epitaph on his tombstone in the cathedral of Ypres says: "Ob virtutem et omnimodam eruditionem ad has infulas assumptus". Letters found in his room after his death show that his promotion to the cardinalate had been determined on by the pope. His "Summa Theologica Scholastica et Moralis" was published at Antwerp, 1660-63; 2nd ed., 1680; 3rd, 1702-04.

FOPPENS, Bibliotheca Belgica (Brussels, 1739), contains a portrait of Herincx; SCHOUTENS, Martyrologium Minoritico-Belgicum; HURTER, Nomenclator; DIRKS, Histoire littéraire et bibliographique des Frères Mineurs en Belgique et dans les Pays - Bas (Antwerp, 1885); Bibliotheca Univ. Franciscana (Madrid).

GREGORY CLEARY.

Hermann I

Landgrave of Thuringia (1190-1217), famous as a patron of medieval German poets. He was the second son of Ludwig surnamed der Eiserne (the iron one) and of Judith, sister of the Emperor Frederick I. Together with his brother Ludwig, he warred against Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, who had been put under the ban of the empire. The brothers were defeated and taken prisoners in the battle of Weissensee (1180) but released the following year. Ludwig had been made Count Palatine of Saxony as a reward for his services to the emperor, but he transferred the dignity to Hermann, who now took up his residence at Neuenburg on the Unstrut (at present Freiburg), which he exchanged for the Wartburg castle near Eisenach, when in 1190 on the death of Ludwig he became Landgrave of Thuringia. He successfully maintained his possessions against the ambitious designs of Henry VI. In 1197 he took part in a crusade, but returned on the news of Henry's decease. In the wars between the rival kings, Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick (1198-1208), he played a conspicuous, but not very glorious, part, changing sides more than once for material advantage. As a consequence his dominions suffered fearfully, being repeatedly overrun and devastated by the armies of the rival factions. When Otto was excommunicated by Pope Innocent III, a number of German princes, among them Hermann, assembled at Nuremberg, in 1211, and chose in his place Frederick of Hohenstaufen, King of Sicily. In the struggle that ensued Thuringia was again invaded by Otto, and Hermann was reduced to great distress, from which he was saved only by the timely arrival of Frederick, the newly elected emperor, at the news of which Otto turned back. Henceforth he remained loyal to Frederick, though he was always regarded with distrust. He died at Gotha, 25 April, 1217, and was buried at Reinhardsbrunn. Hermann was twice married, his second wife being Sophia, daughter of Duke Otto of Bavaria. His oldest son Ludwig, who succeeded him, was the husband of St. Elizabeth.

The liberality of the art-loving landgrave made the Thuringian Court the meeting-place of poets from all parts of Germany. Heinrich von Veldeke, Walther von der Vogelweide, and Wolfram von Eschenbach were among those who enjoyed the landgrave's hospitality. Wolfram wrote his "Willehalm", and Herbort von Fritzlar his "Liet von Troye", at Hermann's suggestion. That this generosity was not always discriminating, and hence was liable to be abused, is attested by Walther as well as Wolfram. "If a cart-load of wine", exclaims the former, "should cost a thousand pounds, he [Hermann] would nevertheless not allow any knight's goblet to be empty." The famous poetic contest, which is said to have occurred at the Wartburg in 1207, and which is the subject of a poem of the thirteenth century, of unknown authorship, is purely legendary.

KNOCHENHAUER, Geschichte Thuringens zur Zeit des ersten Landgrafenhauses, ed. MENZEL (Gotha, 1871); DEVRIENT, Thuringische Geschichte (Leipzig, 1907), especially pp. 38-41.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Hermann Contractus

(Herimanus Augiensis, Hermann von Reichenau).

Chronicler, mathematician, and poet; b. 18 February, 1013, at Altshausen (Swabia); d. on the island of Reichenau, Lake Constance, 21 September, 1054.

He was the son of Count Wolverad II von Altshausen. Being a cripple from birth (hence the surname Contractus) he was powerless to move without assistance, and it was only by the greatest effort that he was able to read and write; but he was so highly gifted intellectually, that when he was but seven years of age his parents confided him to the learned Abbot Berno, on the island of Reichenau. Here he took the monastic vows in 1043, and probably spent his entire life. His iron will overcame all obstacles, and it was not long before his brilliant attainments made him a shining light in the most diversified branches of learning, including, besides theology, mathematics, astronomy, music, the Latin, Greek, and Arabic tongues. Students soon flocked to him from all parts, attracted not only by the fame of his scholarship, but also by his monastic virtue and his lovable personality. We are indebted to him chiefly for a chronicle of the most important events from the birth of Christ to his day. It is the earliest of the medieval universal chronicles now extant, and was compiled from numerous sources, being a monument to his great industry as well as to his extraordinary erudition and strict regard for accuracy. While it is not improbable that this work was based on a previous state chronicle of Swabia, since lost (called "Chronicum Universale Suevicum", or "Epitome Sangallensis"), it has nevertheless a significance entirely its own. But the full measure of his genius appears from the objectivity and clearness with which he wrote the history of his own time, the materials of which were accessible to him only by means of verbal tradition.

He also wrote mathematico-astronomical works. Of his poems the most successful was the "De octo vitiis principalibus", which he addressed to nuns, and in which he gave proof of uncommon skill in the handling of different kinds of metres, as well as in the charm with which he contrived to blend earnestness with a happy mirth. He composed religious hymns, and is not infrequently credited with the authorship of the "Alma Redemptoris Mater", and the "Salve Regina". Finally, it may be mentioned that Hermann constructed astronomical and musical instruments.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Bl. Hermann Joseph

Premonstratensian monk and mystic; b. at Cologne about 1150; d. at Hoven, 7 April, 1241. According to the biography by Razo Bonvisinus, contemporary prior of Steinfeld (Acta SS., 7 April, I, 679), Hermann was the son of poor parents who had once been rich. At the age of seven he attended school and very early he began the tender devotion to the Blessed Virgin for which he was known during his entire life. At every available moment he could be found at the church of St. Mary on the Capitol, where he would kneel wrapt in prayer and child-like appeal to Mary. One day he is said to have presented an apple, saved from his own scanty repast, to the Child Who accepted it. According to still another legend, on another occasion, when on a bitter cold day he made his appearance with bare feet, Mary procured him the means of getting shoes. At the age of twelve he entered the monastery of the Norbertine or Premonstratensian Canons at Steinfeld, in the present Rhenish Prussia, made his studies in the Netherlands, and on his return was entrusted with the service of the refectory and later of the sacristy.

After he had been ordained priest, it was remarkable with what reverence and devotion he offered the Holy Sacrifice. He was known for his gentle demeanour and affability, his humility, his extraordinary mortifications, but, above all, for his affection for the Mother of God, before whose altar he remained for hours in pious intercourse and ecstatic visions, and in whose honour he composed wonderful prayers and hymns. Mary, in turn, showed him her predilection, called him her chaplain and her spouse, and confirmed his surname Joseph, given to him by his brothers in religion. Hermann was sometimes sent out to perform pastoral duties and was in frequent demand for the making and repairing of clocks. He had under his charge the spiritual welfare of the Cistercian nuns at Hoven near Zulpich. Here he died and was buried in the cloister. His body was later transferred to Steinfeld, where his marble tomb and large picture may be seen to the present day; portions of his relics are at Cologne and at Antwerp. He is represented in art as kneeling before a statue of the Virgin and Child and offering an apple. The process of his canonization was begun in 1626, at the request of Archbishop Ferdinand of Cologne and the Emperor Ferdinand II, but was interrupted. His feast was, however, celebrated on 7 April, and the name of Blessed Hermann is in the Premonstratensian supplement to the Roman Martyrology. They also celebrate the translation of his relics on 24 May. His works are: "A Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles", which is lost; "Opuscula" (new edition, Namur, 1899), including: "Duodecim gratiarum actiones"; "Jubilus seu Hymnus de SS. undecim millibus Virginibus"; "Oratio ad Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum", taken to a great extent from the Canticle of Canticles; "Alia Oratio"; "Precula de quinque Gaudiis B. Mariae V." It is not quite certain whether the last three are the works of Hermann, though they are generally ascribed to him.

[ Note: Hermann Joseph was canonized by Pope Pius XII in 1958.]

TIMMERMANS, Vie du b. Herman Joseph (Lille and Paris, 1900); KAULEN, Legende von dem sel. Hermann Joseph (Mainz, 1880); MICHAEL, Geschichte des deutsch. Volkes, III,211; POSL, Leben des sel. Hermann Joseph (Ratisbon, 1862); DEISSEL, Gesch. der Verehr. Mariens in Deutschl. (Freiburg im Br., 1909); GOOVAERTS, Ecriv. de l'Ordre de Premontre (Brussels, 1899).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Hermann of Altach

(Niederaltaich).

A medieval historian; b. 1200 or 1201; d. 31 July, 1275. He received his education at the Benedictine monastery of Niederaltaich, where he afterwards made his vows and was appointed custos of the church. In this capacity he became thoroughly acquainted with the records of the monastery. Under Abbot Ditmar (1232-42) he was sent on important missions concerning the interests of the monastery, first to the emperor at Verona, then to the Roman Curia in 1239 and again in 1240. On 27 October, 1242, he was elected Abbot of Niederaltaich. During his abbacy of thirty- one years the monastic discipline and the finances of the monastery were greatly improved. On 12 March, 1273, he resigned his office on account of ill-health and old age, and spent the remaining two years of his life in retirement at his monastery. Hermann is the author of a few historical works, of which the chief is the "Annales Hermanni", reaching from 1137 to 1273. Up to 1146 they are based on previous chronicles; but from 1146 to 1173 they are the independent work of Hermann and are considered one of the most important historical sources for that period, especially as regards the countries of Bavaria, Bohemia, and Austria. His other literary productions are: "De rebus suis gestis", an account of the various architectural improvements made at Niederaltaich while he was abbot; "De institutione monasterii Altahensis", a short narration of the foundation of Altach; "De advocatis Altahensibus", a brief history of the Dukes of Bogen, patrons of Altach. The works of Hermann were published by Jaffé in "Mon. Germ. Hist.", XVII, 351- 427, German translation by Weiland in "Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit" (Berlin, 1871; second edition, Leipzig, 1898).

BRAUNMULLER, Hermann Abt von Niederaltach in Verhandlungen des hist. Vereins fur Niederbayern, XIX (Landshut, 1875), 245-328; IDEM, Programm (Metten, 1876); WICHERT, Die Annalen Hermanns von Niederaltaich in Neues Archiv fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, I (Hanover, 1876), 369-394; KEHR, Hermann von Altaich und seine Fortsetzer (Gottingen, 1883); MICHAEL, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, III (Freiburg, 1903), 350-4.

MICHAEL OTT

Hermann of Fritzlar

With this name are connected two works on mysticism written in German. The first, "Das Heiligenleben", preserved in a single manuscript, is a collection of ninety-one short sermons on the lives of the saints, composed between 1343 and 1349, the matter being drawn from other books, as is expressly stated in the introductory sermon. The sermons, which begin with the feast of St. Andrew, contain here and there mystical considerations, wholesome and concise, which give the work a distinct place in the history of mysticism. Some are merely theoretical, as definitions, notes on union with God, the birth of Christ in the soul, etc.; others are based on the personal experience of the writer. This work, for a long time attributed to Hermann of Fritzlar, whose name is quoted at the end, was compiled, at his request, by Gisiler of Slatheim, one of the Dominican preachers of that period, who played a prominent part in the history of German mysticism. Gisiler, formerly a reader of theology at Cologne and Erfurt, had made for himself a collection of sermons; now he compiled another work, drawing largely from his former one, and adding, with several of his own sermons, extracts from the travels and mystical considerations of Hermann; the simultaneous use of the first and third person may be easily noticed.

The other work attributed to Hermann, "Blume der Schauung" (Flower of Contemplation), and quoted in the sermon on the Annunciation, has been lately found in a manuscript of Nuremberg; it consists of a number of questions, often loosely thrown together, on union with God through the contemplative life, the various models to be assigned to this life, the road to perfect contemplation, etc.; many authorities are quoted, especially St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Thomas, Pseudo-Dionysius, Origen, Eckhart, etc. In their mysticism the two works show traces of the influence of Eckhart; but in neither can be exactly determined the part due personally to Hermann. Even the person of Hermann is only known from the scattered suggestions and reminiscences in his works; he was neither a Dominican nor a Franciscan, but a pious layman; he sometimes attacks the manners of the clergy; he had travelled much, but stories of travel, descriptions of customs, etc., cannot always be used as a proof of Hermann's authorship, as they are found also in other collections of sermons (for instance the carnival at Rome); the writer speaks chiefly of Rome, then of Spain and St. James of Compostela, for he has visited the tombs of all the Apostles save those of Sts. John and Thomas; he has seen also Lisbon, Paris, and St-Denis, Salerno, Amalfi, etc. The sermons, at least the first set compiled by Gisiler, were written at Erfurt.

PFEIFFER, Deutsche Mystiker des XIV. Jahrhunderts, I (Leipzig, 1845), pp. xiii, 4 sqq.; PREGER, Geschichte des deutschen Mystik, II (Leipzig, 1881), pp. 89, 103, 426, etc.; STRAUCH in Anzeiger fur deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur, IX (1883), p. 123 sqq.; HAUPT, Beitrage zur Litteratur der deutschen Mystiker in Sitzungsberichte der philos.-hist. Classe der kais. Akad. der Wissenschaften, LXXVI (Vienna, 1874), 51 sqq.; XCIV (1879), 235 sqq.

J. DE GHELLINCK

Hermann of Minden

Provincial of the German province of Dominicans; b. at or near Minden on an unknown date; d. shortly after 1294. He belonged to the noble family of Scynne (Schinna), took the religious garb of St. Dominic at Minden, became papal penitentiary and chaplain, acted as vice-provincial "super Rhenum" during the provincialate of Conrad von Eschingen (1277-81), was provincial of the German Dominican province 1286-90, and vicar of the provincial in 1293 and 1294. In the capacity of provincial he attended the German national Council of Wurzburg in March, 1287. Hermann's provincialate occurred in one of the most turbulent periods in the history of the German Dominicans. The secular clergy and the laity combined to prevent the spread of the youthful order. Especially serious were the quarrels of the order with the cities of Warburg and Strasburg, and with the cathedral chapters of Ratisbon and Zofingen. It was due to the energy and tact of Hermann that, despite all efforts to the contrary, the order continued to flourish in Germany. His literary activity was confined to two juridical works, "Tractatus de interdicto" and "De criminum inquisitionibus", and a number of letters. The first was a concise treatise on the ecclesiastical interdict and based on the recent decrees of Innocent IV. It was written in 1270. The second work, of which neither manuscript nor print exists, regulated the inquisitorial proceedings against members of his order. His numerous letters, which are of great historical value, were published by Finke (loc. cit. infra). An instruction concerning the "cura monialium", which Hermann sent in 1287 to those of his subjects who were entrusted with the spiritual guidance of nuns, was published by Denifle in "Archiv fur Literatur und Kirchen- geschichte" (Berlin, 1886), II, 649-651.

FINKE, Ungedruckte Dominikanerbriefe des 13. Jahrh. (Paderborn, 1891), 22-43; Westfalische Zeitschrift fur Altertumskunde, XLV, 120 sqq.; QUETIF AND ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719), I, 434.

MICHAEL OTT

Hermann of Salza

Fourth Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, descendant of the noble Thuringian house of Salza; b. 1180 at Langensalza in Thuringia; d. 19 March, 1239, at Barletta in Southern Italy. Nothing is known of him until in 1210 he succeeded Hermann Bart as Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. Soon after his accession he became one of the most influential persons in Europe, and the Teutonic Order, which had dwindled down to a mere handful of knights, enjoyed a period of unprecedented prosperity during his term of office. In 1211 King Andrew II of Hungary applied to Hermann for assistance against the pagan Cumanes who had repeatedly devastated the south-eastern portion of Transylvania. Hermann sent some of his knights to settle in that district and protect it against further devastation. As reward he received the so-called Burzaland, a territory along the River Burza, including Kronstadt and its vicinity. The Hungarian nobility, however, protested against this grant and the knights were compelled to leave Burzaland in 1225. About this time Duke Conrad of Masovia and Bishop Christian of Prussia agreed to ask the Grand Master for assistance against the pagan Prussians who continually harassed the Christian settlers in and near Prussia. In case the Prussians were subdued by the order, the Duke of Masovia offered Hermann the district of Culm and all the territory which the order could bring under subjection in Prussia. In a diploma of March, 1226, Emperor Frederick II allowed Hermann to accept the offer and gave him all the rights of a sovereign. The Grand Master appointed Hermann von Balk to take charge of the hostile operations against the Prussians, and under his direction began, in 1230, that memorable series of expeditions which finally resulted in the Christianization of Prussia and raised the Teutonic Order to one of the great powers of the Middle Ages. The strength of the order was materially increased when in 1237 it absorbed the Order of the Brothers of the Sword.

Amidst these activities of the Teutonic Order in the north, Hermann never lost sight of the main objective of his order, the recovery of the Holy Land. With many of his knights he accompanied the German crusaders to the Holy Land and distinguished himself for his heroism at the taking of Damietta in 1219. In reward for his bravery John of Brienne, the King of Jerusalem, honoured him with the Golden Cross of Jerusalem, which he thereafter wore beside the black cross of his order. He incessantly urged Emperor Frederick II to undertake the crusade which he had repeatedly promised to Honorius III, and in order to join the interests of the Holy Land with those of the emperor he influenced him to marry the daughter of John of Brienne, Iolanthe, who was heiress to the throne of Jerusalem. It was chiefly due to the efforts of Hermann that in 1226 a reconciliation was effected between the emperor and the Lombard cities. In 1228-9 he accompanied the excommunicated emperor to Jerusalem, and upon their return to Italy he effected the famous Treaty of San Germano on 23 July, 1230, by which the Patrimony of St. Peter was reconstituted and the ban removed from Frederick II. Hermann spent the remaining nine years of his life mostly in Italy, working incessantly for the welfare of the Teutonic Order.

KOCH, Hermann von Salza, Meister des deutschen Ordens (Leipzig, 1885); LAVISSE, De Hermano Salzensi, ordinis Teutonici magistro (Paris, 1875); LORCK, Hermann de Salza, sein Itinerar (Kiel, 1881).

MICHAEL OTT

St. Hermas

Martyr

The Roman Martyrology sets down for 18 August (XV Kal. Septembris) the feast of the holy martyrs Hermas, Serapion, and Polyaenus, with the statement that they suffered death in Rome for the Faith. The Greek calendars note all three names for the same day; but there is nothing in the historical notices of the Menaea and Synaxaria from which any inference can be drawn either as to the circumstances or the time of their martyrdom. The Martyrologium Hieronymianum does not give these names under the above date. On the other hand, the 28 August (V Kal. Septembris) is the day set apart for the feast of the Roman martyr Hermes and of several others who were buried in the catacomb of Hermes and Basilla, and under the same date appear two Alexandrian martyrs, Polienus and Serapion. The writer surmises that the three martyrs of 18 August are identical with those of the 28th of the same month, namely, with the Roman martyrs Hermes and the Alexandrians Polienus and Serapion. Their appearance under the earlier date could have been the result of a mistake easily accounted for (XV instead of V Kal. Septembris). The name Hermas also appears for Hermaeus (Hermaios), a priest mentioned in the Roman Martyrology and in the Greek Menaea as companion of Bishop Nicander of Myra in Lycia, and whose feast as a martyr is set down for 4 November. It would seem from the Greek calendars that both saints had been ordained by St. Titus, the disciple of St. Paul.

Acta SS., August, III, 546-547; Martyrologium Hieronymianum, edd. DE ROSSI AND DUCHESNE, 112; NILLES, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesiae, I (Innsbruck, 1896), 315; Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. DELEHAYE (Brussels, 1902), 908.

J.P. KIRSCH

Hermas

(First or second century), author of the book called "The Shepherd" (Poimen, Pastor), a work which had great authority in ancient times and was ranked with Holy Scripture. Eusebius tells us that it was publicly read in the churches, and that while some denied it to be canonical, others "considered it most necessary". St. Athanasius speaks of it, together with the Didache, in connection with the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, as uncanonical yet recommended by the ancients for the reading of catechumens. Elsewhere he calls it a most profitable book. Rufinus similarly says that the ancients wished it to be read, but not to be used as an authority as to the Faith. It is found with the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the New Testament in the great Siniatic Bible Aleph (fourth century), and between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus. In accordance with this conflicting evidence, we find two lines of opinion among the earlier Fathers. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian (in his Catholic days) cite the "Shepherd" as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria constantly quotes it with reverence, and so does Origen, who held that the author was the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, Rom., xvi, 14. He says the work seems to him to be very useful, and Divinely inspired; yet he repeatedly apologizes, when he has occasion to quote it, on the ground that "many people despise it". Tertullian, when a Montanist, implies that Pope St. Callistus had quoted it as an authority (though evidently not as Scripture), for he replies: "I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false." And again, he says that the Epistle of Barnabas is "more received among the Churches than that apocryphal Shepherd" (De pudic., 10 and 20). Tertullian was no doubt right, that the book had been excluded at Rome from the Bible Instrumentum, but he is exaggerating in referring to "every council" and to a total rejection, for the teaching of the "Pastor" was in direct contradiction with his own rigid views as to penance. His earlier use of it is paralleled by the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas, before the end of the second century, but there is no trace of it in St. Cyprian, so that it would seem to have gone out of use in Africa during the early decades of the third century. Somewhat later it is quoted by the author of the pseudo-Cyprianic tract "Adv. aleatores" as "Scriptura divina", but in St. Jerome's day it was "almost unknown to the Latins". Curiously, it went out of fashion in the East, so that the Greek MSS. of it are but two in number, whereas in the West it became better known and was frequently copied in the Middle Ages.

Contents

The book consists of five visions, twelve mandates, or commandments, and ten similitudes, or parables. It commences abruptly in the first person: "He who brought me up sold me to a certain Rhoda, who was at Rome. After many years I met her again, and began to love her as a sister." As Hermas was on the road to Cumae, he had a vision of Rhoda, who was presumably dead. She told him that she was his accuser in heaven, on account of an unchaste thought he had once had concerning her, though only in passing; he was to pray for forgiveness for himself and all his house. He is consoled by a vision of the Church in the form of an aged woman, weak and helpless from the sins of the faithful, who tells him to do penance and to correct the sins of his children. Subsequently he sees her made younger through penance, yet wrinkled and with white hair; then again, as quite young but still with white hair -- this is the Church of the forgiven. Lastly, she shows herself all glorious as a Bride -- this is the Church of the end of the days. In the second vision she gives Hermas a book, which she afterwards takes back in order to add to it. He is to give this writing to the presbyters, who will read it to the people; another copy is for "Grapte", who will communicate it to the widows; and a third is to be sent by Clement to the foreign Churches, "for this is his office". We see here the constitution of the Roman Church: the presbyters set over different parishes; Grapte (no doubt a deaconess) who is connected with the widows; Clement, the pope, who is the organ of communication between Rome and the rest of the Church in the second century is well known to us from other sources. The fifth vision, which is represented as taking place twenty days after the fourth, introduces "the Angel of repentance" in the guise of a shepherd, from whom the whole work takes its name. He delivers to Hermas a series of precepts (mandata, entolai) as to the belief in one God, simplicity, truthfulness, chastity, long-suffering, faith, fear, continence, confidence, cheerfulness, humility, good desires. These form an interesting development of early Christian ethics. The only point which needs special mention is the assertion of a husband's obligation to take back an adulterous wife on her repentance. The eleventh mandate, on humility, is concerned with false prophets who desire to occupy the first seats (that is to say, among the presbyters). It is possible that we have here a reference to Marcion, who came to Rome about 142-4 and desired to be admitted among the priests (or possibly even to become pope). After the mandata come ten similitudes (parabolai) in the form of visions, which are explained by the angel. The longest of these (ix) is an elaboration of the parable of the building of a tower, which had formed the matter of the third vision. The tower is the Church, and the stones of which it is built are the faithful. But in Vis. iii it looked as though only the holy are a part of the Church; in Sim. ix it is clearly pointed out that all the baptized are included, though they may be cast out for grave sins, and can be readmitted only after penance.

The whole book is thus concerned with the Christian virtues and their exercise. It is an ethical, not a theological, work. The intention is above all to preach repentance. A single chance of restoration after fall is given to Christians, and this opportunity is spoken of as something new, which had never been clearly published before. The writer is pained by the sins of the faithful and is sincerely anxious for their conversion and return to good works. As a layman, Hermas avoids dogma, and, when incidentally it comes in, it is vague or incorrect. It has been thought with some reason that he did not distinguish the Son from the Holy Ghost, or that he held that the Holy Ghost became the Son by His Incarnation. But his words are not clear, and his ideas on the subject may have been rather misty and confused than definitely erroneous.

Authorship and Date

It is not easy to decide whether the writer has given us a genuine fragment of autobiography and a true account of visions which he saw or imagined that he saw, or whether the entire work is fictitious both in form and in setting. Three dates are suggested by the variety of evidence available. The reference to St. Clement as pope would give the date 89-99 for at least the first two visions. On the other hand, if the writer is identified with the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, an earlier date becomes probable, unless he wrote as a very old man. But three ancient witnesses, one of whom claims to be contemporary, declare that he was the brother of Pope St. Pius I, who was not earlier than 140-55. These three are (a) the Muratorian fragment; (b) the Liberian catalogue of popes, in a portion which dates from 235 (Hippolytus?); (c) the poem of Pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion, of the third or fourth century. (a) "Pastorem uero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus. Et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare uero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completos numero, neque inter apostolos in fine temporum, potest" -- "And very recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, Herma wrote the Pastor, when his brother Pius, the bishop, sat upon the chair of the Church of the city of Rome. And therefore that [book] ought to be perused, but it cannot be publicly read to the people assembled in church, neither among the Prophets, whose number is complete, nor among the Apostles [who came] in the end of times." (b) "Sub hujus [Pii] episcopatu frater ejus Ermes librum scripsit, in quo mandatum continetur quae [quod] praecepit ei angelus, cum venit ad illum in habitu Pastoris" -- "Under his [Pius's] episcopate, his brother Ermes wrote a book in which are contained the precepts which the angel delivered to him, coming to him in the guise of a Shepherd." (c) "Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui germine frater angelicus Pastor, quia tradita verba locutus." -- "Then, after him, Pius, whose brother according to the flesh was Hermas, the angelic shepherd, because he spoke the words given to him." The three authorities are probably citing the same papal catalogue (of Hegesippus?). As (c) quotes some details from this list which are absent from (b), it would seem that he is independent of (b). (a) has added the inference that the "Pastor" may be read publicly, provided it be not numbered among the fourteen prophets, nor among the Apostolic writings. The statement that Hermas wrote during his brother's pontificate may similarly be an inference from the fact that it was in a list of popes, against the name of Pius, that the writer found the information that Hermas was that pope's brother. He may have been an elder brother of the pope, who was probably an old man in 140. Hence it is quite possible that Hermas might have been past thirty when Clement died, at the time of his first and second visions. But because this is possible, it does not follow that it is very probable.

Older critics unanimously attributed the authorship to the Hermas of Rom., xvi, 14 -- Bellarmine, Cave, Le Nourry, Remi Ceillier, Lardner, etc., with Baronius, who strangely thought the same Hermas might have been brother to Pius I. In the middle of the eighteenth century Mosheim and Schroeck preferred the testimony of the Muratorian Canon, which was published in 1740; but Gallandi and Lumper adhered to the earlier view. Zahn, in an early work (1868), stood by the references to St. Clement and imagined a Hermas, neither known to St. Paul nor brother to St. Pius, but writing in the last decade of the first century. He was followed by Peters and Caspari. But Hefele had been teaching that we cannot refuse the contemporary witness of the Muratorian Fragment, and this view has in the end prevailed amongst scholars, being now almost universally received. The question remains how we are to explain the mention of St. Clement. It was suggested above that Hermas may have been older than his brother Pius. But Harnack, holding that monepiscopacy was unknown in Rome until Anicetus, the successor of Pius, has no difficulty in holding that Clement really lived into the beginning of the second century, and that Pius was the most prominent among the priests at Rome even before 140. He therefore dates part of Visio ii, the kernel of the whole, before 110, and the final redaction not earlier than 135, nor later than 145. It is indeed true that the book itself describes the various parts as having been written down successively, and the process may well have taken three or four years, but hardly a decade or two. Perhaps the most probable view is that the historical data in the book are fictitious; the author was really the brother of Pope Pius, and wrote during his brother's pontificate. The evils of the Church in his day which he describes are not impossible in the first century, but they certainly suit the second better. There is a possible reference to Marcion's visit to Rome about 142, and there is a probable reference to Gnostic theories in Simil. viii, ix. The writer wished to be thought to belong to the preceding generation -- hence the name of Clement, the most famous of earlier popes, instead of the name Pius. We cannot even be sure that the writer's name was really Hermas. It is a suitable name for a slave, being a shortened form of Hermogenes, Hermodorous, or some such word. Dr. Rendel Harris has urged in an interesting essay that where Hermas describes twelve mountains in Arcadia (Simil. ix, 1), the description of the locality is taken from Pausanias. Dr. Armitage Robinson thought that we must even suppose that Hermas knew the place himself, and had been brought up in Arcadia. But all this is inconclusive, though plausible. The notion of De Champagny (who was followed by Dom Gueranger), that the "Shepherd" is made up of two works, the one (Vis. i-iv) by the disciple of St. Paul, the remainder by the brother of Pope Pius, is sufficiently refuted by the unity of style and matter, as Baumgaertner has shown. The same is to be said of Hilgenfeld's opinion, that we have before us a fusion of works by three authors. Spitta has brought into patristic study the method he has applied to the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse, and he finds in Hermas traces of a Christian enlargement of a Jewish writing, as Voelter had said of the Apocalypse. It is natural that Voelter should have approved this theory, but Spitta has not been followed by patristic scholars. Haussleiter formerly attributed only Vis. v-Simil. x to the brother of Pius, regarding Vis. i-iv as an addition made at the end of the second century in order to recommend the book as the work of Hermas, disciple of St. Paul. But that personage is not even mentioned.

There is but one direct quotation in the "Shepherd", and that is from the apocryphal book of "Eldad and Modat, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness", and the reference is apparently ironical. But there are many indirect citations from the Old Testament. According to Swete, Hermas never cites the Septuagint, but he uses a version of Daniel akin to that of Theodotion. He shows acquaintance with one or other of the Synoptic Gospels, and, since he also uses that of St. John, he probably knew all three. He appears to employ Ephesians and other Epistles, including perhaps I Peter and Hebrews. But the books he most certainly and most often uses are the Epistle of St. James and the Apocalypse. His matter is rather dull to us moderns, and the simplicity of his manner has been characterized as childish. But the admiration of Origen was not given to a work without depth or value; and, even with regard to the style, Westcott has reason to say ("On the Canon", pt. I, ch. ii): "The beauty of the language and conception in many parts has never been sufficiently appreciated. Much of it may be compared with the 'Pilgrim's Progress' and higher praise than this cannot be given to a book of its kind." There is indeed some resemblance between the intensity and directness of the ancient Roman Catholic and that of the persecuted Puritan, however antipodean the antithesis between the individualism of the one and the conception of a Universal Church which dominate the whole thought of the other.

The "Shepherd" was first printed in Latin by Faber Stapulensis (Lefevre d'Etaples) in "Liber trium virorum et trium spiritualium virginum" (Paris, 1513); better edition by Fell (Oxford, 1685), and especially by Hilgenfeld (Leipzig, 1873), and von Gebhardt (Leipzig, 1877). This version, which is contained in many MSS., and has been frequently reprinted in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers, is known as the Vulgate. It was certainly known to the author of the "Adversus aleatores" (third or fourth cent.), and possibly to Tertullian, and the translation was probably made in the second century. Another version is contained in a single MS. (Vat. Palat. 150, saec. xiv), and has been printed by Dressel, "Patres Apost." (Leipzig, 1857 and 1863), and von Gebhardt and Harnack ("Patres Apost.", Leipzig, 1877). It is of the fifth century, according to Harnack, and the translator has used the Vulgate version as an aid. Haussleiter's attempt to show that the Palatine is the older is rejected by Harnack and Funk. An Ethiopic version was discovered in 1847 by d'Abbadie; it has unfortunately a few lacunae and accidental omissions. It seems to have been made in the year 543. The Greek original was first known from a fourteenth-century MS. on Mount Athos. The well-known forger Simonides stole four of the leaves and copied the rest. But he sold to the library of the University of Leipzig a Greek version which he had composed himself. This was published in 1856 by Rudolf Anger, with preface and index by Dindorf. The fraud was soon discovered. The four leaves and Simonides' copy were procured by the library, and the true readings were published by Anger in the "Leipziger Repertorium der deutschen und auslaendischen Literatur", III (1856), 138. Since then the six leaves which remain on Mount Athos have been collated by J. Armitage Robinson. The Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf and published by him in 1862, contains the "Pastor", but in both MSS. the end is wanting. Two fragments of the book are found on a papyrus leaf from the Fayoum, now at Berlin.

On the MSS. of the Vulgate version, see HARNACK, Gesch., I, 51; DELEHAYE in Bull. crit., 1894, p.14; EHRHARD, Altchristl. Litteratur, 104. The Palatine MS. has been carefully collated by FUNK in Zeitschr. fuer die oesterreich. Gymn., XXXVI (1885), 245. On the date and style of the Palatine version. HAUSSLEITER, De versionibus Pastoris Hermae latinis (Erlangen, 1884); IDEM in Z. fuer wiss. Theol., XXXVI (1883), 345. For the Ethiopic version, see D'ALBADIE and DILLMAN, Hermae Pastor, with Latin translation, in Abhandlungen fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes, II (Leipzig, 1860), 1. The true Greek text appeared first in DRESSEL, Patres Apostolici (Leipzig, 1857 and 1863), and has been frequently republished in similar collections, as by HILGENFELD (1866 and 1881), GEBHARDT, and HARNACK (1877-); LIGHTFOOT and HARMER with English translation (1891), FUNK (1901). On the Athos MS., LAMBROS and ROBINSON, A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd (Cambridge, 1888); HILGENFELD in Z. Weiss. Theol., XXXII (1889), 94. The Berlin Papyrus is given in facsimile by WILCKEN, Tafeln zur aelteren griechischen Palaeogr. (Leipzig, 1891); a citation is found in a papyrus in GRENFELL and HUNT, The Oxyrhynchus papyri, I (London, 1898), 8. On both papyri see DIELS and HARNACK in Sitzungsber. der K. preussischen Akad. der Wiss. (Berlin, 1891), p. 427, and EHRHARD in Theolog. Quartalschrift, LXXIV (1892), 294.
The literature dealing with Hermas is very large, and only a selection is here mentioned. The best introduction and notes, in Latin, are by FUNK, Patres Appostolici, I (Tuebingen, 1901). An excellent summary account by BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., I (Freiburg im Br., 1902), 557-578; see also HARNACK, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I, 49, and Chronol., I, 257; KRUGER (who dates the book c. 100), Gesch. der altchr. Litt. (1895), 29; ZAHN, Der Hirt des Hermas untersucht (Gotha, 1868); IDEM, Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, I (1888), 326; NIRSCHL, Der Hirt des Hermas (Passau, 1879); BRUELL, Der H. des H. (Freiburg im Br., 1882); RENDEL HARRIS, Hermas in Arcadia in Journal of Soc. of Bibl. Lit. and Exeg. (1887, and reprinted, Cambridge, 1888). On Hermas's use of the N.T. see the works of WESTCOTT, ZAHN, GREGORY, etc. on the Canon; and C. TAYLOR, The witness of Hermas to the four Gospels (London, 1892); IDEM, Hermas and the Cebes (an attempt to show that Hermas has used the pinakes of the Stoic philosopher Cebes) in Journal of Philo., XXVIII (1900), 276. On the plural authorship, DE CHAMPAGNY. Les Antonins, I (Paris, 1863); SPITTA, Zur Gesch. und Litt. des Urchristentums, II (Goettingen, 1896); VOELTER, Die Visionen des Hermas, die Sibylle, und Klemens von Rom (Berlin, 1900). For the unity, LINK, Die Einheit des Hermasbuches (Freiburg im Br., 1889); FUNK in Theol. Quartalschr., LXXXI (1899), 321; STAHL, Patrische Untersuchungen (Berlin, 1901-), gives the date as 165-70, after the appearance of Montanism; REVILLE, La valeur du temoignage historique du Pasteur d'Hermas (Paris, 1900). On the theology of the Shepherd, LINK, Christi Person und Werk im Hirten des Hermas (Marburg, 1886); BENIGNI in Bessarione, VI (1899); HEURTIER, Le dogme de la Trinite dans l'epitre de S. Clem. et le Pateur d'H. (Lyons, 1900). Further bibliography in RICHARDSON, Synopsis; CHEVALIER, Repertoire, and BARDENHEWER, loc. cit.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Hermeneutics

Derived from a Greek word connected with the name of the god Hermes, the reputed messenger and interpreter of the gods. It would be wrong to infer from this that the word denotes the interpretation or exegesis of Sacred Scripture. Usage has restricted the meaning of hermeneutics to the science of Biblical exegesis, that is, to the collection of rules which govern the right interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Exegesis is therefore related to hermeneutics, as language is to grammar, or as reasoning is to logic. Men spoke and reasoned before there was any grammar or logic; but it is very difficult to speak correctly and reason rightly at all times and under any circumstances without a knowledge of grammar and logic. In the same way our early Christian writers explained Sacred Scripture--as it is interpreted in particular cases even in out days by students of extraordinary talent--without relying on any formal principles of hermeneutics, but such explanations, if correct, will always be in accordance with the canons of our present-day science of exegesis.

I. NECESSITY OF HERMENEUTICS

The reader must not infer from what has been said that hermeneutics is a mere accomplishment in the Biblical exegete, that its knowledge is not necessary for the Bible student. It is true that in the early Church the science of exegesis was not developed; but it must be remembered that the so-called sacred languages were the vernacular tongues of the Syrian and Greek writers, who were familiar with what are to us Biblical antiquities, and who were also imbued with the early oral traditions containing the true explanation of the many difficult passages of Sacred Scripture. As soon as these natural aids of the Christian interpreter began to wane, the principles of hermeneutics began to develop. Even at the time of St. Augustine they were collected into a single book, so that they could be made known and put into practice without much difficulty. Anyone acquainted with the variety of opinion concerning the meaning of some of the most important passages of the Bible will wonder rather at the suggestion of explaining Scripture without the aid of hemeneutics, than at the claim for its urgent necessity. Nor can it be said that the variety of exegetical results on the part of writers well-versed in the principles of scientific interpretation shows the uselessness of hermeneutics in the explanation of Sacred Scripture. No scientific principles have ever done away with all disagreement of scientists in any branch of knowledge; besides, in the case of Scripture, hermeneutics has diminished the number of the opinions of interpreters by eliminating the views not supported by any solid scientific principle. Such principles are even more necessary for the Biblical interpreter than a study of logic is for the thinker; for while the laws of thought are based on an inborn tendency of the mind, the rules of hermeneutics rest to a great extent on facts external to the mind. And the results flowing from the application of the principles of hermeneutics are not less important than those derived by means of the formal laws of logic, since the controversies between Jews and Christians, between Christians and Rationalists, between Catholics and Protestants, are in the end brought back to hermeneutic questions.

II. LIMITS OF HERMENEUTICS

Though the influence of hermeneutics is so far-reaching, its efficiency must not be overestimated. Hermeneutics doe not supply a deficiency of natural ability, nor does it rectify false philosophical principles or perverse passions, nor again does it impart the needed philological and historical erudition. Secondly, of itself hermeneutics does not investigate the objective truth of a writer's meaning, which has been established by its canons; it does not inquire what is true or false, but only what the writer intended to say. Hence a hermeneutic truth may be an objective falsehood, unless the writing subjected to the hermeneutic rules be endowed with the prerogative of inerrancy. Thirdly, hermeneutics does not inquire into the authenticity of a writing, nor into the genuineness of its text, nor again into its special character--for instance, whether it be of a sacred or profane nature. Biblical hermeneutics presupposes, therefore, a knowledge of the history of the Canon of both the Old and the New Testament, an acquaintance with the results of the lower or textual criticism, and a study of the dogmatic treatise on inspiration. The number of limitations of hermeneutics will not render the reader impatience, if he keeps in mind that he bears with the limits which circumscribe the field of other branches of learning; no one blames grammar, for instance, because it does not confer any special linguistic aptitude on the grammarian, or because it does not improve the melody or the syntactical structure of the language.

III. OBJECT OF HERMENEUTICS

After removing what is foreign to hermeneutics, we are enables to understand its proper object more thoroughly. Its material object is the book or writing which is to be explained; its formal object is concerned with the sense expressed by the author of the book in question. Thus, Biblical hermeneutics deals with Sacred Scripture as its material object, furnishing a complex set of rules for finding and expressing the true sense of the inspired writers, while the discovery and presentation of the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture may be said to be its formal object.

IV. DIVISION OF HERMENEUTICS

The most direct and simple method of determining the meaning of an author consists in the latter's statement of the sense he intended to convey. Such a statement, whether it proceed from the author himself or from another person who has certain knowledge of the author's mind, is called an authentic interpretation. The legal interpretation differs from the authentic in that it proceeds, not from the lawgiver himself but from his successor, or from this equal in legislative power or from the supreme legal authority. The scientific interpretation differs from both the authentic and the legal; its value is not derived from authority, but from the trustworthiness and the learning of the commentator, from the weight of his arguments, and from his faithful adherence to the rules of hermeneutics. Authority as such does not enter into the field of general hermeneutics The rules of hermeneutics, thus circumscribed, may be either of universal or particular application, that is, they may be valid for the right explanation of any book or writing, or they may be adapted for a particular class of books, e. g., Sacred Scripture or canon law. Biblical hermeneutics belongs to this second class, not because the universal rules of exegesis are inapplicable to the Sacred Books, but because the sacred character of the Bible demands additional rules of interpretation, which are not applicable to profane writings. Finally, Biblical hermeneutics is either general or special, according to the character of the exegetical rules it contains: it is general if its rules are applicable to the whole Bible; it is special if they are intended for the explanation of particular books only, e.g., the Psalms or the Pauline Epistles. But, as in logic the species contains all the essential notes of the genus, so does special hermeneutics contain all the exegetical rules of general hermeneutics, and so does particular hermeneutics embrace all the laws of interpretation imposed by universal hermeneutics.

V. FIRST PRINCIPLE IN HERMENEUTICS

Since the more special hermeneutical laws do not contradict the more general laws, but only determine them more accurately in order to adapt them to the particular writings which they are to explain, it ought to be possible to determine the first and highest principle or law of hermeneutics, from which all the special exegetical rules are derived. The reader will remember that such first principles exist in other sciences, too; in logic, for instance, and in ethics, we have the principle of contradiction an the principle of doing good respectively. Returning to hermeneutics, thought must be derived from language according to the same law which regulates the expression of thought in language, the process alone being inverted. In this respect language in general does not differ from a cipher message which must be read according to the code in which it was written. Now a writer commonly uses the code of his day and of his own peculiar circumstances; he employs language in accordance with its peculiar usages and its rules of grammar; he follows in the expression of his thoughts the sequence of logic, and his words reflect his mental as well as his physical and social conditions. If the interpreter wishes to fully understand the writer, he must be guided by these quasi-criteria of the author's meaning: his language, his train of thought or the context, and his psychological and historical condition at the time of writing. Hence flows the first and highest principle of hermeneutics: Find the sense of a book by way of its language (grammatically and philologically), by way of the rules of logic (from the context), and by way of the writer's mental and external condition. Expressing the same truth negatively, we may say that any meaning of a passage which does not agree with its grammar, its context, and the internal and external conditions of its author, cannot be the true sense of the writer. In the case of Scripture, the fact of its inspiration and of its authentic interpretation by the Church must be added to the three common criteria of interpretation; hence any meaning not in keeping with Scriptural grammar, context, or the concrete conditions of the Biblical writers, or not in harmony with the fact of inspiration and the spirit of the Church's interpretation, cannot be the true sense of Scripture. Regard to only the first three of these criteria renders the exegesis rationalistic; observance of the first four is a recognition of the specific Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration; but it is only the conjunction of the fifth with the other four that gives birth to true Catholic exegesis without destroying the rational and simply Christian character of the interpretation.

VI. SOURCES OF HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLES

The foregoing remarks reveal the sources from which hermeneutics derives its secondary principles. It presupposes a grammatical and philological knowledge of the language in which the work is written, an acquaintance with the laws of logic and rhetoric, and a familiarity with the data of psychology and the facts of history. These are the sources of the rules of universal hermeneutics; in the case of the Sacred Scriptures, the scientific interpreter must be well-grounded in the so-called Sacred or Biblical language; he must be well-versed in Biblical history, archaeology, and geography; he should know the various Christian dogmas bearing on the Bible and their history; finally he must be instructed in patrology, ecclesiastical history, and Biblical literature. Before entering on the explanation of any particular book of Scripture, the commentator must also be versed in the dogmatic, moral, philosophical, and scientific questions connected with his particular subject. In the light of these many requirements, one easily understands why it is so hard to find commentaries which are fully satisfactory, and one also realized the need of reading several commentaries before one can claim fully to understand the Scriptures or any part thereof.

VII. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HERMENEUTICS

Seeing the importance of Biblical hermeneutics, it may seem a matter for surprise that this branch of study was not developed earlier. But the history of every science shows that practice precedes theory. Language, for instance, had been in use for many generations before systematic grammars were written, health had been the object of care for centuries before the growth of the science of medicine. In a similar way, the books of Sacred Scripture were read and explained by means of what may be called natural hermeneutics before the science of exegesis was thought of. Deut., xvii, 8-12, 18; xxi, 5; xxxi, 9-13, 24-26, may be regarded as containing at least implied testimony in favour of the practice of exegesis, though it is impossible to determine the hermeneutical laws then in force.

A. Jewish Development

Not long after the days of Christ, R. Hillel set forth seven hermeneutic rules (middoth), among which are found the inference from the greater to the less, from the general to the particular, from the context, and from parallel passages. At the beginning of the second century R. Yishma 'el ben Elisha' increased the number of Hillel's rules to thirteen, treating among other questions the way of harmonizing contradictory passages. About the middle of the second century R. Eli'ezer derived thirty-two hermeneutic rules from the then prevailing method of interpretation, and these are still to be found in the editions of the Talmud after the treatise "Berakhoth". In the Middle Ages Aben Ezra and Maimonides explained certain hermeneutic rules, but no rabbinic writer has written ex professo any complete treatise on Biblical hermeneutics.

Christian Development

The First Three Centuries

Among the earliest Christians, too, the Scriptures were read and explained without the guidance of any acknowledged rules of hermeneutics. We may infer from the sayings of the Fathers that tradition and the analogy of faith were the sovereign laws of the early Christian interpreters. In the second century Melito of Sardis composed a hermeneutic treatise, entitled "The Key", in which he explained the Biblical tropes. The Fathers of the third and fourth centuries suggested many rules of interpretation without collecting them into any distinct work. Besides Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, Origen proposed and defended against Jews and heretics his rules of exegesis in his work "De principiis", lib. IV; Diodorus of Tarsus (d. before 394) wrote on the difference between type and allegory, but his work "Quomodo differt theoria ab allegoriâ" had been lost; St. John Chrysostom urges the commentator to study the context, the author, the readers, the intention of the speaker, the occasion, place, time, and manner of writing (Hom. in Jer. x, 33; Hom. xv in Joan.) St. Jerome, too, has left many hints on the proper method of interpretation ("Ep. ad Pammach."; "De optimo genere interpretandi"; "Lib. quaest. Hebr. in Gen."; "De nominibus et loc. Hebr."; "Praef. in 12 prophet."; "In quat. evang.", etc.).

From the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century

About A. D. 390 the Donatist Tychonius published a work entitled "Septem regulae ad inquirendum et inveniendum sensum S. Scripturae", which was both incomplete and infected with error; it was on this account that St. Augustine (d. 430) wrote his work "De doctrinâ Christianâ libri quatuor", in which he treated the rules of interpretation more satisfactorily than had ever been done before his time. Hermeneutic principles may be found scattered also in other works of the great African Doctor., e. g., in his "De Genes.", his "Exposit. Psalm.", and his "De civit. Dei". Isidore of Pelusium (d. about 440-450) left letters explaining the hermeneutic principles of the School of Antioch, and also a work entitled "De interpretatione divinae scripturae". To Eucherius of Lyons (d. about 450) we are indebted for two hermeneutic works, "Formularum spiritualis intelligentiae ad Uranium liber unus: and "Instructionum ad Salonium filium libri duo". In the fifth century, too, or at the beginning of the sixth, the monk Adrian explained the figurative expressions of Sacred Scripture, especially of the Old Testament, according to the principles of the School of Antioch in a work entitled "Introductio ad divinas scripturas". About the middle of the sixth century Junilius Africanus wrote his celebrated letter to Primasius, "De partibus divinae legis" in which he expounds the rules of Biblical interpretation, as he received them from an adherent of the School of Edessa. About the same time M. Aurelius Cassiodorus (d. about 565-75) wrote, among other works. "De institutione divinarum litterarum", "De artibus et disciplinis liberalium litterarum", and"De schematibus et tropis".

To the Council of Trent

Though we meet with fewer complete hermeneutic works during the period of the Middle Ages, still we have copious exegetical rules in the commentaries and introductions of St. Venerable Bede, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, Hugh of St. Victor, and especially St. Thomas (Summ. theol., I, Q. i, n. 9 sq.). There were several special reasons which led to the promotion of Biblical and hermeneutical studies in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Council of Vienne (1311) ordained that chairs of Oriental languages were to be erected in the universities; the humanistic studies began to flourish anew and reacted favourably on the pursuit of Biblical languages; the discovery of the art of printing (1440-1450) facilitated the spread of the Scriptures; the taking of Constantinople by the Turks (1453) occasioned the westward emigration of numerous learned Greeks, who carried with them their literary treasures as well as their learning and artistic skill. It was during this period, too, that Nicolaus Lyranus (d. 1340) wrote his works, "Tractatus de differentiâ nostrae translationis ab Hebr. litterâ and "Liber differentiarum V. et N. Testamenti", and John Gerson (d. 1429) produced his hermeneutic treatise entitled "Propositiones de sensu litterali Scripturae Sacrae", in which he considers the various kinds of Scriptural sense, and expresses his preference for the literal sense to be determined according to the teaching of tradition and the pronouncements of the Church. In the sixteenth-century the so-called Reformers began with regarding the analogy of faith and the symbols as the criteria of Biblical exegesis, but in the en they had to fall back on the rules of Christian and even rationalistic hermeneutics, so that they naturally prepared the way for the Biblical rationalism of the eighteenth century. The Catholic hermeneutic literature also grew during these centuries, partly owing to the rivalry between Catholic and Protestant scholars. As this tended to enlarge the hermeneutic works, clearness and thoroughness demanded the separation from hermeneutics of critical, historical, and dogmatic questions, and the development and solid proof of the strictly hermeneutic principles.

VIII. RELATIONS OF HERMENEUTICS TO THE OTHER BRANCHES OF SACRED STUDY

It may be of interest to consider the relation in which hermeneutics, thus reduced to its own specific limits, stands to the other branches of Scriptural studies. Needless to say, the first step in the scientific study of the Bible consists in acquainting oneself with the foundation and the extent of the human and Divine authority with which the Scripture is endowed; the so-called historico-critical introduction to Sacred Scripture teaches us all this. The second step leads us to the key for the right understanding of this doubly authoritative collection of books, that is, to the study of hermeneutics proper. The final stage of Bible study is exegesis, which opens to us the innermost treasures of the inspired writings. All this would be very simple and clear, if the second stage did not demand the additional knowledge: sacred philology, history, and sacred archaeology. It would be quite impossible to apply the rules of hermeneutics without possessing this knowledge. Finally, those who arrange theological studies systematically place philosophy and Bible study, together with ecclesiastical history and patrology, among the preambles preparing us for theoretic theology (fundamental, dogmatic, and apologetic), practical theology (moral), pastoral theology, and canon law.

IX. CONTENTS OF HERMENEUTICS

After considering hermeneutics in relation to its cognate branches of study, we may return to a more accurate scrutiny of its own contents. We have seen that the science of interpretation has for its formal object the discovery and the presentation of the sense of Sacred Scripture. Starting from this fact, we may infer that

• a complete treatise of hermeneutics ought to treat first of the sense of Scripture in general;
• it must lay down definite rules for finding this sense;
• it must teach us how to present this sense to others.

These three questions have been fully explained in the article EXEGESIS, so that it is unnecessary to repeat their respective developments here. It will be useful, however, for the reader to have before his eyes a summary of the principal points treated in that article.

X. SUMMARY OF HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLES

(1) The writer begins by dividing the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture like so:

• the literal sense
  • its nature
  • its division
  • its ubiquity
  • its unity and multiplicity
  • The two kinds of a so-called sense of Scripture which at best bear only an analogy to the real Biblical sense:
  • • the derivative or consequent sense, and
    • Biblical accommodation.
• the typical sense.
  • its nature
  • its divisions
  • its existence
  • its occurrence in the Old Testament and in the New
  • its criterion
  • its theological value.

(2) In the next place the writer treats of the method of finding the genuine sense of Scripture, considering:

• the human character of the Bible, which demands an historico-grammatical interpretation so that the commentator must keep in mind
  • the significance of the literary expression of its sacred and Scriptural language;
  • the sense of its literary expression, which is often determined by the subject matter of the writing, by its occasion and purpose, by the grammatical and logical context, and by parallel passages;
  • the historical setting of the book and its author.
• The Divine or inspired character of the Bible requires a so-called Catholic interpretation, which involves additional directions of both
  • a negative character preventing (a) all irreverence and (b) the admission of any error and
  • of a positive nature, which bid the interpreter to respect (a) the definitions of the Church, (b) the patristic interpretation, and (c) the analogy of faith.

(3) After the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture has been found, it had to be presented to others by means of

• the version,
• the paraphrase,
• the gloss and scholion,
• the dissertation,
• or finally the commentary.

The homily may also be classed among the more popular method of Biblical exposition.

(4) The concluding pages of the article EXEGESIS are devoted to a brief history of the subject:

• Jewish exegesis is divided into (a) Palestinian and (b) Hellenistic;
• Christian exegesis comprises,
  • the patristic period
    • the Apostolic Fathers and apologists,
    • the Greek Fathers of both Alexandrian and Antiochene tendencies,
    • the Latin Fathers
  • the time from the Patristic age (in its narrower sense) to the Council of Trent, where we again meet with (a) Greek writers, and (b) Latin scholars, either pre-Scholastic or Scholastic;
  • the period after the Council of Trent with
    • its Catholic writers of the golden age, of the transition period, and of recent times, and
    • the non-Catholic exegetes, whether they be of the number of the early Reformers, or of their immediate successors, or again of the rationalists.

We have added this survey of the history of exegesis because it throws light on the historic development of hermeneutics.

XI. TWO SPECIAL QUESTIONS

No difficulties will be raised against the Biblical interpreter as long as he remains within the sphere of the rules which govern his grammatico-historical exegesis; but protest will rise up on every side as soon as he urges the principle of Biblical inerrancy, and the duty of bowing to the authority of the Church. A few additional observations on these two points will therefore not be out of place.

A. INERRANCY

Nature of Inerrance

The inerrancy of Scripture means that its hermeneutic truth is also objectively true, and that its genuine sense is adequately presented by its literal expression, at least by its complete literal expression, found in the original text interpreted in the light of the special purpose of the Holy Ghost and of its intended circle of readers. But this perfection of literary presentation does not remove obscurity and ambiguity of expression, defects which flow naturally from the human authors of the various books of Sacred Scripture, and were foreseen, and for good reasons permitted or even intended, by the Holy Ghost. Nor does the absolute truthfulness of Sacred Scripture imply that the Bible always presents the whole truth under all its aspects, nor does it demand that all the saying quoted by the Bible as historical facts are objectively true. Words quoted in Scripture as spoken by infallibly truthful speakers, e.g., by God Himself, or the good angels, or the prophets and apostles actually inspired, or by the sacred writer himself while under the influence of inspiration, all these words are nor merely historically, but also objectively, true; but words quoted in Scripture as proceeding from speakers open to error are not necessarily objectively true, though they are historically true. If however such profane words are expressly approved of by the inspired writers, they are also objectively true.

Consequences flowing from Inerrancy

It follows from what has been said that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, an that there can be no real opposition between Biblical statements and the truths of philosophy, science, or history.

No Contradictions in Sacred Scripture

The impossibility of any contradiction existing in the Bible itself flows from the fact that God is the author of Sacred Scripture, and would be responsible for any such discrepancy. But how are we to remedy apparent contradictions in Scripture, the existence of which cannot be denied?

In some cases it is practically certain that our present text has been corrupted. I Kings, xiii, I, says that Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel, though, according to Acts, xiii, 21 (and Joseph., Antiq., VI, xiv) Saul reigned forty years, beginning at the age of twenty-one. In the former case, the letters of the Hebrew text denoting forty and twenty respectively must have been lost. A similar corruption must be admitted in III Kings, iv, 26, which grants to Solomon 40,000 stalls of chariot horses instead of the 4000 assigned to him in II Par., ix, 25 (Hebrew text).

In other cases the apparent contradictions in the Bible are due to an erroneous exegesis of one or both of the passages in question. Such wrong interpretations are easily caused by the change of the meaning of a word; by the assumption of a wrong nexus of ideas (chronological, real, or psychological); by a restriction or an extension of the meaning of a passage beyond its natural limits; by an interchange of figurative with proper, of hypothetical with absolute, language; by a concession of Divine authority to mere quotations from profane sources, or by a neglect of the difference between the Old and the New Testament. Thus the word "tempt" has one sense in Gen., xxii, 1, and quite another sense in James, i, 13; the expressions "faith" and "works" have not the same sense in Rom., iii, 28, and James, ii, 14, 24; the "sincere companion" of Phil., iv, 3, does not mean "wife", and does not place this passage in opposition to I Cor., vii, 8; the "hatred of parents" inculcated in Luke, xiv, 26, is not the hatred prohibited by the commandment of the decalogue; the nexus of events in the First Gospel is not chronological and does not establish an opposition between St. Matthew and the other Evangelists; in I Kings, xxxi, 4, the inspired writer testifies that Saul killed himself, while in II Kings, i, 10, the lying Amalecite boasts that he slew Saul; in John, i, 21, the Baptist denies that he is "the prophet:, without contradicting the statement of Christ in Matt., xi, 9, that John is a prophet; etc.

Apparent contradictions in the Bible may have their source in an erroneous identification of distinct words or facts, in a neglect of the difference of standpoint of different writers or speakers, or finally in an erroneous assumption of opposition between two really concordant passages. Thus Gen., xii, 11 sqq., refers to facts wholly different from those related in Gen., xx, 2, and xxvi, 7; the healing of the centurion's servant related in Matt., viii, 5 sqq., is entirely distinct from the healing of the king's son mentioned in John, iv, 46 sqq.; the multiplication of loaves in Matt., xiv, 15 sqq., is distinct from that described in Matt., xv, 32 sqq., the cleansing of the temple related in John ii, 13 sqq., is not identical with the event told in Matt., xxi, 12 sqq.; the anointing described in Matt., xxvi, 6 sqq., and John, xii, 3 sqq., differs from that told in Luke, vii, 37 sqq.; the prophets view the coming of Christ now from an historical, now from a moral, and again from an eschatological standpoint, etc.

No Opposition between Biblical and Profane Truth

Proof -- Thus far we have considered apparent contradictions between different statements of Sacred Scripture; a word must be added about the opposition which may appear to exist between the teaching of the Bible and the tenets of philosophy, science, and history. The Bible student must be convinced that there can be no such real opposition. The Vatican Council declares expressly: "Though faith is above reason, still there can never be a true discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, implants in the human mind the light of reason" (Sess. III, Constit. de fide cath., cap. iv). The same truth is upheld by Leo XIII in the Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus": "Let the learned maintain steadfastly that God the creator and ruler of all things is also the author of the Scriptures, and that therefore nothing can be gathered from nature, nothing from historical documents, which really contradicts the Scriptures." Consequently, any contradiction between Biblical and profane truth is only apparent. Such an appearance of opposition may spring from one of three sources: Scripture may be wrongly interpreted, there may be a mistake in reputed profane truth, or finally the proof establishing the opposition between profane and Biblical truth may be fallacious.

Apparent Opposition -- Any statement resting on a faulty text, or an exegesis neglecting one or more of the many hermeneutic rules, cannot be said to be a Biblical truth. On the other hand, a mere theory in philosophy, or a mere hypothesis in science, or again a mere conjecture in history, cannot claim the dignity or right of a profane truth. Many mistakes have been made by Scriptural exegetes, but their number is not greater than scientific blunders. But even in cases in which the sense of the Bible is certain, and the reality of the profane truth cannot be doubted, the proof of their mutual opposition may be faulty. It is all the easier to go wrong in the proof of such an opposition, because the language of the Bible is not that of philosophy, or of science, or of the professional historian. The Scriptures do not claim to teach ex professo either philosophical theses, or scientific facts, or historical chronology. The expressions of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of their own age and of their original writer, before they are placed in opposition to any profane truth. There are expressions even in the language of to-day (for instance, the rising and the setting of the sun, etc.) which contradict acknowledged scientific truths, if no attention be paid to the conformity of such language with "sensible appearances".

Relation between Hermeneutics and Profane Learning -- What is, therefore, the relation between the interpreter and the scientist?

• It would be wrong to make Scripture the criterion of science, to decide our modern scientific questions from our Biblical data. In certain historical controversies this course may be followed, because some of the books of Scripture are truly historical works. But in scientific questions, it suffices to hold that "in matters of faith and morals" Scripture agrees with the truths of science; and that in other matters, Scripture rightly understood does not oppose true scientific results.
• Towards the use of profane truths in Biblical exegesis, the attitude adopted by commentators is not so uniform. The ultra-conservatives are inclined to explain Scripture without any regard to the progress of profane learning. This method is opposed even to the warning of St. Thomas (I:68:1). The conservatives are prone to adhere to traditional scientific views until such are evidently superseded by modern results; these exegetes expose themselves to the danger of at least seeming defeat--a disgrace that reflects on Biblical exegesis. It is well, therefore, to temper our conservatism with prudence; prescinding from "matters of faith and morals" in which there can be no change, we should be ready to accommodate our exegesis to the progress of historians and scientists in their respective fields, showing at the same time that such harmonizing expositions of Scripture represent only a progressive stage in Bible study which will be perfected with the progress of profane learning. To repeat once more, with regard to "matters of faith and morals" there is no progress of the faith in the faithful, but only progress of the faithful in the faith; with regard to other matters, the progress of profane knowledge may throw additional light on the true sense of Sacred Scripture.

B. AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Thus far we have considered the inerrancy of the Bible which can never be lost sight of by the believing interpreter; we come now to the question of authority to which the Catholic exegete owes obedience.

Law of the Church

The Council of Trent (Sess. IV, De edit. et usu ss. II.) forbids that, in "matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine", the Bible be explained against the sense held by the Church, or against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The Tridentine Confession of Faith and the Vatican Council (Sess. III, Const. de fide cath., cap. ii) enjoin in a positive form that in "matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine", the Scriptures be explained according to the teaching of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the article EXEGESIS the rules have been laid down which will ensure due conformity of Catholic exegesis with Catholic and patristic teaching; but little had been said about the meaning of the clause "in matters of faith and morals" and about the relation of ecclesiastical authority to hose truths which do not belong to "matters of faith and morals".

Meaning of the "Matter of Faith and Morals"

The phrase "matters of faith and morals" has been compared with St. Thomas's truths revealed on their own account as distinct from truths revealed, accidentally as it were, on account of their connexion with the former (II-II:1:6, ad 1um); matters not of "faith and morals" have been found in the Angelic Doctor's expression, "in his quae de necessitate fidei non sunt" (II Sent., dist. ii, Q. i, a. 3); Vacant extends the words "matters of faith and morals" to the dogmas of faith and the truths pertaining to the custody of the deposit of faith; Granderath identifies "matters of faith and morals" with all religious truths as distinct from merely profane verities: Egger is inclined to comprise under "matters of faith and morals" all revealed truth, and again the whole deposit of faith. in which he includes all Biblical truths; Vinati appears to extend "matters of faith and morals" to all truths that must be believed with Catholic or Divine faith, adding that all Biblical statements fall under these groups; Nisius seems to identify "matters of faith and morals" with the truths contained in the deposit of faith without including all Biblical statements in this collection). Whatever may be thought of the foregoing opinions, it appears to be clear that "matters of faith and morals" contain all truths that must be believed with either Catholic, Divine, or theological faith. The further clause, pertaining to "the building-up of Christian doctrine", includes all the truths necessarily connected with the Christian system of doctrine and morals whether by way of foundation, or necessary proof, or, again, logical inference.

As to Matters not of Faith or Morals

Certain writers have inferred from the fact that the decrees of the councils do not say anything explicitly about the interpreter's subjection to authority in case of Biblical truths not included among "matters of faith and morals", that the Church has left the commentator perfectly free in this part of Biblical exegesis. The laws of logic hardly justify this inference. On the contrary, logic demands that he should not give any explanation which would not be in keeping with the analogy of faith. The most reasonable view of this question maintains that in matters not of faith or morals the teaching of the Church offers no positive guide to the commentator, but that it supplies a negative aid, inasmuch as it tells the Catholic student that any explanation must be false which is not conformable with the spirit of the Catholic Faith. To illustrate the foregoing rules, we may consider the attitude of the Bible towards the movement of the earth as involved in the Galileo question:

• If the Bible evidently teaches the stability of the earth, it is not permitted by Biblical inerrancy to say that the earth moves;
• if the Biblical teaching needs any explanation with regard to this point, the question arises whether the stability of the earth belongs to the "matters of faith and morals"; this is a question of right;
• if the question of right be answered in the affirmative, it is followed by the question of fact: does the teaching of the Church, or the analogy of faith, or again the unanimous consent of the Fathers maintain the stability of the earth? Or even if the second question be answered in the negative, is there any unanimous consent o the Fathers on this point which compels the reverent consideration of the Catholic interpreter?

A careful study of these points will show how the rules of hermeneutics affect the judgment passed on Galileo.

A. J. MAAS

St. Hermengild

Date of birth unknown; d. 13 April, 585. Leovigild, the Arian King of the Visigoths (569-86), had two sons, Hermengild and Reccared, by his first marriage with the Catholic Princess Theodosia. Hermengild married, in 576, Ingundis, a Frankish Catholic princess, the daughter of Sigebert and Brunhilde. Led by his own inclination, and influenced by his wife as well as by the instructions of St. Leander of Seville, he entered the Catholic fold. Leovigild's second wife, Goswintha, a fanatical Arian, hated her daughter-in-law and sought by ill-treatment to force her to abandon the Catholic Faith. Hermengild had accordingly withdrawn, with his father's sanction, to Andalusia, and had taken his wife with him. But when Leovigild learned of his son's conversion he summoned him back to Toledo, which command Hermengild did not obey. The fanatical Arianism of his step-mother, and his father's severe treatment of Catholics in Spain, stirred him to take up arms in protection of his oppressed co-religionists and in defence of his own rights. At the same time he formed an alliance with the Byzantines. Leovigold took the field against his son in 582, prevailed on the Byzantines to betray Hermengild for a sum of 30,000 gold solidi, besieged the latter in Seville in 583, and captured the city after a siege of nearly two years. Hermengild sought refuge in a church at Cordova, whence he was enticed by the false promises of Leovigild, who stripped him in camp of his royal raiment and banished him to Valencia (584). His wife, Ingundis, fled with her son to Africa, where she died, after which the boy was given, by order of Emperor Mauritius, into the hands of his grandmother Brunhilde. We are not fully informed as to Hermengild's subsequent fate.

Gregory the Great relates (Dialogi, III, 31, in P.L. LXVII, 289-93) that Leovigild sent an Arian bishop to him in his prison, on Easter Eve of 585, with a promise that he would forgive him all, provided he consented to receive Holy Communion from the hands of this bishop. But Hermengild firmly refused thus to abjure his Catholic belief, and was in consequence beheaded on Easter Day. He was later venerated as a martyr, and Sixtus V (1585), acting on the suggestion of King Philip II, extended the celebration of his feast (13 April) throughout the whole of Spain.

Acta SS., April, II, 134-138; GAMS, Kirchengeschichte Spaniens, II (Ratisbon, 1864), i, 489 sqq.; II (1874), ii, 1 sqq.; GÖRRES, Hermengild in Zetschrift für historische Theologie, 1873, 1-109; LECLERCQ, L'Espagne chrétienne (Paris, 1906), 254 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Hermes

Martyr, Bishop of Salano (Spalato) in Dalmatia. Very little is known about him; in Rom., xvi, 14, St. Paul says: "Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren that are with them." This last name is supposed by many to refer to the subject of his article, who is also said to have succeeded Titus as Bishop of Dalmatia, and to have been martyred. A passing mention is made of a Hermas in the Acta SS. Bolland., April 8, under Herodion; and Pape says he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Our Lord. Hermes was a very common name among slaves. Migne (P.G., 4 November) says he was one of the seventy disciples, along with Patrobas, Linus, Gaius and Philologus; and Canisius talks of a "Hermæus presbyter" . . . who converted many from idols to Christ, suffered for his faith with Nicander, Bishop of Myra, and was "lacerated and hanged."

De SOYRES in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Hermes (2); Menæa, 4 Nov.; Menologium Basilianum, 4 Nov.; Migne, P.G., CXVII, 143; FARLATI, Illyric. Sacr. (1751), i, 393-404; PAPE, W=94rterbuch der griechischen Eigennamer (1863-70), I, 382-4; CANISIUS, Lectiones Antiquæ (Amsterdam, 1725), III, pt. I, 484.

C.F. WEMYSS BROWN

George Hermes

Philosopher and theologian, b. at Dreierwalde near Theine (Westphalia), 22 April, 1775; d. at Bonn on the Rhine, 26 May 1831. After completing his course in the gymnasium, or high school, at Rheine, Hermes studied philosophy at the University of Münster from 1792 until 1794. He then took up theology in order to remove the doubts regarding faith awakened in his mind by the study of Kant and Fechte. Initiated as he was into the science of theology by professors of limited ability, and altogether dissatisfied with the traditional methods of proof, he determined for the time being to adhere to the faith of the Church as set forth in the Catechism, but afterwards to seek on his own account a better basis for the truths of Christianity. In 1797 Hermes became professor at the Münster gymnasium; in 1799 he was ordained a priest. The first work he wrote, "Untersuchung über die innere Wahrheit des Christentums" (Münster, 1805), in which he sought to demonstrate the harmony between reason and revelation, was received with so much favour that in 1807 its author, warmly commended by the Protestant theologian Niemeyer, at Halle, was appointed to a chair of theology at the University of Münster.

Hermes lectured on dogmatic theology, and, with especial zest, on the introduction to theology. Impressive and attractive in appearance, he was highly esteemed by his students because of his extraordinary pedagogic ability and his exemplary priestly bearing. He also earned the respect and appreciation of his colleagues by his zealous devotion to the interests of the university; up to 1819 they elected him dean three times. But his rationalistic methods of instruction, which were out of harmony with the theology of the past, roused opposition among the ruling circles at Münster including several men of eminence, such as Clement August von Droste-Vischering (later Archbishop of Cologne), Frederick von Stolberg, Obverberg, Katerkamp, Kistemaker, Kellermann. When the Vicar-General von Droste-Vischering, who was at the head of the administration of the diocese during a vacancy of the see, demanded that Hermes should continue the use of the Latin tongue in the dogmatic lectures, the latter refused to obey. The same prelate, by order of the pope, denied the legality of the uncanonical reorganization of the cathedral chapter by Napoleon I, refused to acknowledge the wrongful appointment of Baron von Spiegel (later Archbishop of Cologne) as vicar-general, and on 31 March 1813, took back into his own hands the government of the diocese. Thereupon Hermes published a voluminous opinion disputing his right to such a procedure ("Gutachten in Streitsachen des Münsterschen Domkapitels mit dem Generalvikar des Kapitels. Mit Bewilligung des hochwürdigen Domkapitels herausgegeben", Münster, 1815). As confidential adviser of the Prussian ministry he wrote at its request, particularly between the years 1815 and 1819, several important opinions, e.g. the one published in 1818 concerning the establishment of a theological faculty at the new University of Bonn. His loyalty to the Church is attested by the opinion he wrote condemning the inaccurate and erroneous translation of the Bible by Carl and Leander van Ess and the first-named author's "Geschichte der Vulgata". Although the Prussian ministry, to his deep regret, reduced the Münster University to the rank of an academy in 1818, Hermes refused a call to the new University of Bonn just as firmly as he had declined, in 1816, the offer of a professorial chair at the University of Breslau. In 1819 Hermes published "Die philosophische Einleitung", the first part of his principal work "Einleitung in die christ-katholische Theologie" (Münster, 1819; 2nd ed., 1831). The purpose of this book was to put an end to all doubts regarding three questions which are of fundamental importance to all religious conviction, and especially to that of the Christian. These questions are: Whether there is any truth at all; whether God exists, and what are His attributes; whether a supernatural revelation is possible, and under what conditions. The theological faculty of Breslau conferred on his the degree of Doctor of Theology honoris causâ for his "Philosophische Einleitung." After that Hermes, yielding to the persistent urging of the Prussian Government, accepted the chair of dogmatic theology at Bonn, 27 April, 1820. His inaugural lecture dealt with the relation of positive theology to the general principles of science (see "Zeitschrift für Philosophie und katholische Theologie", 1833, pp. 52-61). His election, 3 August 1820, as "Rector Magnificus", which he declined, and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy honoris causâ, which the philosophical faculty of Bonn subsequently conferred on him, in 1821, are ample evidence of the respect paid to him in Bonn. The University of Freiburg in Breisgau tried in vain to secure him for its faculty. His lectures on philosophy, the introduction to theology, and dogmatic theology attracted a tremendous following in Bonn, being attended even by large numbers of philologists and jurists. The Prussian ministry suspended the theological faculty in Münster for six months, on account of the interdict which the Vicar-General Clement August issued against Hermes, forbidding all theological students in the Diocese of Münster to attend any outside university without his permission. It was revoked immediately upon the retirement of the vicar-general. The theologians in the Diocese of Paderborn were also forbidden by the ecclesiastical authorities to attend Hermes' lectures. To please Hermes, the Government in 1825 dismissed his colleague Seber who was not in sympathy with him. Moreover, the Archbishop Baron von Spiegel, who had been a patron of Hermes even in his Münster days, appointed him a member of the cathedral chapter, examiner to the synod, and ecclesiastical counsellor in Cologne, without disturbing his professorial duties or obliging him to reside at Cologne.

As examiner, Hermes was a bitter opponent of all ecclesiastics who did not share his views. Like the theological faculty at Bonn, to which only pupils of Hermes had been appointed since 1826 (Achterfeldt, Braun, Bogelsang, Müller), the seminary at Cologne and a large part of the clergy were soon imbued with his ideas. Even the other faculties of Bonn included followers of his, particularly Professor Clement August von Droste-Hülshoff in law and Elvenich in philosophy. In a very short time the theological faculties of Breslau, Münster, and Braunsberg, the seminary at Trier, many cathedral chapters and instructorships in religion at the gymnasia were filled with Hermesians. In 1830 Hermes cast the decisive vote against calling Mühler and Döllinger to the chair of ecclesiastical history at Bonn. On the other hand the appointment of Professor Klee for Biblical exegesis and dogmatic theology implied a distinct concession to the anti-Hermesian movement which in the meantime had been slowly gathering strength. Hermes began to publish the second part of his "Introduction to Theology", the "Positive Einleitung", or "Positive Introduction", in 1829 (Münster, 1829, 2nd ed., 1834). Therein he sought to demonstrate the truth of Christianity by way of completing the "Philosophical Introduction". The "Philosophical Introduction" having shown the possibility of proving that Christianity is both extrinsically and intrinsically true, and having shown also how the demonstration should proceed, we have now got to the point of furnishing this proof such is the purpose of the "Positive Introduction" (Positive Introduction, 1). In carrying out this purpose he investigates five questions: (1) Are the books of the New Testament externally (historically) true? (2) Is the so-called oral tradition likewise historically true? (3) Are the expositions and interpretations of Jesus' doctrine, as communicated by the oral teaching of the Catholic Church, infallibly correct? (4) Are the teachings of Jesus contained in the books of the New Testament intrinsically true? (5) Are the teachings of Jesus that have been handed down by oral tradition likewise intrinsically true?

In its essence Hermes' theological system, or "Hermesianism", was rationalism; and, though in many respects opposed to the doctrines of Kant and Fichte, it was strongly influenced by them. According to Hermes our knowledge is subjectively true when we are convinced in our minds that it coincides with its object. This conviction, however, becomes a certainty when it is irresistible. The necessity of our conviction, therefore, is the criterion of objective truth. This necessity is either physical or moral, that is, it is either independent of, or dependent on, duty and conscience. It comes to pass in two ways: it is either forced upon us, or we admit it freely. In the first case, we call our conviction belief in truth, in the second, acceptance of a truth. Belief in a truth is a matter of theoretical reason, while acceptance is a matter of practical, or obligating, reason. Belief in a truth is in part the result of mediate necessity, in which case it is founded either on imagination, i.e. on the clearness and vividness of the mental content, or on insight (understanding); in part, also, it springs from immediate necessity, and only in this case is knowledge philosophically certain. "It is of immediate necessity that we must accept the following proposition as true, together with all propositions subordinate to it: Everything that is must have a sufficient reason" (Philosophische Einleitung, no. 14). Now the first and most immediate reality, that is forced upon the reason of direct necessity, is inseparably connected with the consciousness that I know, and with the thought that something is there. In order to discover the sufficient reason for this first reality, we are referred to the world as it appears to us, both within and outside of ourselves. The variations which occur in these phenomena require a sufficient reason in order to account for them; the variations in the origin of things call for a sufficient and absolute reason for their origin, and this ultimately can only be found in the idea of God. In such wise Hermes proves the existence of God along lines of theoretical reason in contradistinction to Kant, who treated the acknowledgment of God's existence as a postulate of practical reason.

The knowledge of the existence of God and of His attributes, which determine His relation to the world and to mankind, is a preliminary condition indispensable to the solution of the question as to whether supernatural revelation is possible. Hermes answers this question in the affirmative, first, because God is able directly to produce representations in the human mind, and secondly, because by means of representations man can be convinced of the intrinsic truth of conceptions supernaturally imparted to him, and also of conceptions naturally produced by himself, the truth of which he cannot himself demonstrate (cf. Philosophische Einleitung, no. 74). The question of the fact of a supernatural revelation must be distinguished from the question of its possibility. Revelation, said Hermes, must be admitted as a fact so soon as it can be shown that a message has emanated supernaturally from God. But the duty of the practical reason to admit revelation as a fact is demonstrated if in any alleged Divine revelation all the conditions are present on fulfillment of which it can and must be accepted for what it purports to be. Hermes, however, deems it necessary to make a very questionable distinction between philosophers and non-philosophers in regard to the duty of accepting revelation. No precept of practical reason, he says, can oblige the philosopher, who has a well-founded confidence in his knowledge, to accept a revelation that was imparted to him supernaturally, even if he had ascertained it supernatural character, and even it if fulfilled all the conditions of a Divine origin. For the philosopher can, through his own discerning perceive very definitely his natural duties, and he will always be convinced that he does so perceive them. Consequently, practical reason cannot oblige him to look for this perception outside of himself, or to accept it if offered to him unsought, whether by another person or by superhuman agency.

On the other hand, when a revelation known to be supernatural is offered to a person unversed in philosophy, he is bound by practical reason to accept it in order that he may learn his natural obligations. He must accept it, since he could not otherwise acquire the sum total of needful knowledge, being unable to attain it by philosophical methods. If, however, it is incumbent on the great majority of mankind -- consisting, of course, of non-philosophers -- to obey the behests of practical reason by believing in revelation, then neither can the philosopher refuse to accept the truth of revelation; reflective theoretical reason obliges him to accept it. At the most he could refuse to do so only on the ground that he had not yet been convinced of its Divine origin, since the fact that it could not be of any advantage to him would be no reason for withholding his acquiescence in its Divine origin. In order, therefore, to deny this certainty of the Divine origin of revelation, he must assume that what others, millions in fact, are in strictest duty bound to assume as true may possible by untrue, and that obligatory reason when it leads mankind of absolute necessity to believe something to be true can guide them to the opposite of objective truth. Hermes' rationalistic conception of the idea of revelation follows from this line of argument; and furthermore he says expressly that reason cannot teach the existence of truths of such primary importance and yet declare that it is unable to know them.

Again, Hermes' opinions on the motiva credibilitatis were quite absurd. Theoretical reason, he said, can accept the probability of the Divine origin of extraordinary phenomena (miracles and prophecies) only because it does not know all the laws of the natural world, while practical reason, for the sake of duty, can accept their supernatural origin as certainly true. Theoretical reason, for example, could not assert with certainty that the revival of a decomposing corpse was of supernatural origin, whereas practical reason could. For, if such a phenomenon could have a natural cause, men should be allowed to act accordingly and, in this case, to delay the burial of the corpse because the possibility of a natural reanimation was as yet by no means excluded. In this way Hermes sought to demonstrate the moral duty of accepting miracles under certain circumstances, in opposition to Kant who had laid it down as a moral principle never to presuppose the miraculous. Furthermore, Hermes denied that miracles afforded conclusive testimony in favour of revelation; he distinguished between the proof of the supernaturalness of miracles and the proof of the Divinity of a revelation. That many of the supernatural miracles worked by higher intelligent powers are of Divine origin can only be proved by the contents of the revelation and its moral character. A revelation shown to be genuine to the satisfaction of practical reason demonstrates the Divinity of the miracles.

According to Hermes, the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason. We may follow only where reason leads us, because this is the only guide that the Author of our being has given us for this life. Hermes differentiated the Herzensglaube, or belief of the heart, i.e. the accepting of revealed truths dictated by the will, from the Vernunftglaube, or belief of the reason, brought about by scientific demonstration. He says,

In order that one's faith may be efficacious it is not enough for the intellect, impelled by the laws of our cognitive faculties, to acquiesce in the evidence of all these truths which reason or revelation teaches or establishes, nor to adhere firmly to the same consequence, but it is also required that men should surrender themselves to these truths (realities). Efficacious faith is not the faith dictated by reason, which is subject to necessity and can, therefore, be demonstrated, but the faith of the heart, that cannot be compelled by any proof, but is accepted by a free, unconditional surrender of the will. It is for reason to prevent us from believing blindly or in a visionary way, but it is for the will as a free agent to impel us to work by faith. (Christkatholische Dogmatik, III, no. 285)

Although he was absolutely lacking in originality as a philosopher, and although as a theologian his acquaintance with the traditional theology was very limited, Hermes soon acquired a following. In philosophy there were Esser, Biunde, and Elvenich; in ethics G. Braun and Vogelsang; in natural and ecclesiastical law Droste-Hülshoff, all of whom treated their subjects according the Hermesian way of thinking, while Achterfeldt and Siemers wrote for use in the higher schools textbooks of religious instructions incorporating his views. Among his other disciples were Baltzer, Hilgers, Rosenbaum, and J.W.J. Braun. The last-named, together with Achterfeldt, founded the "Zeitschrift für Philosophie und katholische Theologie" (1832-52) in defence of Hermes' ideas. The Archbishop of Cologne, Baron von Spiegel, continued to champion Hermesianism even after the death of its author, and he silenced by repeated favourable reports the doubts that had been awakened in Rome as to correctness of the new doctrine.

Hitherto only individual attacks had been made on Hermesian theology. With the exception of a few anonymous articles in Mastiaux's "Literaturzeitung" (1820, p. 369-394), and in the "Ashaffenburger Kirchenzeitung", Windischmann was the first to write an incisive and thorough criticism of Hermes' doctrines, in the "Katholik", 1825. But the controversy became sharp and bitter when Pope Gregory XVI, in a Brief of 26 September, 1835, condemned the Hermesian system and placed both "Introductions" as well as the first part of the "Dogmatik" on the Index. The same fate befell the second and third parts of the "Dogmatik" in a decree of 7 January 1836. Prior to the issuing of this condemnation, the Holy See, at the solicitation of several German bishops, advised by Windischmann and Binterim among others, had ordered the most thorough investigation possible. Prominent theologians, such as Reisach, director of studies in the Propaganda and later cardinal, and Father Perrone, the Jesuit dogmatist, were entrusted with the task of examining Hermesian doctrines. The papal Brief characterized the theological errors of Hermesianism as "false, rash, captious, leading to scepticism and indifferentism, erroneous, scandalous, harmful to Catholic schools, subversive of Divine faith, savouring of heresy, and already condemned by the Church." The decree expressly designated the doctrinal points in which Hermes had diverged from the Catholic Church, namely: on the nature and rule of faith; on Holy Writ and tradition, Revelation, and the teaching office of the Church; the motiva credibilitatis, the proofs of the existence of God, and the doctrines concerning the nature, holiness, justice, and freedom of God, and His ultimate purpose in His works ad extra; on the necessity of grace and its bestowal; on the reward and punishment of men; on the original state of our first parents; on original sin and on the powers of man in the fallen state.

The Hermesians tried to weaken the force of the impression produced by this unexpected condemnation and to prevent the carrying out of the Brief. In fact, they succeeded in inducing the Prussian Government to forbid the publication of the Brief, and Hüsgen, Vicar Capitular of Cologne, enjoined "strict silence" on his clergy in respect to the condemnation, on the pretext that the document had not come to him in the regular course of official procedure, through the Prussian Government. On the contrary, the new Archbishop of Cologne, Clement August von Droste-Vischering, former Vicar-General of Münster, demanded the submission of the theological professors at Bonn, forbade theological students to attend the lectures of recusant professors, and compelled the clergy, on their appointment, to repudiate the Hermesian errors in eighteen theses. Although it was not in sympathy with the archbishop's measures, the Prussian Government, on 21 April 1837, forbade the theological professors at Bonn, as well as the philosopher Windischmann and the canonist Walter, to take part in any controversy on the subject of Hermesianism. The Bonn professors, Braun and Elvenich, made a last attempt to vindicate the system, journeying to Rome in May, 1837, in order to prevail upon the pope to withdraw the condemnation by emphasizing the (Jansenist) distinctio juris et facti. The repeated personal interviews they had with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Lambruschini, and with the General of the Jesuits, Father Roothan, who had been entrusted with their case, were just as fruitless as was their comprehensive treatise on Hermesianism entitled: "Meletemata theologica", which was handed back to them unopened (printed, in Latin, at Leipzig, in 1839; in German, at Cologne, in 1839, under the title "Theologische Studien"). After their return in April, 1838, they both gave a one-sided version of their unsuccessful mission in the monograph "Acta Romana" (printed at Hanover and Leipzig, 1838).

Most of the Hermesians now gave up their cause for lost and submitted, some of them spontaneously, and some at the demand of their bishops. Thanks to the energetic action of Cardinal-Archbishop von Geissel of Cologne in particular, Hermesianism was completely eradicated, and in 1860 even the most stubborn Hermesians, Braun and Achterfeldt, returned to their allegiance. Since their dismissal from their academic professorships in 1844, they had for a long time continued their defence of Hermesianism in their periodical and in polemical pamphlets, but they had only a few followers. The Vatican Council, with special reference to the doctrines of Hermes (cf. Cone. Coll. Lac., VII, 166d, 184bc), in the "Constitutio de fide catholicâ", cap. iii, can. v, defined the freedom of the act of faith and the necessity of grace for faith (see Denzinger-Bannwart, 1814).

A complete bibiography on Hermes and Hermesianism is furnished in GLA, Repertorium der katholisch-theologischen Literatur, I (Paderborn, 1904), ii, 355-70; WERNER, Geschichte der katholischen Theologie (1889), 405 sqq. 423 sqq.; BRÜCK, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Deutschland im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, II (1903), 496 sqq.; REUSCH in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, XII, 192 SQQ.; KESSEL in Kirchenlex., s.v.; SCHMID-TSCHACKERT in Protestantische Realencyklopädie, VII, 750 sqq.

JOSEPH SCHULTE

Charles Hermite

Born at Dieuze, Lorraine, 24 December, 1822; d. at Paris, 14 January, 1901; one of the greatest mathematicians of the nineteenth century. He studied at the Collège de Nancy and then, in Paris, at the Collège Henri IV and at the Collège Louis-le-Grand. As a boy he read some of the writings of Lagrange on the solution of numerical equations, and of Gauss on the theory of numbers. In 1842, his first original contribution to mathematics, in which he gave a simple proof of the proposition of Abel concerning the impossibility of obtaining an algebraic solution for the equation of the fifth degree, was published in the "Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques". The same year he entered the Ecole Polytechnique, where he remained as a student but one year. A correspondence with Jacobi, begun in 1843 and continued in 1844, led to the insertion, in the complete edition of Jacobi's works, of two articles by Hermite, one concerning the extension to Abelian functions of one of the theorems of Abel on elliptic functions, and the other concerning the transformation of elliptic functions. In 1848, Hermite returned to the Ecole Polytechnique as répétiteur and examinateur d'admission. In 1856, through the influence of Cauchy and of a nun who nursed him, he resumed the practice of his religion. On 14 July, of that year, he was elected to fill the vacancy created by the death of Binet in the Académie des Sciences. In 1869, he succeeded Duhamel as professor of mathematics, both at the Ecole Polytechnique, where he remained until 1876, and in the Faculty of Sciences of Paris, which position he occupied until his death. From 1862 to 1873 he was lecturer at the Ecole Normale Supérieure. Upon his seventieth birthday, on the occasion of his jubilee which was celebrated at the Sorbonne under the auspices of an international committee, he was promoted grand officer of the Legion of Honour.

As a teacher Hermite was inspiring. His correspondence with Stieltjes testifies to the great aid he gave those entering scientific life. His efforts in teaching were directed not towards too rigorous minuteness, but towards exciting admiration for things simple and beautiful. His published courses of lectures have exercised a wide influence. His important original contributions to pure mathematics, published in the leading mathematical journals of the world, dealt chiefly with Abelian and elliptic functions and the theory of numbers. In 1858 he solved the equation of the fifth degree by elliptic functions; and in 1873 he proved e, the base of the natural system of logarithms, to be transcendent. This last was used by Lindemann to prove (1882) the same for pi. The following is a list of his works. "Cours d'analyse de l'Ecole Polytechnique", Paris, 1873; "Cours professé à la Faculté des Sciences", edited by Andoyer, 4th ed., Paris, 1891; "Correspondance", edited by Baillaud and Bourget, Paris, 1905, 2 vols. The "Oeuvres de Charles Hermite" were edited by Picard for the Academy of Sciences, 2 vols., Paris, 1905 and 1908.

BOREL, Charles Hermite in Annuaire des Mathèmaticiens (Paris, 1902); CAPELLI, In commemorazione di Carlo Hermite in Acad. di sci. fis. e mat., Atti, VII (Naples, 1901); DARBOUX, Notice historique sur Charles Hermite in Memoires de l'Acad. des Sci., XLIX (Paris, 1901); KNELLER, Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft in Stimmen aus Maria Laach, supplement, no. 84-5. (Freiburg im Br., 1903); MANSION, Charles Hermite, esquisse bioigraphique et bibliographique (Paris, 1901); OVIDIO, Carlo Hermite, commemorazione, R. accad. di sci., Atti, XXXVI (Turin, 1901); PICARD, L'oeuvre scientifique de Charles Hermite in Acta mathematica, XXV; VOIT, Charles Hermite, obituary in Kgl. Akad. d. Wissenschaft, Sitzungsb., math-phys. Classe (Munich, 1902).

PAUL H. LINEHAN

Hermits

(Eremites, "inhabitants of a desert", from the Greek eremos), also called anchorites, were men who fled the society of their fellow-men to dwell alone in retirement. Not all of them, however, sought so complete a solitude as to avoid absolutely any intercourse with their fellow-men. Some took a companion with them, generally a disciple; others remained close to inhabited places, from which they procured their food. This kind of religious life preceded the community life of the cenobites. Elias is considered the precursor of the hermits in the Old Testament. St. John the Baptist lived like them in the desert. Christ, too, led this kind of life when he retired into the mountains. But the eremitic life proper really begins only in the time of the persecutions. The first known example is that of St. Paul, whose biography was written by St. Jerome. He began about the year 250. There were others in Egypt; St. Athanasius, who speaks of them in his life of St. Anthony, does not mention their names. Nor were they the only ones. These first solitaries, few in number, selected this mode of living on their own initiative. It was St. Anthony who brought this kind of life into vogue at the beginning of the fourth century. After the persecutions the number of hermits increased greatly in Egypt, then in Palestine, then in the Sinaitic peninsula, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Asia Minor. Cenobitic communities sprang up among them, but did not become so important as to extinguish the eremitic life. They continued to flourish in the Egyptian deserts, not to speak of other localities. Discussions arose in Egypt as to the respective merits of the cenobitic and the eremitic style of life. Which was the better? Cassian, who voices the common opinion, believed that the cenobitic life offered more advantages and less inconveniences than the eremitic life. The Syrian hermits, in addition to their solitude, were accustomed to subject themselves to great bodily austerities. Some passed years on the top of a pillar (stylites); others condemned themselves to remain standing, in open air (stationaries); others shut themselves up in a cell so that they could not come out (recluses).

Not all these hermits were models of piety. History points out many abuses among them; but, considering everything, they remain one of the noblest examples of heroic asceticism the world has ever seen. Very many of them were saints. Doctors of the Church, like St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, belonged to their number; and we might also mention Sts. Epiphanius, Ephraem, Hilarion, Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium. We have no rule giving an account of their mode of life, though we may form an idea of it from their biographies, which are to be found in Palladius, "Historia Lausiaca", P. L., XXXIV, 901-1262; Rufinus, "Historia Monachorum", P. L., XXI, 387-461; Cassian, "Collationes Patrum; De Institutis coenobitarum", P. L., IV; Theodoret, "Historia religiosa", P. G., LXXXII, 1279-1497; and also in the "Verba Seniorum", P. L., LXXIV, 381-843, and the "Apophthegmata Patrum", P. G., LXV, 71-442.

The eremitic life spread to the West in the fourth century, and flourished especially in the next two centuries, that is to say, till experience had shown by its results the advantages of the cenobitic organization. St. Gregory the Great, in his "Dialogues", gives an account of the best-known solitaries of central Italy (P. L., LXXVII, 149-430). St. Gregory of Tours does the same for a part of France (Vitae Patrum), P. L. LXXI, 1009-97). Oftentimes those who helped most to spread the cenobitic ideal were originally solitaries themselves, for instance, St. Severinus of Norica and St. Benedict of Nursia. Monasteries frequently, though by no means always, sprang from the cell of a hermit, who drew a band of disciples around him. From the beginning of the seventh century, we meet with instances of monks who at intervals led an eremitic life. As an example we may cite St. Columbanus, St. Riquier, and St. Germer. Some monasteries had isolated cells close by, where those religious who were judged capable of living in solitude might retire. Such was especially the case at the monastery of Cassiodorus, at Viviers in Calabria, and the Abbey of Fontenelles, in the Diocese of Rouen. Those who felt the want of solitude were advised to reside near an oratory or a monastic church. The councils and the monastic rules did not encourage those who were desirous of leading an eremitic life.

The widespread relaxation of monastic discipline drove St. Odo, the great apostle of reform in the sixth century, into the solitude of the forest. The religious fervour of the succeeding age produced many hermits. But to guard against the serious dangers of this kind of life, monastic institutes were founded that combined the advantages of solitude with the guidance of a superior and the protection of a rule. Thus, for example, we had the Carthusians and the Camaldolese at Vallombrosa and Monte Vergine. Nevertheless there still continued to be a large number of isolated hermits, and an attempt was made to form them into congregations having a fixed rule and a responsible superior. Italy especially was the home of these congregations at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Some drew up an entirely new rule for themselves; others adapted the Rule of St. Benedict to meet their wants; while others again preferred to base their rule on that of St. Augustine. Pope Alexander IV united the last into one order, under the name of the Hermits of St. Augustine (1256). Three congregations of hermits were called after St. Paul, one formed in 1250 in Hungary, another in Portugal, founded by Mendo Gomez de Simbria, who died in 1481, and the third in France, established by Guillaume Callier (1620); these last hermits were known also by the name of the Brothers of Death. Eugene IV formed into a congregation, to be called after St. Ambrose, the hermits who dwelt in a forest near Milan (1441). We may mention also the Brothers of the Apostle (1484), the Colorites (1530), the Hermits of Monte Senario (1593), and those of Monte Luco, who were in Italy; those of Mont-Voiron, whose constitutions were drawn up by St. Francis de Sales; those of St-Sever, in Normandy, founded by Guillaume, who had previously been a Camaldolese; those of St. John the Baptist, in Navarre, approved by Gregory XIII; the hermits of the same name, founded in France by Michel by Michel de Sainte-Sabine (1630); those of Mont-Valérien, near Paris (seventeenth century); those of Bavaria, established in the Diocese of Ratisbon (1769). The Venerable Joseph Cottolengo founded a congregation of hermits in Lombardy in the middle of the nineteenth century. Some Benedictine monasteries had hermitages depending on them. Thus we have the case of St. William of the Desert (1330) and the hermits of Our Lady of Montserrat, in Spain. The latter were well known from the sixteenth century, from their connexion with García de Cisneris. They disappeared in the eighteenth century. At the present time there exists a body of hermits on a mountain near Cordova.

We see, therefore, that the Church has always been anxious to form the hermits into communities. Nevertheless, many preferred their independence and their solitude. They were numerous in Italy, Spain, France, and Flanders in the seventeenth century. Benedict XIII and Urban VIII took measures to prevent the abuses likely to arise from too great independence. Since then the eremitic life has been gradually abandoned, and the attempts made to revive it in the last century have had no success. (See AUGUSTINE, RULE OF SAINT; CAMALDOLESE; CARMELITE ORDER; CARTHUSIAN ORDER; HIERONYMITES; also under GREEK CHURCH, Vol. VI, p. 761.)

J.M. BESSE

Hermits of St. Augustine

(Generally called Augustinians and not to be confounded with the Augustinian Canons).

A religious order which in the thirteenth century combined several monastic societies into one, under this name. The order has done much to extend the influence of the Church, to propagate the Faith, and to advance learning.

FOUNDATION

As is well known, St. Augustine of Hippo, first with some friends and afterwards, as bishop, with his clergy, led a monastic community life. Vows were not obligatory, but the possession of private property was prohibited. Their manner of life led others to imitate them. Instructions for their guidance were found in several writings of St. Augustine, especially in "De opere monachorum" (P.L., XL, 527), mentioned in the ancient codices regularum of the eighth or ninth century as "The Rule of St. Augustine". Epistola ccxi, otherwise cix (P.L., XXXIII, 958), contains the early "Augustinian Rule for Nuns"; epistolae ccclv and ccclvi (P.L., XXXIX, 1570) "De moribus clericorum". The instructions herein contained formed the basis of the rule which, in accordance with the decree of the Lateran Synod, in 1059, was adopted by canons desiring to practise a common apostolic life (Holstenius, "Codex regularum", II, Rome, 1661, 120). Thence the title "Canons Regular of St. Augustine". Later, many monastic societies and brotherhoods, especially in Italy, adopted the Augustinian Rule, either voluntarily or by command of the pope, without, however, giving up certain peculiarities of life and dress introduced by the founder, or handed down by custom. These differences led to their being confounded with other orders (e.g., the Friars Minor) and gave rise to quarrels. To remedy these evils and to ensure harmony and unity amongst the various religious congregations, Pope Alexander IV sought to unite them into one order. For this purpose he commanded that two delegates be sent to Rome from each of the hermit monasteries, to discuss, under the presidency of Cardinal Richard of Santi Angeli, the question of union. The first meeting of the delegates took place on the first of March, 1256, and resulted in a union. Lanfranc Septala of Milan, Prior of the Bonites, was appointed the first prior-general of the new order. A uniform black habit was adopted, and the staves formerly carried by the Bonites to distinguish them from Friars Minor were dispensed with. The Bull "Licet ecclesiae catholicae", issued on 4 May, 1256 (Bullarium Taurinense, 3rd ed., 635 sq.), ratified these proceedings and may be regaraded as the foundation-charter of the "Ordo Eremitarum S. Augustini"; and furthermore, the pope commanded that all hermit monasteries which had sent no delegates, should conform to the newly drawn up Constitutions.

EXTENSION OF THE ORDER

The Bull "Licet ecclesiae catholicae" mentions the hermit convents which had been invited to take part in the proceedings at Rome, in 1256, which led to the union. "Quaedam [domus] S. Guillelmi, quaedam S. Augustini ordinum, nonnullae autem fratris Joannis Boni, aliquae vero de Fabali, aliae vero de Britinis." - According to this statement, the original branches of the hermits were: (1) The Williamites, founded by St. William of Maleval shortly before his death in 1157. From this congregation sprang two others, the principal houses being at Stabulum Rodis, in the valley of Maleval, and at Fabali on Monte Fabali. The mode of life, originally very severe, was mitigated by Pope Gregory IX, under whom the majority of the Williamite monasteries adopted the Rule of St. Benedict. When these were required by the Bull "Licet ecclesiae catholicae" to join the new order, they raised objections and obtained a prohibition to exchange the Benedictine Rule for the milder one of the Augustinians. (See Guil. De Waha, "Explanatio vitae S. Guillelmi Magni" etc., 1693; "Acta Sanct. Boll.", Feb., II, 450 sqq.; "Kirchenlex.", 2nd ed., XII, 1609 sqq.) (2) Several unspecified houses of the Order of St. Augustine, established chiefly in Italy, and forming separate congregations. To these belong the Hermits of the Holy Trinity in Tuscany, who had already been united into an Augustinian congregation by Pope Innocent IV, in 1243, with Cardinal Richard for a protector, and with indulgences granted to those who visited their churches (in 1244). (3) The Bonites, so called from their founder, Blessed John Buoni, a member of the Buonuomini family, born about 1168 in Mantua. He lived a hermit's life at Cesena, and died in his native city in 1249 (Lodi, "Vita e miracoli del b. Giov. Buoni", Mantua, 1591; "Acta SS. Boll.", Oct., IX, 693 sq.). In the year 1256 the Bonites possessed eleven monasteries and gave the first general to the Augustinian Order (see above). (4) The Brittinians (Brictinians), so called from their oldest foundation, that of St. Blasius de Brittinis, near Fano, in the district of Ancona. Many congregations, such as the Brothers of Penance of Christ (Saccati, or "Sack-bearers"), the foundations of Durandus of Huesca (Osca), and those of the "Catholic Poor", united with the Bonites.

The Hermits of St. Augustine spread rapidly, partly because they did not radiate from a single parent monastery, and partly because, after violent conflicts in the previously existing congregations, the active life was finally adopted by the greater number of communities, following the example of the Friars Minor and the Dominicans. To the Brittinians alone, in 1260, was granted permission to continue following the contemplative life. A few years after the reorganization of the Augustinian Order, Hermit monasteries sprang up in Germany, France, and Spain. Germany soon possessed forty, many of them large and important, such as those at Mainz, Würzburg, Worms, Nuremberg, Speyer, Strasburg, Ratisbon, all built between 1260 and 1270. As early as the year 1299, the German province was divided into four sub-provinces: the Rhenish-Swabian, the Cologne, the Bavarian, and the Saxon. At the period of its greates prosperity the order possessed 42 provinces and 2 vicariates numbering 2000 monasteries and about 30,000 members. (Cf. Aug. Lubin, "Orbis Augustinianus sive conventuum O. Erem. S. A. chorographica et topographica descriptio", Paris, 1659, 1671, 1672.)

PRESENT CONDITION OF THE ORDER

Since the sixteenth century the order, owing to many causes, particularly to the Reformation, lost numbers of monasteries. During the French Revolution the greater part of the 157 monasteries were destroyed, as well as all the monasteries of the Discalced Augustinian Hermits. The secularization of the religious houses in Germany, Austria, and Italy brought about great losses. In 1835, out of a total of 153 in Spain, 105 were suppressed. The Augustinian monasteries in Mexico were suppressed in 1860; in Russia, in 1864; in the Kingdom of Hanover, in 1875. The Philippine Islands, however, suffered the heaviest losses, during the disturbances of 1896. Hence the Augustinian Order of to-day has only a tenth of the monasteries which it possessed at the time of its greatest prosperity.

Without counting the Discalced Augustinians, the order comprises 19 provinces, 2 commissariates, 2 congregations, and 60 large monasteries (with 6 or more fathers), in all, including residences and mission stations, 275 foundations, with 2050 members (priests, clerical novices, and lay brothers). These provinces, according to the "Catalogus Fratrum O. Erem. S. Augustini" (Rome, 1908) are:--

1. Provincia Romana (Rome), with 13 convents.
2. Provincia Picena (north-eastern Italy), with 16 convents.
3. Provincia Castellae (Spain), with 5 colleges and 2 residences (S. German and Cabo Rojo) in Porto Rico.
4. Provincia Hollandica, with 6 convents.
5. Provincia Belgica, with 3 convents.
6. Provincia Umbriae, with 9 convents.
7. Provincia Bavarico-Germanica et Polonica, with 7 convents in Bavaria, 1 in Prussia, and 1 in Austrian Galicia.
8. Provincia Bohemiae, with 7 convents in Bohemia.
9. Commissariatus Neapolitanus, with 2 convents.
10. Commissariatus Siculus, with 8 convents in Sicily.
11. Provincia Etruriae, with 5 convents.
12. Provincia Hiberniae, with 12 convents in Ireland (Dublin, Galway, Cork, Limerick, Drogheda, Callan, Dungarvan, New Ross, Fethard, Ballyhaunis, Clonmines, and Orlagh), 3 in England (Hoxton, West Kensington, and Hythe), 3 in Australia (Echuca, Rochester, and Kyabram), and 1 in Italy (St. Patrick's, Rome).
13. Provincia Liguriae, with 5 convents.
14. Provincia Michoacanensis (Mexico), with 10 convents, 16 vicariates or parishes, and 1 chaplaincy.
15. Provincia SS. Nominis Jesu Insularum Philippinarum. This comprises 2 residences at Madrid; the Real Colegio at Valladolid; 4 other residences and 7 convents in other parts of Spain; a procurator's house (domus procurationis) at Rome; 3 convents and 10 parish residences in the Philippines; a procurator's house and 6 mission stations in China; one college and five houses in the Republic of Colombia; 1 convent, 3 colleges, and 3 mission stations in Peru; a procurator's house and 16 other houses (including 1 diocesan seminary) in Brazil; 5 colleges, 1 school, and 4 other houses in Argentina.
16. Provincia S. Michaelis Quitensis (Ecuador), with 3 convents.
17. Provincia Mexicana SS. Nominis Jesu (Mexico), with 6 convents and 7 vicariates.
18. Provincia Chilensis (Chile), with 6 convents and 1 house.
19. Provincia Melitensis (Malta), with 3 convents.
20. Provincia S. Thomae a Villanova in Statibus Faederatis Americae Septentrionalis (United States of America) comprises, besides the college of Villanova, in Pennsylvania, and that of St. Augustine, at Havana, Cuba, 9 convents and 11 houses.
21. Provincia Matritensis SS. Cordis Jesu (Spain), with 2 chapels in Madrid, a convent and 2 colleges in the Escorial, 1 college each at Palma (Majorca), Guernica, and Ronda, and a school at Portugalete.
22. Congregatio S. Joannis ad Carbonariam (Naples), with 4 convents.
23. Congregatio S. Mariae de Nemore Siciliae (Sicily), with 2 convents.

The convents of St. Thomas, at Alt Brunn, Moravia, and of Our Lady of Good Counsel, Philadelphia, U.S.A., are immediately subject to the general of the Augustinian Order.

The chief house of the order is the International College of St. Monica at Rome, Via S. Uffizio No. 1. It is also the residence of the general of the order (prior generalis) and of the curia generalis. Another monastery of the Augustinian Hermits in Rome is that of S. Augustinus de Urbe, established in 1483, near the church of St. Augustine, in which the remains of St. Monica, the mother if St. Augustine, were deposited when they were brought from Ostia in the year 1430. This, formerly the chief monastery of the order, is now occupied by the Italian Ministry of Marine, and the Augustinian Fathers who serve the church retain only a small portion of their former property. Another Augustinian convent in Rome is S. Maria de Populo de Urbe.

In 1331 Pope John XXII had appointed the Augustinian Hermits guardians of the tomb of St. Augustine in the Church of S. Pietro in Ciel d'Oro at Pavia. They were driven thence in 1700, and fled to Milan. Their monastery being destroyed in 1799, and the church desecrated, the remains of St. Augustine were taken back to Pavia and placed in its cathedral. In recent times the church of S. Pietro was restored, and on 7 October, 1900, the body of the saint was removed from the cathedral and replaced in San Pietro--an event commemorated in a poem by Pope Leo XIII. The Augustinians are again in possession of their old church of S. Pietro.

REFORM MOVEMENTS

In the fourteenth century, owing to various causes, such as the mitigation of the rule, either by permission of the pope, or through a lessening of fervour, but chiefly in consequence of the Plague and the Great Western Schism, discipline became relaxed in the Augustinian monasteries; hence reformers appeared who were anxious to restore it. These reformers were themselves Augustinians and instituted several reformed congregations, each having its own vicar-general (vicarius-generalis), but all under the control of the general of the order. The most important of these congregations of the "Regular Observants" were those of Illiceto, in the district of Siena, established in 1385, having 12, and subsequently 8, convents; of St. John ad Carbonariam (founded c. 1390), having 14 convents, of which 4 still exist; of Perugia (1491), having 11; the Lombardic Congregation (1430), 56; the Congregation of the Spanish Observance (1430), which since 1505 has comprised all the Castilian monasteries; of Monte Ortono near Padua (1436), having 6 convents; of the Blessed Virgin at Genoa, also called Our Lady of Consolation (c. 1470), 25; of Apulia (c. 1490), 11; the German, or Saxon, Congregation (1493) (see next paragraph); the Congregation of Zampani in Calabria (1507), 40; the Dalmatian Congregation (1510), 6; the Congregation of the Colorites, or of Monte Colorito, Calabria (1600), 11; of Centorbio in Sicily (1590), 18 (at present 2, which form the Congregation of S. Maria de Nemore Siciliae); of the "Little Augustinians" of Bourges, France (c. 1593), 20; of the Spanish, Italian, and French congregations of Discalced, or Barefooted, Augustinians (see below), and the Congregation del Bosco in Sicily established in the year 1818 and having 3 convents.

Among these reformed congregations, besides those of the Barefooted Augustinians, the most important was the German (Saxon) Congregation. As in Italy, Spain, and France, reforms were begun as early as the fifteenth century in the four German provinces existing since 1299. Johannes Zachariae, an Augustinian monk of Eschwege, Provincial of the Order from 1419-1427, and professor of theology at the University of Erfurt, began a reform in 1492. Andreas Proles, prior of the Himmelpforten monastery, near Wernigerode, strove to introduce the reforms of Father Heinrich Zolter in as many Augustinian monasteries as possible. Proles, aided by Father Simon Lindner of Nuremberg and other zealous Augustinians, worked indefatigably till his death, in 1503, to reform the Saxon monasteries, even calling in the assistance of the secular ruler of the country. As the result of his efforts, the German, or Saxon, Reformed Congregation, recognized in 1493, comprised nearly all the important convents of the Augustinian Hermits in Germany. Johann von Staupitz his successor, as vicar of the congregation, followed in his footsteps. Staupitz had been prior at Tubingen, then at Munich, and had taken a prominent part in founding the University of Wittenberg in 1502, where he became a professor of theology and the first dean of that faculty. He continued to reform the order with the zeal of Proles, as well as in his spirit and with his methods. He collected the "Constitutiones fratrum eremitarum S. Aug. ad apostolicorum privilegiorum formam pro Reformatione Alemanniae", which were approved in a chapter held at Nuremberg in 1504. A printed copy of these is still to be seen in the university library of Jena. Supported by the general of the order, Aegidius of Viterbo, he obtained a papal brief (15 March, 1506), granting independence under their own vicar-general to the reformed German congregations and furthermore, 15 December, 1507, a papal Bull commanding the union of the Saxon province with the German Congregation of the Regular Observants. All the Augustinian convents of Northern Germany were, in accordance with this decree, to become parts of the regular observance. But when, in 1510, Staupitz commanded all the hermits of the Saxon province to accept the regular observance on pain of being punished as rebels, and to obey him as well as the general of the order, and, on 30 September, published the papal Bull at Wittenberg, seven convents refused to obey, among them that of Erfurt, of which Martin Luther was a member. In fact, Luther seems to have gone to Rome on this occasion as a representative of the rebellious monks.

In consequence of this appeal to Rome, the consolidation did not take place. Staupitz also continued to favour Luther even after this. They had become acquainted at Erfurt, during a visitation, and Staupitz was responsible for Luther's summons to Wittenberg in 1508; nay, even after 1517 he entertained friendly sentiments for Luther, looking upon his proceedings as being directed only against abuses. From 1519 on he gradually turned away from Luther. Staupitz resigned his office of vicar-general of the German congregations in 1520. Father Wenzel Link, preacher at Nuremberg, former professor and dean of the theological faculty at Wittenberg, who was elected his successor, cast his lot with Luther, whose views were endorsed at a chapter of the Saxon province held in January, 1522, at Wittenberg. In 1523 Link resigned his office, became a Lutheran preacher at Altenberg, where he introduced the Reformation and married, and went in 1528 as preacher to Nuremberg, where he died in 1547. The example of Luther and Link was followed by many Augustinians of the Saxon province, so that their convents were more and more deserted, and that of Erfurt ceased to exist in 1525. The German houses that remained faithful united with the Lombardic Congregation. There were, however, many Augustinians in Germany who by their writings and their sermons opposed the Reformation. Among them Bartholomäus Arnoldi of Usingen (d. 1532 at Würzburg), for thirty years professor at Erfurt and one of Luther's teachers, Johannes Hoffmeister (d. 1547), Wolfgang Cappelmair (d. 1531), and Konrad Treger (d. 1542).

THE DISCALCED AUGUSTINIANS
(Sometimes called the Barefooted Augustinians, or Augustinian Recollects)

More fortunate than that of the German (Saxon) province was the reform of the order begun in Spain in the sixteenth century, which extended thense to Italy and France. The originator of this reform was Father Thomas of Andrada, afterwards called Thomas of Jesus. Born at Lisbon, in 1529, he entered the Augustinian Order in his fifteenth year. Although aided in his efforts at reform by the Cardinal Infante Henry of Portugal, and his teacher, Louis of Montoya, his plans were impeded at first by the hesitation of his brethren, then by his captivity among the Moors (1578), on the occasion of the crusade of the youthful King Sebastian of Portugal, and lastly by his death in prison which took place on 17 April, 1582. The celebrated poet and scholar Fray Luis Ponce de León (d. 1591), of the Augustinian monastery at Salamanca, took up the work of Thomas of Andrada. Appointed professor of theology at the University of Salamanca in 1561, he undertook the revision of the constitutions of his order and in 1588 Father Díaz, with the support of Philip II, established at Talavera the first monastery of the Spanish Regular Observance. In a short time many new monasteries of Discalced Augustinians sprang up in Spain and were followed by others in the Spanish colonies. In 1606 Philip III sent some Discalced Augustinians to the Philippine Islands where, as early as 1565, Fray Andrés de Urdaneta, the well-known navigator and cosmographer (cf. "La Ciudad de Dios", 1902; "Die katholischen Missionen", 1880, pp. 4 sqq.), had founded the first mission station on the island of Cebú. In a few years, many mission stations of the Discalced Augustinians sprang up in the principal places on the islands and developed a very successful missionary activity. In 1622 Pope Gregory XV permitted the erection of a separate congregation for the Discalced, with its own vicar-general. This congregation comprised four provinces: three in Spain and the Philippine province, to which was later added that of Peru. When the Discalced Augustinians in Spain were either put to death or obliged to flee, during the revolution of 1835, they continued to flourish in the Philippines and in South America.

In Italy, Father Andrés Díaz introduced the reformed congregations in 1592, the first house being that of Our Lady of the Olives, at Naples, which was soon followed by others at Rome and elsewhere. As early as 1624 Pope Urban VIII permitted the division of the Italian congregations of Barefooted Augustinians into four provinces (later, nine). In 1626 a house of this congregation was founded at Prague and another at Vienna, in 1631, of which the celebrated Abraham a Sancta Clara was a member in the eighteenth century. In France, Fathers François Amet and Matthew of St. Frances, of Villar-Benoit, completed the reform of the order in 1596. The French Congregation of Discalced Augustinians comprised three provinces, of which all the houses were destroyed during the French Revolution. As the only convent of Calced Augustinian Hermits, St. Monica, at Nantes, is at present untenanted, there is now not a single Augustinian convent in France. The Italian Congregation of Discalced Augustinians in Italy possess seven houses, six in Italy and one in Austria (Schlusselburg, with a parish in the Diocese of Budweiss). The chief house of this congregation is that of St. Nicholas of Tolentino in Rome (Via del Corso 45). Including the scattered members of the Spanish congregation in the Philippine Islands and South America, the Discalced Augustinians still number about 600 members. They are independent of the Augustinian general and are divided into two congregations, under two vicars-general.

Organization of the Order

The Augustinian Hermits, while following the rule known as that of St. Augustine, are also subject to the Constitutions drawn up by Bl. Augustinus Novellus (d. 1309), prior general of the order from 1298 to 1300, and by Bl. Clement of Osimo. The Rule and Constitutions were approved at the general chapter held at Florence in 1287 and at Ratisbon in 1290. A revision was made at Rome in 1895. The Constitutions have frequently been printed: at Rome, in 1581, and, with the commentary of Girolamo Seripando, at Venice, in 1549, and at Rome, in 1553. The newly revised Constitutions were published at Rome in 1895, with additions in 1901 and 1907.

The government of the order is as follows: At the head is the prior general (at present, Tomás Rodríguez, a Spaniard), elected every six years by the general chapter. The prior general is aided by four assistants and a secretary, also elected by the general chapter. These form the Curia Generalitia. Each province is governed by a provincial, each commissariate by a commissary general, each of the two congregations by a vicar-general, and every monastery by a prior (though the monastery of Alt-Brunn, in Moravia, is under an abbot) and every college by a rector. The members of the order are divided into priests and lay brothers. The Augustinians, like most religious orders, have a cardinal protector (at present, Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro). The choir and outdoor dress of the monks is of black woollen material, with long, wide sleeves, a black leather girdle, and a long pointed cowl reaching to the girdle. The indoor dress consists of a black habit with scapular. In many monasteries white was formerly the colour of the house garment, also worn in public, in places where there were no Dominicans. Shoes and (out of doors) a black hat complete the costume.

The Discalced Augustinians have their own constitutions, differing from those of the other Augustinians. Their fasts are more rigid, and their other ascetic exercises stricter. They wear sandals, not shoes (and are therefore not strictly discalced). They never sing a high Mass. As an apparent survival of the hermit life, the Discalced Augustinians practise strict silence and have in every province a house of recollection situated in some retired place, to which monks striving after greater perfection can retire in order to practise severe penance, living only on water, bread, fruits, olive oil, and wine.

PRIVILEGES OF THE ORDER

Privileges were granted to the order almost from its beginning. Alexander IV freed the order from the jurisdiction of the bishops; Innocent VIII, in 1490, granted to the churches of the order indulgences such as can only be gained by making the Stations at Rome; Pius V placed the Augustinians among the mendicant orders and ranked them next to the Carmelites. Since the end of the thirteenth century the sacristan of the papal palace has always been an Augustinian. This privilege was ratified by Pope Alexander VI and granted to the order forever by a Bull issued in 1497. The present holder of the office is Guglielmo Pifferi, titular Bishop of Porphyra, rector of the Vatican parish (of which the chapel of St. Paul is the parish church). To his office also belongs the duty of preserving in his oratory a consecrated Host which must be renewed weekly and kept in readiness in case of the pope's illness, when it is the privilege of the papal sacristan to administer the last sacraments to His Holiness. The sacristan must always accompany the pope when he travels, and during a conclave it is he who celebrates Mass and administers the sacraments. He lives in the Vatican with a sub-sacristan and three lay brothers of the order (cf. Rocca, "Chronhistoria de Apostolico Sacrario", Rome, 1605). The Augustinian Hermits always fill one of the chairs of the Sapienza University, and one of the consultorships in the Congregation of Rites.

The work of the Augustinians includes teaching, scientific study, the cure of souls, and missions. The history of education makes frequent mention of Augustinians who distinguished themselves particularly as professors of philosophy and theology at the great universities of Salamanca, Coimbra, Alcala, Padua, Pisa, Naples, Oxford, Paris, Vienna, Prague, Würzburg, Erfurt, Heidelberg, Wittenberg, etc. Others taught successfully in the schools of the order. The order also controlled a number of secondary schools, colleges, etc. In 1685 the Bishop of Würzburg, Johann Gottfried II, of Guttenberg, confided to the care of the Augustinians the parish and the gymnasium of Munnerstadt in Lower Franconia (Bavaria), a charge which they still retain. Connected with the monastery of St. Michael in that place is a monastic school, while the seminary directed by the Augustinians forms another convent, that of St. Joseph. From 1698 to 1805 there existed an Augustinian gymnasium at Bedburg in the district of Cologne. The order also possesses altogether fifteen colleges, academies, and seminaries in Italy, Spain, and America. The chief institutions of this kind in Spain are that at Valladolid and that in the Escorial. As a pedagogical writer, we may mention the general of the order Aegidius of Colonna, also called Aegidius Romanus, who died Archbishop of Bourges in 1316. Aegidius was the preceptor of the French king, Philip IV, the Fair, at whose request he wrote the work "De regimine Principum". (An extract from this book "on the care of parents for the education of their children" will be found in the "Bibliothek der katholischen Padagogik", Freiburg, 1904.) Jacques Barthelemy de Buillon, a French Augustinian exiled by the Revolution, fled to Munich and began the education of deaf and dumb children. Aegidius of Colonna was a disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas, and founded the school of theology known as the Augustinian, which was divided into an earlier and a later. Among the representatives of the earlier Augustinian school (or Aegidians), we may mention besides Aegidius himself (Doctor fundatissimus) Thomas of Strasburg (d. 1357), and Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358), both generals of the order, and Augustine Gibbon, professor at Würzburg (d. 1676). The later Augustinian school of theology is represented by Cardinal Henry Noris (d. 1704), Fred. Nicholas Gavardi (d. 1715), Fulgentius Bellelli (d. 1742), Petrus Manso (d. after 1729), Joannes Laurentius Berti (d. 1766), and Michelangelo Marcelli (d. 1804). The following were notable theologians: James of Viterbo (Giacomo di Capoccio), Archbishop of Benevento and Naples (d. 1308), called Doctor speculativus; Alexander a S. Elpideo (also called Fassitelli or A. de Marchina) (d. 1326), Bioshop of Melfi; Augustinus Triumphus (d. 1328); Bartholomew of Urbino (also called de Carusis) (d. 1350), Bishop of Urbino; Henry of Friemar (d. 1354); Blessed Herman of Schildesche (Schildis, near Bielefeld) (d. 1357), called Doctor Germanus and Magnus legista; Giacomo Caraccioli (d. 1357); Simon Baringuedus (d. after 1373); Johann Klenkok (Klenke) (d. 1374), author of the "Decadicon", an attack upon the "Sachsenspiegel"; Johannes Zachariae (d. 1428), known for his controversy with John Hus at the Council of Constance and for his "Oratio de necessitate reformationis"; Paulus (Nicolettus) de Venetiis (d. 1429); Giovanni Dati (d. 1471); Ambrose of Cora (Corianus, Coriolanus) (d. 1485), general of the order after 1476; Thomas Pencket (d. 1487); Aegidius of Viterbo (d. 1532); Cosmas Damian Hortulanus (Hortola) (d. 1568); Caspar Casal (d. 1587), Bishop of Coimbra; Pedro Aragon (d. 1595); Giovanni Battista Arrighi (d. 1607); Gregorio Nuñez Coronel (d. 1620); Aegidius a Praesentatione Fonseca (d. 1626); Luigi Alberti (d. 1628); Basilius Pontius (d. 1629); Ludovicus Angelicus Aprosius (d. 1681); Nikolaus Gircken (d. 1717). Giovanni Michele Cavalieri (d. 1757) was a rubricist of note. Father Angelo Rocca, papal sacristan and titular Bishop of Tagaste (d. 1620), known for his luturgical and archaeological researches, was the founder of the Angelica Library (Bibliotheca Angelica), which was called after him and is now the public library of the Augustinians in Rome.

Many Augustinians have written ascetic works and sermons. In the department of historical research the following are worthy of mention: Onofrio Panvini (d. 1568); Joachim Brulius (d. after 1652), who wrote a history of the colonization and Christianizing of Peru (Antwerp, 1615), also a history of China; Enrique Florez (d. 1773), called "the first historian of Spain", author of "Espana Sagrada"; and, lastly, Manuel Risco (d. 1801), author of a history of printing in Spain.

To the missionaries of the order we owe many valuable contributions in linguistics. Father Melchor de Vargas composed, in 1576, a cathechism in the Mexican Otomi language; Father Diego Basalenque (d. 1651) and Miguel de Guevara compiled works in the languages of the savage Matlaltzinkas of Mexico; Father Manuel Perez translated the Roman Cathechism into Aztec in 1723. Others have made researches in the languages of the Philippine Islands, such as Father Diego Bergano and, in more recent times, José Sequi (d. 1844), a prominent missionary of the order, who baptized 30,000 persons. Many wrote grammars and compiled dictionaries. Father Herrera wrote a poetical life of Jesus in the Tagalog language in 1639. Fathers Martin de Hereda and Hieronymus penetrated into the interior of China in 1577, to study Chinese literature with the intention of bringing it into Europe. Father Antonius Aug. Georgius (d. 1797) composed the "Alphabetum Tibetanum" for the use of missionaries. Father Agostino Ciasca (d. 1902), titular Archbishop of Larissa and cardinal, a prominent member of the order in recent times, established a special faculty for Oriental languages at the Roman Seminary, published an Arabic translation of Tatian's "Diatessaron" and wrote "Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica". Father Dionysius of Borgo San Sepolcro (d. 1342), Bishop of Monopoli in Lower Italy, is the author of a commentary on the "Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX" of Valerius Maximus, and was also much esteemed for his talents as poet, philosopher, and orator. The missionaries of the order have also given us valuable descriptive works on foreign countries and peoples. In this class of writing Cipriano Navarro's important work on "The Inhabitants of the Philippines" and a monumental work in six volumes entitled "La Flora de Filipinas" (Madrid, 1877--), are valuable contributions to literature and learning. Manuel Blanco, Ignacio Mercado, Antonio Llanos, Andrés Naves, and Celestino Fernandez are also worthy of mention. Fathers Angelo Perez and Cecilio Guemes published in 1905 a work in four volumes entitled "La Imprenta de Manila".

A number of mathematicians, astronomers, and musicians are also found among the members of the order, but it was the great scientist Johann Gregor Mendel, abbot of the monastery of St. Thomas at Alt-Brunn in Moravia (d. 1884) who shed glory on the Augustinian Order in recent times. He was the discoverer of the Mendelian laws of heredity and hybridization (see under EVOLUTION; and GREGOR MENDEL). The value set upon learning and science by the Augustinian monks is proved by the care given to their libraries and by the establishment of their own printing-press in their convent at Nuremberg, in 1479, as well as by the numerous learned men produced by the order and still contributing valuable additions to knowledge. Father Tomás Cámaro y Castro (d. 1904), Bishop of Salamanca, founded a scientific periodical, "La Ciudad de Dios", formerly entitled "Revista Agustiniana", and published by the Augustinians at Madrid since 1881. In Spain the order possesses besides several meteorological stations, the observatory of the Escorial. Among the Augustinian writers of the present time should be mentioned: Zacarías Martínez Nuñez, a celebrated Spanish orator and master of natural science; Honorato del Val, author of a great work on dogma; Aurelio Palmieri, one of the best authorities on the Russian language, literature, and church history.

The Augustinian Order has devoted itself from its beginning, with great zeal to the cure of souls. Only those engaged in teaching and inmates of the houses of recollection, among the Discalced, are exempt from the obligation to this duty, to follow which the order, though retaining its name Hermits, exchanged the contemplative life for the active. Seeing the good done by the Friars Minor and the Dominicans, they wished to share in the harvest, undertaking to preach and instruct the people. Augustinians became the confessors and advisers of popes, princes, and rulers. Many became bishops, several cardinals, exercising these offices for the good of the Church and the honour of their order. At present the order has a cardinal, Sebastiano Martinelli (formerly Apostolic delegate for the United States), several bishops--Guglielmo Pifferi (see above); Stephen Reville, Bishop of Sandhurst in Australia; Arsenio Campo y Monasterio, Bishop of Nueva Cáceres in the Philippine Islands; Giovanni Camilleri, Bishop of Gozzo; José López de Mendoza y Garcia, Bishop of Pampeluna, Spain; Giuseppe Capecci, Bishop of Alessandria in Italy; Francisco Xavier Valdés y Noriega, Bishop of Salamanca; William A. Jones, Bishop of Porto Rico; the Vicars Luis Perez of Northern Hu-nan (China) and Dominic Murray, Cooktown, Australia; the Prefect Apostolic (Paulino Díaz Alonso) of San León de Amazonas--and, finally, two mitred abbots.

The order has produced many saints, for example, Sts. Nicholas of Tolentino (d. 1305), John of Sahagún (a Sancto Facundo) (d. 1479), and Thomas of Villanova (d. 1555). Stefano Bellesini (d. 1840), the Augustinian parish priest of Genazzano, in the Roman province, was beatified by Pius X, 27 December, 1904. The process for the beatification of seven Augustinians, among them the papal sacristan Bartolommeo Menochio (d. 1827), is under consideration.

As to the devotional practices specially connected with the Augustinian Order, and which it has striven to propagate, we may mention the veneration of the Blessed Virgin under the title of "Mother of Good Counsel", whose miraculous picture is to be seen in the Augustinian church at Genazzano in the Roman province. This devotion has spread to other churches and countries, and confraternities have been formed to cultivate it. Several periodicals dedicated to the honour of Our Lady of Good Counsel are published in Italy, Spain, and Germany by the Augustinians (cf. Meschler on the history of the miraculous picture of Genazzano in "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach", LXVII, 482 sqq.). Besides this devotion the order fosters the Archconfraternity of Our Lady of Consolation, a so-called girdle confraternity, the members of which wear a blessed girdle of black leather in honour of Sts. Augustine, Monica, and Nicholas of Tolentino, recite daily thirteen Our Fathers and Hail Marys and the Salve Regina, fast strictly on the eve of the feast of St. Augustine, and receive Holy Communion on the feasts of the three above-named saints. This confraternity was founded by Pope Eugene IV at S. Giacomo, Bologna, in 1439, made an archconfraternity by Gregory XIII, in 1575, aggregated to the Augustinian Order, and favoured with indulgences. The Augustinians, with the approbation of Pope Leo XIII, also encourage the devotion of the Scapular of Our Lady of Good Counsel and the propagation of the Third Order of St. Augustine for the laity, as well as the veneration of St. Augustine and his mother St. Monica, in order to instil the Augustinian spirit of prayer and self-sacrifice into their parishioners.

The Augustinians hold an honourable place in the history of foreign missions. Before the middle of the fourteenth century, Father Nikolaus Teschel (d. 1371), auxiliary Bishop of Ratisbon, where he died, with some brethren preached the Gospel in Africa. In 1533, after the subjugation of Mexico by Cortez, some Augustinians, sent by St. Thomas of Villanova, accomplished great missionary work in that country. Monasteries sprang up in the principal places and became the centers of Christianity, art, and civilization. The Patio (Cloister) of the former monastery of St. Augustine, now the post office, at Queretaro, is one of the most beautiful examples of stone-carving in America. The Augustinian monasteries in Mexico are to-day either deserted or occupied by a few fathers only; some even only by one. The Provincia Michoacanensis (see above, Present Condition) at present has about 55 members, while the Provincia Mexicana has 31, most of whom are priests. Augustinian missionaries extended their labours to South America (Colombia, Venezuela, Peru) with great success. Political events in these countries prevented the order from prospering and hindered the success of its undertakings, so that in course of time the monasteries became deserted. Late events in the Philippine Islands, however, have permitted the Augustinians to return to their former churches and monasteries and even to found new ones.

In the Republic of Colombia, 26 members of the Philippine province are employed, including 6 at the residence of Santa Fe de Bogota, 8 in the college at Facatativa, and 12 at other stations. In Peru 49 members of the same province are employed: 14 priests and 2 lay brothers belonging to the convent at Lima; 12 priests to the college in the same city; 6 in each of the two seminaries at Cuzco and Ayacucho. In the Prefecture Apostolic of San León de Amazonas, at the mission stations of Peba, Río Tigre, and Leticia in the territory of the Iquito Indians there are 9 priests. In June, 1904, Father Bernardo Calle, the lay brother, Miguel Vilajoli, and more than 70 Christians, were murdered at the recently erected mission station, Huabico, in Upper Maranon and the station itself was destroyed. The Augustinian settlements in Brazil also belong to the Philippine province. In the procuration house at S. Paulo (Rua Apeninos 6) and in the college at Brotas there are 4 Augustinians each; in the diocesan seminary at S. José de Manaos, 6; and in the other settlements, 27 priests--in all, 42 members of the order, including one lay brother. In Argentina, there are 25 priests and two lay brothers in the six colleges and schools of the order. In Ecuador, which forms a province by itself, there are 21 members of the order; 9 priests and 7 lay brothers in the monastery at Quito; 3 priests in the convent at Latagun and 2 in that at Guayaquil. The province of Chile has 56 members, including 18 lay brothers; 11 at Santiago, 4 at La Serena, 5 at Concepción, 22 at Talca, 8 at San Fernando, 4 at Melipilla, and 2 in the residence at Picazo. The province of the United States of America is very large, as the Augustinians driven out of many European countries in 1848 sought refuge in that republic. This province now numbers 200 members. The largest convent is at Villanova, Pa.; it is also the novitiate for North America, and among the 117 religious occupying the convent 21 are priests (see above, Present Condition). The other convents contain 60 members, of whom 5 are lay brothers. To the province of the United States belongs also St. Augustine's College at Havana, Cuba, where there are 5 priests and 3 lay brothers.

The greatest missionary activity of the Augustinian Order has been displayed in the Philippine Islands, and the first missionaries to visit these islands were Augustinians. When Magalhaes discovered the Philippines (16 March, 1521) and took possession of them in the name of the King of Spain, he was accompanied by the chaplain of the fleet, who preached the Gospel to the inhabitants, baptizing Kings Colambu and Siagu and 800 natives of Mindanao and Cebú, on Low Sunday, 7 April, 1521. The good seed, however, was soon almost destroyed; Magalhaes was killed in a fight with natives on the little island of Mactan on 27 April and the seed sown by the first Spanish missionaries all but perished; nor were those missionaries brought from Mexico in 1543 by Ruy López Villalobos more successful, for they were obliged to return to Europe by way of Goa, having gained very little hold on the islanders. Under the Adelantado Legaspi who in 1565 established the sovereignty of Spain in the Philippines and selected Manila as the capital in 1571, Father Andrés de Urdaneta and 4 other Augustinians landed at Cebú in 1565, and at once began a very successful apostolate. The first houses of the Augustinians were established at Cebú, in 1565, and at Manila, in 1571. In 1575, under the leadership of Father Alfonso Gutierez, twenty-four Spanish Augustinians landed in the islands and, with the provincials Diego de Herrera and Martin de Rado, worked very successfully, at first as wandering preachers. The Franciscans first appeared in the Philippines in 1577 and were warmly welcomed by the Augustinians. Soon they were joined by Dominicans and Jesuits. Sent by Philip III, the first Barefooted Augustinians landed in 1606. All these orders shared in the labours and difficulties of the missions. Protected by Spain, they prospered, and their missionary efforts became more and more successful. In 1773 the Jesuits, however, were obliged to give up their missions in consequence of the suppression of the Society.

The religious orders have suffered much persecution in the Philippines in recent times, especially the Augustinians. In 1897 the Calced Augustinians, numbering 319 out of 644 religious then in the Philippine province, had charge of 225 parishes, with 2,377,743 souls; the Discalced (Recollects), numbering about 220, with 233 parishes and 1,175,156 souls; the Augustinians of the Philippine province numbered in all 522, counting those in the convents at Manila, Cavite, San Sebastian, and Cebú, those at the large model farm at Imus, and those in Spain at the colleges of Monteagudo, Marcilla, and San Millan de la Cogulla. Besides the numerous parishes served by the Calced Augustinians, they possessed several educational institutions: a superior and intermediate school at Vigan (Villa Fernandina) with 209 students, an orphanage and trade school at Tambohn near Manila, with 145 orphans, etc. In consequence of the disturbances, the schools and missions were deserted; six fathers were killed and about 200 imprisoned and sometimes harshly treated. Those who escaped unmolested fled to the principal house at Manila, to Macao, to Han-kou, to South America, or to Mexico. Up to the beginning of 1900, 46 Calced and 120 Discalced Augustinians had been imprisoned. Upon their release, they returned to the few monasteries still left them in the islands or set out for Spain, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Argentina and China. The province of the United States sent some members to supply the vacancies in the Philippines. The monastery of St. Paul, at Manila, now has 24 priests and 6 lay brothers; that at Cebú, 5 members of the order, that at Iloilo, on the island of Panay, 11 priests and 2 lay brothers, while in the 10 residences there are 20 fathers; so that at the present time there are only 68 Calced Augustinians in the islands. In all, the Provincia Ss. Nominis Jesu Insularum Philippinarum, including theological students and the comparatively small number of lay brothers, has 600 members: 359 in Spain, 185 of whom are priests; 68 in the Philippines; 29 in China; 26 in Colombia; 49 in Peru; 42 in Brazil; 27 in Argentina.

The Augustinian missions in the Philippines have provided missionaries for the East since their first establishment. In 1603 some of them penetrated into Japan, where several were martyred, and in 1653 others entered China, where, in 1701, the order had six missionary stations. At present the order possesses the mission of Northern Hu-nan, China, where there are 24 members, 2 of whom are natives; 6 in the district of Yo-chou; 6 in the district of Ch'ang-te; 9 in the district of Li-chu; three other religious are also labouring in other districts-all under the vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Perez. The mission comprises about 3000 baptized Christians and 3500 catechumens in a population of 11 millions of heathens. In 1891 there were only 219 Christians and 11 catechumens, as well as 29 schools, with 420 children and 750 orphans. There are, moreover, two priests at the mission house at Han-kou and two at the procuration house at Shang-hai (Yang-tsze-poo Road, 10). The missionary history of Persia also mentions the Augustinians. Towards the close of the sixteenth century, Alexio de Menezes, Count of Cantanheda (d. 1617), a member of the order, appointed Archbishop of Goa in 1595, and of Braga in 1612, Primate of the East Indies, and several times Viceroy of India, sent several Augustinians as missionaries to Persia while he himself laboured for the reunion of the Thomas Christians, especially at the Synod of Diamper, in 1599, and for the conversion of the Mohammedans and the heathens of Malabar. (Govea, "Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Alexio de Menezes", Coimbra, 1606; also, "Histoire Orient. de grans progres de l'eglise Romaine en la reduction des anciens chrestiens dit de St. Thomas" translated from the Spanish of Franc. Munoz by J.B. de Glen, Brussels, 1609; Joa. a S. Facundo Raulin, "Historia ecclesiae malabaricae", Rome, 1745.)

The Augustinians also established missions in Oceanica and Australia. Here the Spanish Discalced Augustinians took over the missions founded by Spanish and German Jesuits in the Ladrones, which now number 7 stations, with about 10,000 souls, on Guam and about 2500 on each of the German islands of Saipan, Rota, and Tinian. The mission on the German islands was separated from the Diocese of Cebú on 1 October, 1906, and made a prefecture Apostolic on 18 June, 1907, with Saipan as its seat of administration, and the mission is now in charge of the German Capuchins. In Australia the Calced Augustinians are established in the ecclesiastical Province of Melbourne and in the Vicariate Apostolic of Cooktown, Queensland, where there are at present twelve priests of the Irish province under Monsignor James D. Murray. Three monasteries, each with two priests, in other parts of Australia also belong to this province. The order has furnished some prominent bishops to Australia, among them, James Alipius Gould. The Irish Augustinian college of St. Patrick at Rome, built in 1884 by Father Patrick Glynn, O.S.A., is the training college for the Augustinian missions. The present rector is Reginald Maurice McGrath.

AUGUSTINIAN NUNS

These regard as their first foundation the monastery of nuns for which St. Augustine wrote the rules of life in his Epistola ccxi (alias cix) in 423. It is certain that this epistle was called the Rule of St. Augustine for nuns at an early date, and has been followed as the rule of life in many female monasteries since the eleventh century. These monasteries were not consolidated in 1256, like the religious communities of Augustinian monks. Each convent was independent and was not subject to the general of the order. This led to differences in rule, dress, and mode of life. Only since the fifteenth century have certain Augustinian Hermits reformed a number of Augustinian nunneries, become their spiritual directors, and induced them to adopt the Constitution of their order. Henceforth, therefore, we meet with female members of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine in Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, and later in Germany, where, however, many were suppressed during the Reformation, or by the secularizing law of 1803. In the other countries many nunneries were closed in consequence of the Revolution. The still existing houses, except Cascia, Renteria (Diocese of Vittoria), Eibar (Diocese of Vittoria), and Cracow, are now under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese. Many convents are celebrated for the saints whom they produced, such as Montefalco in Central Italy, the home of Blessed Clara of the Cross (Clara of Montefalco, d. 1308), and Cascia, near Perugia, where St. Rita died in 1457. In the suppressed convent of Agnetenberg near Dulmen, in Westphalia, lived Anne Catherine Emmerich celebrated for her visions.

Mention should also be made of the monastery of the Augustinians called delle Vergini, at Venice, founded in 1177 by Alexander III after his reconciliation with Frederick Barbarossa, whose daughter Julia, with twelve girls of noble birth, entered the monastery and became first abbess. Doge Sebastiano Zani, who had endowed the institution, was appointed patron, with the privilege of approving the election of the abbess before the granting of the papal confirmation. On the French occupation in the eighteenth century the religious went to America, where they devoted themselves to the work of teaching and the care of the sick. Later they established monasteries in Italy and in 1817 in Paris. Towards the end of the sixteenth century communities of female Discalced Augustinians appeared in Spain. The first convent, that of the Visitation, was founded at Madrid, in 1589, by Prudencia Grillo, a lady of noble birth, and received its Constitution from Father Alfonso of Orozco. Juan de Ribera, Archbishop of Valencia (d. 1611), founded a second Discalced Augustinian congregation at Alcoy, in 1597. It soon had houses in different parts of Spain, and in 1663 was established at Lisbon by Queen Louise of Portugal. In addition to the Rule of St. Augustine these religious observed the exercises of the Reformed Carmelites of St. Teresa. In the convent at Cybar, Mariana Manzanedo of St. Joseph instituted a reform which led to the establishment of a third, that of the female Augustinian Recollects. The statutes, drawn up by Father Antinólez, and later confirmed by Paul V, bound the sisters to the strictest interpretation of the rules of poverty and obedience, and a rigorous penitential discipline. All three reforms spread in Spain and Portugal, but not in other countries. A congregation of Augustinian nuns under the title "Sisters of St. Ignatius" was introduced into the Philippines and South America by the Discalced Augustinian Hermits. They worked zealously in aid of the missions, schools, and orphanages in the island, and founded the colleges of Our Lady of Consolation and of St. Anne at Manila, and houses at Neuva Segovia, Cebú, and Mandaloya on the Pasig, where they have done much for the education of girls.

Panvini, Augustiniani Ordinis Chronicon per annorum seriem digestum a S.P. Augustino ad a. 1510; Roman, Cronica de la Orden de los Eremitanos de Padre San Agustin (Salamanca, 1569); Pamphilus, Chronicon O. Erem. S. A. et eius viri vel sanctitate vel rebus gestis illustres (Rome, 1581); Empoli, Bullarium O. Erem. S.A. ab Innocentio III usque ad Urbanum VI, cum Catalogo Priorum, Capitularium, Procuratorum, Generalium, etc. (Rome, 1628); Torelli, Secoli Agostiniani (Bologna, 1659-86); de Herrera, Alphabetum Augustinianum in quo domicilia et monasteria, viri faeminaeque illustres Eremitici Ordinis recensentur (Madrid, 1664); Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Kongregation und Johann von Staupitz (Gotha, 1875); Paulus in Historisches Jahrbuch, XII, 68 sqq.; XXII, 110 sqq.; XXIV, 72 sqq.; and Historisch-politische Blatter, CXLII, 738 sqq.; Crusenius, Monasticon Augustinianum (Munich, 1623), continued by Tirso, 1903; Heylot, Histoire des Ordes, II-IV, especially III; Privilegia Erem S. Aug. sive Mare Magnum (Pesaro, 1615); Maiocchi and Casacca, edd., Codex diplomaticus O. Erem S. Augustini Papiae (3 vols., Pavia, 1907); Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche, II (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1907), 177 sqq., where other books of reference are indicated; Bauer, s.v. Augustiner in Kirchenlex., I, 1655 sqq.; Analecta Augustiniana (periodical, Rome, 1907--); Revista Augustiniana, later, La Ciudad de Dios (Madrid, 1881--).

On the Discalced Augustinians.-- Andrés de San Nicolas, Historia de los Agustinos descalzos (Madrid, 1664); Sacra Eremus Augustiniana sive de Institutione fratrum Eremitarum excalceatorum O. S. Aug. (Cambrai, 1658); Pierre de Ste-Helene, Abrege de l'histoire des Augustins dechausses (Rouen, 1672); Andrada, Virorum illustrium ... exegesis summaria (Prague, 1674); Constitutiones de la Cong. de descalzos Agustinos (Madrid 1590); Constitutiones congregationis Italiae (Rome, 1623-32); Constitutiones Congregationis Gallicanae (Lyons, 1653); Andrés de S. Nicolas, Proventus messis Dom. FF. Excalceatorum O. Erem S. Aug. congr. Hispaniae (Rome, 1656).

On the Hagiology of the Order.-- Staibanus de Taranta, Tempio Eremitano dei Santi e Beati dell' ordine Agostiniano (Naples, 1608); Torelli, Ristretto (Bologna, 1647); Joa. Navii Eremus Augustiniana (Louvain, 1658); Maigretius, Martyrologium Augustinianum (Antwerp, 1625); Hormannseder, Heiliges Augustinerjahr (Vienna, 1733); De Wouter, Saintes de l'ordre de St-Augustin (Tournai).

On Augustinian Writers.-- Elsius, Encomiasticon Augustinianum (Brussels, 1654); Curtius, Virorum illustrium ... elogia (Antwerp, 1636, 1658); Gratianus, Anastasis Augustiniana (Antwerp, 1613), continued by Loy (Antwerp, 1636); Arpe, Pantheon Augustinianum (Genoa, 1709); Ossinger, Bibliotheca Augustiniana historica, critica et chronologica (Ingolstadt and Munich, 1776); Moral, Catalogo de escritores Agustinos Espanoles, Portugueses y Americanos in La Ciudad de Dios, XXXIV sqq.

On Augustinian Missions.-- Calancha, Cronica moralizada de la orden de San Agustin en el Peru (Barcelona, 1638); Baldani, Vita del fra Diego Ortiz, protomartire nel regno di Peru, martirizzato l'a. 1571 (Genoa, 1645); Brulius, Historiae Peruanae O. Erem. S. Aug. (Antwerp, 1651--); The Philippine Islands 1493-1898 (Cleveland, 1903--); Gaspar de S. Agustin, Conquista de las islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1698), continued by Díaz (Valladolid, 1890); Mozo, Noticia de los triumphos ... de la Orden de San Ag. en las misiones en las islas Filipinas y en imperio de la China (Madrid, 1763); Memoria acerca de las Misiones de los PP. Agustinos Calzados (Madrid, 1892); Los Frailes Filipinos (Madrid, 1898); Documentos Interesantes acerca de la secularizacion y amovilidad de los Curas Regulares de Filipinas (Madrid, 1897); Francisco del Carmen, Catalogo de los religiosos Agustinos Recoletos de la Provincia de San Nicolas de Tolentino de Filipinas desde 1606 hasta nuestros dias (Madrid, 1906).

MAX HEIMBUCHER

Hermon

[From the Hebrew meaning "sacred (mountain)"; Septuagint, Aermon]

A group of mountains forming the southern extremity of Anti-Lebanon, and marking on the east of the Jordan the northern boundary of Israel. The primitive name among the Sidonians was Siryon, and by the Amorrhites the most prominent part of the group was called Sanir (Deut., iii, 9), corresponding to the Sa-ni-ru of the cuneiform inscriptions. These varying forms all signify a cuirass or coat of armour, and were probably applied to one or other of the peaks, either on account of its shape, or because its snow-clad heights shone in the sunlight after the manner of a polished shield. The name sometimes occurs in the plural form Hermonim, doubtless because the range has three conspicuous peaks. In the Talmud and in the Targums Hermon is designated the "mountain of snow", and the same appellation is used by the old Arab geographers. The modern name is Jebel-esh-Sheikh, "mountain of the sheikh or chief", because in the tenth century A.D. Hermon became the centre of the Druse religion, viz. when its founder, Sheikh-ed-Derazi retired thither from Egypt. It is sometimes called the Great Hermon to distinguish it from the Small Hermon situated on the east of the plain of Esdrelon, between Thabor and Gelboe, and so named through an erroneous interpretation of Ps. lxxxviii [Hebrew, lxxxix], 13.

The geological formation of the range is calcareous with occasional veins of basalt. Hermon is noted as offering the most striking piece of mountain scenery in Palestine. The view from the summit is also magnificent, embracing the Lebanon and the plain of Damascus. It is at the foot of Hermon that the River Jordan takes its rise. The highest peak, which is covered with snow until late in summer, rises to a height of 9200 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. On the summit of one of the peaks is to be seen an extensive mass of ruins, probably the remains of an early pagan sanctuary dedicated to Baal, whence the designation Baal-Hermon, applied to the mountain in two Biblical passages (Judges, iii, 3; I Par., v, 23).

In the Old Testament, Hermon is hardly mentioned except as the northern boundary of Palestine. Poetical allusions occur in the Psalms (v.g. Ps. lxxxviii [Hebrew, lxxxix], 13) and in the Canticle of Canticles, iv, 8. In Ps. cxxxii [Hebrew, cxxxiii], 3, the happiness of brotherly love is compared to the "dew of Hermon, which descendeth upon mount Sion". In which connection it may be noted that in no other locality of Palestine is the dew so heavy and abundant as in the vicinity of this mountain group. Some scholars think it probable that Hermon is the "high mountain" near Caesarea Philippi which was the scene of the Transfiguration (Matthew, xvii, 1; Mark, ix) and which by Luke, ix, 28, is called simply "a mountain".

LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.; CONDER in HAST., Dictionary of the Bible, s.v.; GUERIN, Galilee, II, 292; VAN DER VELDE, Reise durch Syrien und Palestina, I (Leipzig, 1855), 97.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Hermopolis Magna

A titular see of Thebais Prima, suffragan of Antinoe, in Egypt. The native name was Khmounoun; in Coptic, Chmoun. It is today the village of Ashmounein on the left bank of the Nile, about four miles south-west of Rôda (a station on the Cairo-Thebes railway, 180 miles from Cairo). Khmounoun dates from a very remote antiquity, and at a very early period was an important religious centre. It worshipped a moon-god Thoth (Hermes), ibis or baboon, attended by four pairs of deities, whence the name Khmounoun (the eight). It played an important part from the sixth to the eleventh dynasties; and later became the chief town of the nome of Hermopolis. To the west of the village is the Ibeum, or burial place of the animals sacred to Thoth; at the foot of Gebel-el-Bershêh is the necropolis of the local rulers. Palladius (Hist. Laus., lii) records a tradition to the effect that the Holy Family came to Hermopolis. St. Colluthus suffered martyrdom there under Maximian and Diocletian. For a time, also, St. Athanasius lived there. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, II, 595) mentions eight bishops; and the place is still a see for the Monophysite Copts. In 1895 it was re-established by Leo XIII for the Coptic Catholics, but the titular lives at Minieh.

SMITH, Dict, of Greek and Roman Geogr., s.v.; JULLIEN, L'Egypte, Souvenirs bibliques et Chrétiens (Lille, 1891), 247.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Hermopolis Parva

A titular see of Ægyptus Prima, suffragan of Alexandria. Its ancient name, Dimanhoru or Tema-en-Hor, signifies the town of Horus. The Copts call it Tuininhor, and the Arabs, Damanhur. Situated on the canal uniting Lake Mareotis (Mariout) to the Canopic branch of the Nile, it has no history and no ruins. It was near Damanhur that, on 10 July, 1798, Bonaparte, walking unaccompanied, barely escaped being taken by the Mamelukes. The modem Damanhur, forty miles from Alexandria, on the Cairo-Alexandria railway, has 20,000 inhabitants and is the chief town of the province of Behera. It is famous for its silk, linen, and cotton stuffs. Lequien (Or. Christ., II, 513 sqq.) mentions a dozen bishops of Hermopolis Parva, among them Dracontius, about 354, who suffered exile for the faith under Constantius; St. Isidore, his successor (feast kept 3 January); Dioscorus, the oldest of the four famous monks of Nitria, known as the Tall Brethren.

VENABLES in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Dioscorus; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr.; DE ROUGÉ, Géographie ancienne de la Basse Egypte (Paris, 1891).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Herod

(Gr. Herodes, from Heros.)

Herod was the name of many rulers mentioned in the N.T. and in history. It was known long before the time of the biblical Herods. (See Schürer, "Hist. of the Jewish People", etc., Div. I, v. I, p. 416, note.) The Herods connected with the early history of Christianity are the following:

I. HEROD THE GREAT

Herod, surnamed the Great, called by Grätz "the evil genius of the Judean nation" (Hist., v. II, p. 77), was a son of Antipater, an Idumæan (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, vi, 2). The Idumæans were brought under subjection by John Hyrcanus towards the end of the second century b.c., and obliged to live as Jews, so that they were considered Jews (Jos., "Ant.", XIII, ix, 4). Yet Antigonus called Herod a half-Jew (Jos., "Ant.", XIV, xv, 2, and note in Whiston), while the Jews, when it furthered their interests, spoke of Herod their king as by birth a Jew (Jos., "Ant." XX, viii, 7). Antipater, the father of Herod, had helped the Romans in the Orient, and the favour of Rome brought the Herodian family into great prominence and power. Herod was born 73 b.c., and he is first mentioned as governor of Galilee (Jos., "Ant.", XIV, ix, 2). Here the text says he was only fifteen years old, evidently an error for twenty-five, since about forty-four years later he died, "almost seventy years of age" (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xxxiii, 1). His career was more wonderful than that of many heroes of fiction. Among the rapidly changing scenes of Roman history he never failed to win the goodwill of fortune's favourites. In 40 b.c. the young Octavian and Antony obtained for him from the Roman senate the crown of Judea, and between these two powerful friends he went up to the temple of Jupiter to thank the gods of Rome. Antigonus was beheaded in 37 b.c., and from this date Herod became king in fact as well as in name. He married Mariamne in 38 b.c., and thereby strengthened his title to the throne by entering into matrimonial alliance with the Hasmoneans, who were always very popular among the Jews (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xii, 3).

The reign of Herod is naturally divided into three periods: 37-25 b.c., years of development; 25-13, royal splendour; 13-4, domestic troubles and tragedies. During the first period he secured himself on the throne by removing rivals of the Hasmonean line. He put to death Hyrcanus, grandfather of Mariamne, and Aristobulus her brother, whom though but seventeen years old he had appointed high-priest. Their only offence was that they were very popular (Jos., "Ant.", XV, vi, 1, iii, 3). Mariamne also was executed in 29 b.c.; and her mother Alexandra, 28 b.c. (Jos., "Ant", XV, vii; "Bel. Jud.", I, xxii). As Herod was a friend to Antony, whom Octavian defeated at Actium 31 b.c., he was in great fear, and set out for Rhodes like a criminal with a halter around his neck to plead with the conqueror; but Cæsar confirmed him in the kingdom, with a grant of additional territory (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xx).

Herod and his children were builders. Having the reins of government well in hand, and having wreaked vengeance upon his enemies, he adorned his kingdom by building cities and temples in honour of the emperor and of the gods. Samaria was built and called Sebaste, from the Greek name for Augustus. Cæsarea with its fine harbour was also built; and, being a Greek in his tastes, Herod erected theatres, amphitheatres, and hippodromes for games, which were celebrated at stated times even at Jerusalem (Jos., "Ant." XV, viii, 1, XVI, v, 1; "Bel. Jud.", I, xxi, 1, 5). As he builds temples to the false gods -- one at Rhodes, for instance, to Apollo (Jos., "Ant.", XVI, v, 3) -- we may judge that vanity rather than piety suggested the greatest work of his reign, the temple of Jerusalem. It was begun in his eighteenth year as king (Jos., "Ant." XV, xi, 1), i.e. about 22 b.c. (Grätz, "Gesch. d. Jud." V, iii, 187). In Josephus (Bel. Jud., I, xxi, 1) the text has the fifteenth year, but here the historian counts from the death of Antigonus, 37 b.c., which gives the same date as above. The speech of Herod on the occasion, though full of piety, may be interpreted by what he said to the wise men: "that I also may come and adore him" (Matt., ii, 8; Jos., "Ant.", XV, xi, 1). The temple is described by Josephus ("Ant.", XV, xi; cf. Edersheim, "The Temple its Ministry and Services", i and ii), and the solidity of its architecture referred to in the N. T. (Matt., xxiv, 1; Mark, xiii, 1). In John, ii, 20, forty-six years are mentioned since the building was undertaken, but it requires some juggling with figures to make this number square with the history of either the second temple, or the one built by Herod (see Maldonatus, who thinks the text refers to the second temple, and MacRory, "The Gospel of St. John", for the other view).

The horrors of Herod's home were in strong contrast with the splendour of his reign. As he had married ten wives (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xxviii, 4 -- note in Whiston) by whom he had many children, the demon of discord made domestic tragedies quite frequent. He put to death even his own sons, Aristobulus and Alexander (6 b.c.), whom Antipater, his son by Doris, had accused of plotting against their father's life (Jos., "Ant.", XVI, xi). This same Antipater, who in cruelty was a true son of Herod, and who had caused the death of so many was himself accused and convicted of having prepared poison for his father, and put to death (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xxxiii, 7). The last joy of the dying king was afforded by the letter from Rome authorizing him to kill his son; five days later, like another Antiochus under a curse, he died. The account of his death and of the circumstances accompanying it is so graphically given by Josephus ("Ant.", XVII, vi, vii, viii; "Bel. Jud.", I, xxxiii), who follows Nicholas of Damascus, Herod's friend and biographer, that only an eye-witness could have furnished the details. In the hot springs of Callirrhoe, east of the Dead Sea, the king sought relief from the sickness that was to bring him to the grave. When his end drew near, he gave orders to have the principal men of the country shut up in the hippodrome at Jericho and slaughtered as soon as he had passed away, that his grave might not be without the tribute of tears. This barbarous command was not carried into effect; but the Jews celebrated as a festival the day of his death, by which they were delivered from his tyrannical rule (Grätz, "Gesch. d. Jud.", III, 195 -- "Hist." (in Eng.), II, 117). Archelaus, whom he had made his heir on discovering the perfidy of Antipater, buried him with great pomp at Herodium -- now called Frank Mountain -- S. E. of Bethlehem, in the tomb the king had prepared for himself (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 2, 3; "Bel. Jud.", I, xxxiii, 8, 9).

The death of Herod is important in its relation to the birth of Christ. The eclipse mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XVII, vi, 4), who also gives the length of Herod's reign -- thirty-seven years from the time he was appointed by the Romans, 40 b.c.; or thirty-four from the death of Antigonus, 37 b.c. (Ant., XVII, viii, 1)-- fixes the death of Herod in the spring of 750 a.d., or 4 b.c. Christ was born before Herod's death (Matt., ii, 1), but how long before is uncertain: the possible dates lie between 746 and 750 a.d. (see a summary of opinions and reasons in Gigot, "Outlines of N. T. Hist.", 42, 43).

Herod's gifts of mind and body were many. "He was such a warrior as could not be withstood . . . . fortune was also very favourable to him" (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", I, xxi, 13), yet "a man of great barbarity towards all men equally and a slave to his passions; but above the consideration of what was right" (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 1). His ruling passions were jealousy and ambition, which urged him to sacrifice even those that were nearest and dearest to him: murder and munificence were equally good as means to an end. The slaughter of the Innocents squares perfectly with what history relates of him, and St. Matthew's positive statement is not contradicted by the mere silence of Josephus; for the latter follows Nicholas of Damascus, to whom, as a courtier, Herod was a hero. Hence Armstrong (in Hastings, "Dict. of Christ and the Gospels", s. v. "Herod") justly blames those who, like Grätz (Gesch. d. Jud., III, 194 -- Hist. (Eng.), II, 116), for subjective reasons, call the evangelist's account a later legend. Macrobius, who wrote in the beginning of the fifth century, narrates that Augustus, having heard that among the children whom Herod had ordered to be slain in Syria was the king's own son, remarked: "It is better to be Herod's swine than his son" (Saturn., II, 4). In the Greek text there is a bon mot and a relationship between the words used that etymologists may recognize even in English. The law among the Jews against eating pork is hinted at, and the anecdote seems to contain extra-biblical elements. "Cruel as the slaughter may appear to us, it disappears among the cruelties of Herod. It cannot, then, surprise us that history does not speak of it" [Maas, "Life of Christ" (1897), 38 (note); the author shows, as others have done, that the number of children slain may not have been very great].

II. ARCHELAUS

Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, was, with Antipas his brother, educated at Rome (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, i, 3), and he became heir in his father's last will (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 1). After the death of his father he received the acclamations of the people, to whom he made a speech, in which he stated that his title and authority depended upon the good will of Cæsar (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, viii, 4). The death of Herod having delivered the Jews from his tyrannical rule, they petitioned Cæsar to put them under the jurisdiction of the presidents of Syria. He, however, not willing to set aside Herod's will, gave to Archelaus the half of his father's kingdom, with the title of ethnarch, the royal title to follow should he rule "virtuously". The N. T. says that he reigned (Matt., ii, 22), and in Josephus (Ant., XVII, viii, 2, ix, 2) he is called king, by courtesy, for the Romans never so styled him. His territory included Judea, Samaria, and Idumæa with the cities of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Sebaste, and Joppa (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, xi, 2, 4, 5). He soon aroused opposition by marrying his brother's wife -- a crime like that of Antipas later -- and having been accused of cruelty by his subjects, "not able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them", he was banished to Vienne, Gaul, a.d. 7 in the tenth year of his government (Jos., "Ant.", XVII, ix, xiii, 1, 2). The N . T. tells us that Joseph, fearing Archelaus, went to live at Nazareth (Matt., ii, 22, 23); and some interpreters think that in the parable (Luke, xix, 12-27) our Lord refers to Archelaus, whom the Jews did not wish to rule over them, and who, having been placed in power by Cæsar, took vengeance upon his enemies. "Whether our Lord had Archelaus in view, or only spoke generally, the circumstances admirably suit his case" (MacEvilly, "Exp. of the Gosp. of St. Luke").

III. ANTIPAS

Antipas was a son of Herod the Great, after whose death he became ruler of Galilee. He married the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia, but later lived with Herodias, the wife of his own half-brother Philip. This union with Herodias is mentioned and blamed by Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v) as well as in the N. T., and brought Antipas to ruin. It involved him in a war with Aretas in which he lost his army, a calamity that Josephus regarded "as a punishment for what he did against John that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism" (Ant., XVIII, v, 2). The N. T. gives the reason why Herodias sought John's head. As she had married Herod Philip -- not the tetrarch of the same name -- who lived as a private citizen at Rome, by whom she had a daughter, Salome, she acted against the law in leaving him to marry Antipas. John rebuked Antipas for the adulterous union, and Herodias took vengeance (Matt., xiv, 3-12; Mark, vi, 17-29). Josephus does not say that John's death was caused by the hatred of Herodias, but rather by the jealousy of Herod on account of John's great influence over the people. He was sent to the frowning fortress of Machærus on the mountains east of the Dead Sea, and there put to death (Jos., "Ant.", XVIII, v, 2). Grätz (Gesch. d. Jud., III, xi, 221 -- Hist. (Eng.), II, 147) as in other instances thinks the gospel story a legend; but Schürer admits that both Josephus and the evangelists may be right, since there is no contradiction in the accounts (Hist. of the Jewish People, etc., Div. I, V, ii, 25). The most celebrated city built by Antipas was Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. He named it after his friend the Emperor Tiberius, and made it the capital of the tetrarchy. The city gave its name to the sea, and yet stands; it was for a long time a great school and centre of Jewish learning. It was before this Herod that Our Lord appeared and was mocked (Luke, xxiii, 7-13). Antipas had come to Jerusalem for the Pasch, and he is named with Pilate as a persecutor of Christ (Acts, iv, 27). The enmities that existed between him and Pilate were caused by Pilate's having put to death some Galileans, who belonged to Herod's jurisdiction (Luke, xiii, 1); a reconciliation was effected as related in Luke, xxiii, 12. When Herodias saw how well her brother Agrippa had fared at Rome, whence he returned a king, she urged Antipas to go to Cæsar and obtain the royal title, for he was not king, but only tetrarch of Galilee -- the N. T. however sometimes calls him king (Matt., xiv, 9; Mark, vi, 14), and Josephus likewise so styles Archelaus (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3), though he was never king, but only ethnarch. Contrary to his better judgment he went, and soon learned that Agrippa by messengers had accused him before Caligula of conspiracy against the Romans. The emperor banished him to Lyons, Gaul (France), a.d. 39, and Herodias accompanied him (Jos., "Ant.", XVIII, vii, 2). Josephus (Bel. Jud., II, ix, 6) says: "So Herod died in Spain whither his wife had followed him". The year of his death is not known. To reconcile the two statements of Josephus about the place of exile and death, see Smith, "Dict. of the Bible", s. v. "Herodias" (note).

IV. AGRIPPA I

Agrippa I, also called the Great, was a grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne, son of Aristobulus, and brother of Herodias. The history of his life and varying fortunes is stranger than romance. He was deeply in debt and a prisoner in Rome under Tiberius; but Caius, having come to the throne in a.d. 37, made him king over the territories formerly ruled by Philip and Lysanias, to which the tetrarchy of Antipas was added when the latter had been banished in a.d. 39 (Jos., "Ant.", XVIII, vi, vii). In a.d. 41 Judea and Samaria were given to him by the Emperor Claudius, whom he had helped to the throne (Jos., "Ant.", XIX, iv, 1), so that the whole kingdom which he then governed was greater than that of Herod his grandfather (Jos., "Ant.", XIX, v, 1). He was, like many other Herods, a builder, and, according to Josephus, he so strengthened the walls of Jerusalem that the emperor became alarmed and ordered him "to leave off the building of those walls presently" ("Ant.", XIX, vii, 2). He seems to have inherited from his Hasmonean ancestors a great love and zeal for the law (Jos., "Ant.", XIX, vii, 3). This characteristic, with his ambition to please the people (ibid.), explains why he imprisoned Peter and beheaded James (Acts, xii, 1-3). His death is described in "Acts", xii, 21-23; "eaten up by worms, he gave up the ghost." He died at Cæsarea during a grand public festival; when the people having heard him speak cried out, "It is the voice of a god and not of a man", his heart was elated, and "an angel of the Lord struck him, because he had not given the honour to God". Josephus gives substantially the same account, but states that an owl appeared to the king to announce his death, as it had appeared many years before to predict his good fortune (Jos., "Ant.", XIX, viii, 2). His death occurred in a.d. 44, the fifty-fourth year of his age, the seventh of his reign (ibid.). Grätz considers him one of the best of the Herods (Gesch. d. Jud., III, xii -- Hist. (Eng.), II, vii); but Christians may not be willing to subscribe fully to this estimate.

V. AGRIPPA II

Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and in a.d. 44, the year of his father's death, the emperor Claudius wished to give him the kingdom of his father, but he was dissuaded from his purpose because a youth of seventeen was hardly capable of assuming responsibilities so great (Jos., "Ant.", XIX, ix). About a.d. 50 he was made King of Chalcis (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", II, xii, 1), and afterwards ruler of a much larger territory including the lands formerly governed by Philip and Lysanias (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", II, xii, 8). He was also titular king of Judea, and in twenty years appointed seven high-priests (Grätz, "Gesch. d. Jud.", III, xiv -- "Hist." (Eng.), II, ix). When the Jews wished to free themselves from the dominion of Rome in the time of Florus, Agrippa showed them the folly of violent measures, and gave them a detailed account of the vast resources of the Roman empire (Jos., "Bel. Jud.", II, xvi, 4). St. Paul pleaded before this king, to whom Festus, the governor, referred the case (Acts, xxvi). The Apostle praises the king's knowledge of the "customs and questions that are among the Jews" (v. 3); Josephus likewise appeals to his judgment and calls him a most admirable man -- thaumasiotatos (Cont. Ap., I, ix). It was, therefore, not out of mere compliment that Festus invited him to hear what St. Paul had to say. His answer to the Apostle's appeal has been variously interpreted: it may mean that St. Paul had not quite convinced him, which sense seems to suit the context better than the irony that some see in the king's words. The indifference, however, which he manifested was in harmony with the" great pomp" with which he and his sister Berenice had entered the hall of audience (Acts, xxv, 23). After the fall of Jerusalem he lived at Rome, where he is said to have died in the third year of Trajan, a.d. 100. Grätz (Gesch. d. Jud., III, xvii, 410) gives a.d. 71-72 as the date of his death, a date based upon a more correct reading of a Greek text as authority.

Many histories and special studies throw light upon the Herodian age and family, but nearly all we know about the Herods comes through Josephus. The following, among many works, may be consulted:

SCHÜRER, Gesch. d. Jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig, 1898-1901), with comprehensive bibliography; tr. A Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1897-1898); GRÄTZ, Gesch. d. Jud. (III, 11 vols., Leipzig); tr. Hist. of the Jews, 6 vols. (Jew. Pub. Soc., Phila., 1891-1902), without notes or references, II; MILMAN, The History of the Jews (3 vols. New York, 1870); and histories by JOST, EWALD, etc.; HASTINGS, A Dict. of Christ and the Gospels (New York, 1907); EDERSHEIM, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I; FARRAR, The Herods; JOSEPHUS, Ant., Books XIV-XX; IDEM, Bel. Jud., Books I and II.

JOHN J. TIERNEY.

Herodias

Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus -- son of Herod the Great and Mariamne -- was a descendant of the famous Hasmonean heroes, the Machabees, who had done so much for the Jewish nation. Having married Herod Philip, her own uncle, by whom she had a daughter, Salome, Herodias longed for social distinction, and accordingly left her husband and entered into an adulterous union with Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, who was also her uncle (Jos., Ant., XVIII, v, 1, 4). St. John the Baptist rebuked Antipas for this union and thus aroused the hatred of Herodias, who by the dance of her daughter brought about the death of the prophet (Matt., xiv, 3-12; Mark, vi, 17-29). Josephus gives the main facts, but adds that John was put to death because Herod feared his influence over the people (Ant., XVIII, v, 2, 4). Schurer admits that here both the Evangelists and Josephus may be right; since all the motives mentioned may have urged Herod to imprison and murder John [Hist. (Eng. tr.) Div. I, V, ii, 25].

When Agrippa, the brother of Herodias became king, she persuaded Antipas to go to Rome in search of the royal title, as his claim to it was far greater than that of her brother. Instead of a crown, however, he found awaiting him a charge of treason against the Romans, with Agrippa as chief accuser, who in advance had sent messengers to defeat the ambitious plans of Antipas. He was therefore banished to Lyons in Gaul. At the same time Herodias, spurning the kind offers of the emperor, preferred exile with Antipas to a life of splendour in the palace of her brother Agrippa (Jos., Ant., XVIII, vii). This generosity, if we may so style it, came from her Hasmonean blood, but her cruelty she inherited from her grandfather Herod (see HEROD under ANTIPAS).

JOSEPHUS, Ant., XVIII, v, vii; IDEM, de Bell. jud., I, xxviii, II, ix; also authorities mentioned under HEROD.

JOHN J. TIERNEY

Heroic Act of Charity

A decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences dated 18 December, 1885, and confirmed the following day by Leo XIII, says:

The Heroic Act of Charity in favour of the souls detained in purgatory consists in this, that a member of the Church militant (Christifidelis), either using a set formula or simply by an act of his will, offers to God for the souls in purgatory all the satisfactory works which he will perform during his lifetime, and also all the suffrages which may accrue to him after his death. Many Christians devoted to the B.V. Mary, acting on the advice of the Theatine Regular Cleric Father Gaspar Olider, of blessed memory, make it a practice to deposit the said merits and suffrages as it were into the hands of the Bl. Virgin that she may distribute these favours to the souls in purgatory according to her own merciful pleasure.

Olider lived at the beginning of the eigtheenth century.

The Heroic Act is often called a vow, yet it partakes more of the nature of an offering made to God and to Mary, and it is also, unlike a vow, revocable at will. This point has been decided by the S.C. Indulg., 20 Feb., 1907, in answer to a question from Chicoutimi in Canada. A special vow "never to revoke the Act" would probably be binding, because its subject matter is an act of the personal will of which man can freely dispose, whereas he has not the disposal of his satisfactory works in favour of the departed; that depends on God; for man it is only a matter of pious desire, and only in this sense a votum. It always remains doubtful to what extent God accepts the oblation, and it is certain that the holy souls altogether lack the power of accepting it. The practice of the Heroic Act is based on the communion of saints, in virtue of which the good deeds of one member of Christ's body benefit all other members. Its meritoriousness results from the more intense charity (love of God and His suffering friends) which inspires it, and on which the intrinsic perfection of all our good deeds depends. Its heroicity arises from the willingness it involves to take upon one's self the dreadful pains of purgatory for the love of one's neighbour, although there remains the reasonable hope that God in His goodness, and the sainted souls in their gratitude, will not allow the punishment to be exacted to the full.

The Heroic Act has been enriched with numerous indulgences by Benedict XIII (1728), Pius VI (1788), and Pius IX (1852). Priests who make it receive the personal privilege of gaining a plenary indulgence for a soul of their choice each time they say Mass (see ALTAR, under Privileged Altar). Laymen gain a similar indulgence each time they receive Holy Communion, also each Monday they hear Mass for the departed; in both cases the usual visit to a church and prayers for the intention of the pope are required.

J. WILHELM

Heroic Virtue

The notion of heroicity is derived from hero, originally a warrior, a demigod; hence it connotes a degree of bravery, fame, and distinction which places a man high above his fellows. St. Augustine first applied the pagan title of hero to the Christian martyrs; since then the custom has prevailed of bestowing it not only on martyrs, but on all confessors whose virtues and good works greatly outdistance those of ordinary good people. Benedict XIV, whose chapters on heroic virtue are classical, thus describes heroicity: "In order to be heroic a Christian virtue must enable its owner to perform virtuous actions with uncommon promptitude, ease, and pleasure, from supernatural motives and without human reasoning, with self-abnegation and full control over his natural inclinations." An heroic virtue, then, is a habit of good conduct that has become a second nature, a new motive power stronger than all corresponding inborn inclinations, capable of rendering easy a series of acts each of which, for the ordinary man, would be beset with very great, if not insurmountable, diffulties.

Such a degree of virtue belongs only to souls already purified from all attachment to things worldly, and solidly anchored in the love of God. St. Thomas (I-II:61:4) says:

Virtue consists in the following, or imitation, of God. Every virtue, like every other thing, has its type [exemplar] in God. Thus the Divine mind itself is the type of prudence; God using all things to minister to His glory is the type of temperance, by which man subjects his lower appetites to reason; justice is typified by God's application of the eternal law to all His works; Divine immutability is the type of fortitude. And, since it is man's nature to live in society, the four cardinal virtues are social [politicae] virtues, inasmuch as by them man rightly ordains his conduct in daily life. Man, however, must raise himself beyond his natural life unto a life Divine: `Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect' (Matt., v, 48). It is, therefore, necessary to posit certain virtues midway between the social virtues, which are human, and the exemplary virtues, which are Divine. These intermediate virtues are of two degrees of perfection: the lesser in the soul still struggling upwards from a life of sin to a likeness with God -- these are called purifying virtues [virtutes purgatoriae]; the greater in the souls which have already attained to the Divine likeness -- these are called virtues of the purified soul [virtutes jam purgati animi]. In the lesser degree, prudence, moved by the contemplation of things Divine, despises all things earthly and directs all the soul's thought unto God alone; temperance relinquishes, as far as nature allows, the things required for bodily wants; fortitude removes the fear of departing this life and facing the life beyond; justice approves of the aforesaid dispositions. In the higher perfection of souls already purified and firmly united with God, prudence knows nothing but what it beholds in God; temperance ignores earthly desires; fortitude knows nothing of passions; justice is bound to the Divine mind by a perpetual compact to do as it does. This degree of perfection belongs to the blessed in heaven or to a few of the most perfect in this life.

These few perfectissimi are the heroes of virtue, the candidates for the honours of the altar, the saints on earth.

Together with the four cardinal virtues the Christian saint must be endowed with the three theological virtues, especially with Divine charity, the virtue which informs, baptizes, and consecrates, as it were, all other virtues; which associates and unifies them into one powerful effort to participate in the Divine life. Some remarks on the "proofs of heroicity" required in the process of beatification will serve to illustrate in detail the general principles exposed above.

As charity stands at the summit of all virtues, so faith stands at their foundation. For by faith God is first apprehended, and the soul lifted up to supernatural life. Faith is the secret of one's conscience; to the world it is made manifest by the good works in which it lives, "Faith without works is dead" (James, ii, 26). Such works are: the external profession of faith, strict observance of the Divine commands, prayer, filial devotion to the Church, the fear of God, the horror of sin, penance for sins committed, patience in adversity, etc. All or any of these attain the grade of heroicity when practiced with unflagging perseverance, during a long period of time, or under circumstances so trying that by them men of but ordinary perfection would be deterred from acting. Martyrs dying in torments for the Faith, missionaries spending their lives in propagating it, the humble poor who with infinite patience drag out their wretched existence to do the will of God and to reap their reward hereafter, these are heroes of the Faith.

Hope is a firm trust that God will give us eternal life and all the means necessary to obtain it; it attains heroicity when it amounts to unshakeable confidence and security in God's help throughout all the untoward events of life, when it is ready to forsake and sacrifice all other goods in order to obtain the promised felicity of heaven. Such hope has its roots in a faith equally perfect. Abraham, the model of the faithful, is also the model of the hopeful "who against hope believed in hope. . .and he was not weak in faith; neither did he consider his own body now dead.. nor the dead womb of Sara" (Rom., iv, 18-22).

Charity inclines man to love God above all things with the love of friendship. The perfect friend of God says with St. Paul: "With Christ I am nailed to the cross. And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me" (Gal., ii, 19-20). For love means union. Its type in heaven is the Divine Trinity in Unity; its highest degree in God's creatures is the beatific vision, i.e. participation in God's life. On earth it is the fruitful mother of holiness, the one thing necessary, the one all-sufficient possession. It is extolled in I Cor., xiii, and in St. John's Gospel and Epistles; the beloved disciple and the fiery missionary of the cross are the best interpreters of the mystery of love revealed to them in the Heart of Jesus. With the commandment to love God above all Jesus coupled another: "And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these" (Mark, xii, 31). The likeness, or the linking of the two commandments, lies in this: that in our neighbor we love God's image and likeness, His adopted children and the heirs of His Kingdom. Hence, serving our neighbor is serving God. And the works of spiritual and temporal mercy performed in this world will decide our fate in the next: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom. . .For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat. . .Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me" (Matt, xxv, 34-40). For this reason the works of charity in heroic degree have been, from the beginning to this day, a distinctive mark of the Catholic Church, the pledge of sanctity in countless numbers of her sons and daughters.

Prudence, which enables us to know what to desire or to avoid, attains heroicity when it coincides with the "gift of counsel", i.e. a clear, Divinely aided insight into right and wrong conduct. Of St. Paschasius Radbert, the Bollandists say: "So great was his prudence that from his mind a bourn of prudence seemed to flow. For he beheld together the past, the present, and the future, and was able to tell, by the counsel of God, what in each case was to be done" (2 January, c.v, n.16).

Justice, which gives every one his due, is the pivot on which turn the virtues of religion, piety, obedience, gratitude, truthfulness, friendship, and many more. Jesus sacrificing His life to give God His due, Abraham willing to sacrifice his son in obedience to God's will, these are acts of heroic justice.

Fortitude, which urges us on when difficulty stands in the way of our duty, is itself the heroic element in the practice of virtue; it reaches its apex when it overcomes obstacles which to ordinary virtue are insurmountable.

Temperance, which restrains us when passions urge us to what is wrong, comprises becoming deportment, modesty, abstinence, chastity, sobriety, and others. Instances of heroic temperance: St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist.

In fine it should be remarked that almost every act of virtue proceeding from the Divine principle within us has in it the elements of all the virtues; only mental analysis views the same act under various aspects.

BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione, chs. xxxi-xxxviii, in Opera omnia, III (Prato, 1840); DEVINE, Manual of Mystical Theology (London, 1903); SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology (London, 1908); WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic Theology (London, 1906).

J. WILHELM

Henry Herp

(Or HARP, Lat. CITHARŒDUS, or ERP as in the old manuscripts)

A fifteenth century Franciscan of the Strict Observance and a distinguished writer on mysticism, praised by Mabillon, Bona, etc. Only the last thirty years of his life are known to us. Born either at Düren (Marcoduranus), at Erp near Düren, or at Erps-Querbs near Louvain, Herp appears as rector of the Brethren of the Common Life, first in 1445 at Delft in Holland, then at Gouda, "to the great good of his subjects". In 1450, on a pilgrimage to Rome, he took the habit of St. Francis at the Convent of Ara Cœli. Twenty years later we find him provincial of the Province of Cologne (1470-73), then guardian of the convent of Mechlin in Belgium, where he died in 1478. The Franciscan Martyrology of Arturus of Rouen gives him the title of Blessed. Of his works, only one was printed during his life-time, "Speculum aureum decem præceptorum Dei" (Mainz, 1474); it is a collection of 213 sermons on the Commandments for the use of preachers and confessors. Another collection of 222 sermons (Sermones de tempore, de sanctis, etc.) was printed in 1484, etc. Both frequently quote the Doctors of the Middle Ages, especially St. Thomas, Alexander of Hales, St. Bernard, etc., and were often reprinted.

The other works of Herp, of which some — still unpublished — are to be found in the libraries of Cologne, Brussels, etc., are devoted to mystical subjects. The principal of these is the "Theologica Mystica", written on Mount Alverno and published in full at Cologne in 1538 by the Carthusian Th. Loher, with a dedication to George Skotborg, Bishop of Lund. It was reprinted five times before 1611, and translated into French, German, etc. The whole work comprises three parts: "Soliloquium divini Amoris", "Directorium Aureum contemplativorum", "Paradisus contemplativorum". The second part, the most famous, was written originally in Flemish (Spiegel der Volcomenheyt), printed in 1501, etc.; then, with several short treatises on kindred matters, it was translated into Latin under the title given above (Cologne, 1513, etc.), into Italian, Spanish, German, etc. The edition of the mystical theology, dedicated to St. Ignatius in 1556 by Loher, was censured by the Index (1559, 1580, 1583, etc.). Corrected editions followed with an "Introductio ad doctrinam" (Rome, 1585), an "Index Expurgatorius" (Paris, 1598), where can he found, as well as in the "Index of Sotomayor" (1640), the opinions to be corrected. As a whole and in the chief divisions of his doctrine, Herp shows several points of contact with his compatriot John of Ruysbroeck; he has some beautiful passages on the love of God and of Christ. The Franciscan Chapter of Toledo in 1663 recommended his works as standard writings in mystic theology.

DIRKS, Histoire littéraire et bibliographique des Frères Mineurs del' Observance en Belgique et dans les Pays-Bas (Antwerp, 1885); REUSENS in Bibliographie Nationale, IX (1886-7), 278-284; SCHLAGER, Beiträge zur Geschichte der kölnischen Franziskaner Ordensprovinz im M. A. (Cologne, 1904), and Zum Leben des Franziskaners H. Harp in Der Katholik (1905), II, 46-48.

J. de Ghellinck.

Herrad of Landsberg

(or LANDSPERG)

A twelfth-century abbess, author of the "Hortus Deliciarum"; born about 1130, at the castle of Landsberg, the seat of a noble Alsatian family; died 1195. At an early age she entered the convent of Odilenberg, or Hohenburg, which crowns one of the most beautiful of the Vosges mountains, about fifteen miles from Strasburg. Here she succeeded to the dignity of Abbess in 1167, and continued in that office until her death. As early as 1165 Herrad had begun within the cloister walls the work "Hortus Deliciarum", or "Garden of Delights", by which she is best known. The text is a compendium of all the sciences studied at that time, including theology. The work, as one would expect from what we know of the literary activity of the twelfth century, does not exhibit a high degree of originality. It shows, however, a wide range of reading and when we remember that it was intended for the use of the novices of Odilenberg, we are enabled to glean from it a correct idea of the state of education in the cloister schools of that age. Its chief claim to distinction is the illustrations, three hundred and thirty-six in number, which adorn the text. Many of these are symbolical representations of theological, philosophical, and literary themes, some are historical, some represent scenes from the actual experience of the artist, and one is a collection of portraits of her sisters in religion. The technique of some of them has been very much admired and in almost every instance they show an artistic imagination which is rare in Herrad's contemporaries. The poetry which accompanies the excerpts from the writers of antiquity and from pagan authors is not the least of Herrad's titles to fame. It has, of course, the defects peculiar to the twelfth century, faults of quantity, words and constructions not sanctioned by classical usage, and peculiar turns of phrase which would hardly pass muster in a school of Latin poetry at the present time. However, the sentiment is sincere, the lines are musical, and above all admirably adapted to the purpose for which they were intended, namely, the service of God by song. Herrad, indeed, tells us that she considers her community to he a congregation gathered together to serve God by singing the divine praises. The fate of Herrad's manuscript is well-known. After having been preserved for centuries at her own monastery it passed about the time of the French Revolution into the municipal library of Strasburg. There the miniatures were copied by Engelhardt in 1818. The text was copied and published by Straub and Keller, 1879-1899. Thus, although the original perished in the burning of the Library of Strasburg during the siege of 1870, we can still form an estimate of the artistic and literary value of Herrad's work.

STRAUB U. KELLER, Hortus Deliciarum, folio ed. with plates (Strasburg, 1899); ENGELHARDT, Herrad von Landsberg (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1819); SCHMIDT, Herrade de Landsberg (Strasburg, 1892); articles in: Bibl. de l'école des Chartes, I, 239; Gazette d'archéologie, IX, 57; Congrès archéol. de France, XXXVI, 274; see chapter in ECKSTEIN, Woman under Monasticism (Cambridge, 1896), 238 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER.

Herregouts

There were three artists of the name of Herregouts, father, son, and grandson, of whom the chief was Hendrik, the son of David, and the father of Jan.

DAVID HERREGOUTS, historical painter; born at Mechlin in 1603; died at Ruremonde. He was a pupil of his cousin Salmier and a member of the corporation of painters in his own city in 1624. The latter part of his life he spent at Ruremonde, where he was received in 1647 a member of the Guild of St. Luke. One of his pictures is still preserved in the little town, but his chief work, "St. Joseph Awakened by an Angel", is at Mechlin in the church of St. Catherine.

HENDRIK his son; born at Mechlin in 1633; died at Antwerp in 1724. When his father left Mechlin for Ruremonde, Hendrik went to Rome, to which city he became so attached that he added the name of Romain to his signature on certain of his pictures. We hear of him at Cologne in 1660, where he was married the following year. In 1664 he was admitted a member of the Guild of St. Luke at Antwerp and practised his art in that city. Two years afterwards he came back to Mechlin and was admitted into the guild there, remaining in his native place for some years. In 1680 he was once more in Antwerp, and his studio was full of pupils, one of them being Abraham Goddyn. His best work, "The Last Judgment", is now to be seen at Bruges; his "Martyrdom of St. Matthew" in the cathedral at Antwerp is a very fine picture, and in Brussels there are two important works, the chief of which is "St. Jerome in the Desert". He was employed by the Corporation of Antwerp to design and eventually decorate a triumphal arch which was erected to celebrate the jubilee of the restoration of the Catholic Faith in the city, and for this work, which was executed in 1685, he was thanked and honoured by the citizens. His work is imposing, as the figures are noble and expressive, and the colouring admirable.

JAN, died at Bruges, 1721. It is uncertain where Jan was born. Some authorities say his birth took place at Rome, others Termonde. Of his early life we know nothing, the first date we have in connexion with him being 1677, when he was admitted to the Guild of St. Luke at Antwerp. He eventually settled in Bruges, was a member of its guild, held many important positions in its Corporation, and was one of the founders of its Academy. It was there he died in 1721, and his best pictures are to be seen in the Academy, and in the churches of St. Anne and of the Carmelites. His portraits of his grandfather and of himself are admirable, and his chief picture in the Carmelites' church is of the Blessed Virgin and saints kneeling before Christ. He practised engraving and also etching, his "St. Cecilia" being a notable work. He was an artist of distinct merit, and his colouring is particularly good.

SANDRART, German Academy; Werdenberger und Obertoggenburger (1902).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON.

Fernando de Herrera

A Spanish lyric poet; born 1537; died 1597. The head of a school of lyric poets who gathered about him at Seville, Herrera was an avowed disciple of Garcilasso de la Vega, whose form he perfects and to whose expression he adds more pathos and dignity. Although a cleric, having taken minor orders, he rarely reflects in his verse the feelings of a churchman. On the contrary, it is the martial note that he sounds most loudly and most frequently, when he is not singing in Petrarchian strains of his Platonic attachment — it should be remembered that he had only minor orders, and had probably taken them only that he might enjoy certain ecclesiastical benefices — to Eliodora, that is, Leonor de Milan, Condesa de Gelves and wife of Alvaro de Portugal. The most famous of his compositions are the odes in which he extols the prowess of Don John of Austria, as exhibited in the suppression of the outbreak of the Moriscos in the region of the Alpujarras and at the battle of Lepanto, and commemorates the death of Dom Sebastian, King of Portugal, who perished with the flower of the Portuguese nobility during a Quixotic expedition against the tribes in Northern Africa. These are classics of Spanish literature. That Herrera was not devoid of critical acumen is proved by his prose "Anotaciones á las obras de Garcilaso de la Vega", his poetical master. In the opinion of Ticknor, he deliberately undertook to create a new poetical diction and style in Spanish, deeming that the language as written before his time lacked the full measure of dignity, sonority, and poetic pliancy that it should have; but Ticknor has probably exaggerated the endeavours of Herrera in this direction, in so far as any conscious process is concerned. However the case may be, it must be admitted that there is real beauty and majesty in the verse of Herrera, and that his countrymen are right in terming him "the divine" (el divino). He himself published only part of his verse, "Algunas obras" (Seville, 1582). His "Poesías" are accessible in the "Biblioteca de autores españoles", vol. XXXII; the ode "Por la victoria de Lepanto" was edited critically by Morel-Fatio (Paris, 1893).

Fernando de Herrera, Controversia sobre sus anotaciones á las obras de Garcilaso de la Vega, Poesías inéditas (Seville, in publications of the Sociedad de bibliófilos andaluces); BOURCIEZ, Les sonnets de F. de H. in the Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux (1891); FITZMAURICE-KELLY, History of Spanish Literature; TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature.

J. D. M. FORD.

Francisco Herrera

(1) Francisco Herrera (el Viejo, the Elder)

A Spanish painter, etcher, medallist, and architect; born in Seville, 1576; died in Madrid, 1656. Luiz Fernandez was his teacher, but Herrera soon broke away from the timid style and Italian traditions of Spanish painting of his day, and became the pioneer of that bold, vigourous, effective, and natural style whose preeminent exponent was Velasquez. Herrera was the first to use long brushes, which may, in part, account for his "modern" technique and dexterous brushwork. Many authorities ascribe to him the foundation of the Spanish School. His great talent brought him many pupils, whom his passionate temper and rough manners soon drove away. Velasquez, when thirteen years old, was placed under this great professor, and remained a year with him. Herrera, who was an accomplished worker in bronze, engraved medals skilfully. This gave rise to the charge of counterfeiting, and he fled for sanctuary to the Jesuit College, for which he painted "The Triumph of St. Hermengild", a picture so impressive that when Philip IV saw it (1621) he immediately pardoned the painter. Herrera thereupon returned to Seville. His ungoverned temper soon drove his son to Rome and his daughter to a nunnery. Herrera's pictures are full of energy, the drawing is good and the colouring so cleverly managed that the figures stand out in splendid relief. Many of his small easel pictures, in oil, represent fairs, dances, interiors of inns, and deal with the intimate life of Spain. His large works are nearly all religious. In Seville he painted a "St. Peter" for the cathedral and a "Last Judgment" for the church of San Bernardo, the latter being considered his masterpiece. After executing many commissions in his native town he removed to Madrid (1650), where he won great renown. In the archiepiscopal palace are four large canvases, one of which, "Moses Smiting the Rock", is celebrated for its dramatic qualities and daring technique. In the cloister of the Merced Calzada is a noteworthy series of paintings whose subjects are drawn from the life of St. Ramon. He painted much in fresco, in which medium his best effort is believed to have been on the vault of San Bonaventura, but this, with all his other frescoes, has disappeared. None of his architectural productions are mentioned, and there remain but a few of his etchings, all of which were reproductions of his paintings. One of his pictures, "St. Basil dictating his doctrine", is in the Louvre, and another, "St. Matthew", is in the Dresden Gallery. Herrera left two sons, "el Rubio" (the ruddy) who died before he fulfilled the great promise of his youth, and "el Mozo" (the younger).

(2) Francisco Herrera (el Mozo, the Younger)

A Spanish painter and architect; born in Seville, 1622; died in Madrid, 1655. He was the second son of Herrera, "el Viejo", and began his career under his father's instruction, but the elder's violent temper at last became so intolerable that the youth fled to Rome. For six years the younger Herrera assiduously devoted himself to the study of architecture, perspective, and the antique, his aim being fresco painting. But it was still life in which he excelled. He already painted bodegones, fish so cleverly done that the Romans called him: "il Spagnuolo degli pesci". In 1656 he returned to Seville, founded the Seville Academy, and in 1660 became its sub-director under Murillo. He is said to have been vain, suspicious, hot-tempered, and jealous; at any rate he resented his subordinate post and went to Madrid about 1661 (Cean Bermúdez). Before leaving his native city he painted two large pictures for the cathedral and a "St. Francis" for the chapel of this saint. Sir E. Head declares the latter to be his masterpiece. In Madrid he painted a great "Triumph of St. Hermengild" for the church of the Carmelite friars, and so beautiful a group of frescoes in San Felipe el Real that Philip IV commanded him to paint the dome of the chapel of Our Lady of Atocha, and thereafter made him painter to the king and superintendent of royal buildings. Besides his marvellous work in still life he painted many portraits, and while these lacked the vigour, colour, and bold design which characterize his father's work, they exhibit a far greater knowledge and use of chiaroscuro. Charles II kept him at his Court and made him master of the royal works. For this king Herrera renovated the cathedral of El Pilar, in Saragossa. The Madrid gallery contains his "St. Hermengild".

RADCLIFFE, Schools and Masters of Painting (New York, 1907); STIRLING-MAXWELL, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1848).

LEIGH HUNT.

Sebastiano de Herrera Barnuevo

A painter, architect, sculptor and etcher; born in Madrid, 1611 or 1619; died there, 1671; son of Antonio Herrera, a sculptor of fair ability, who, after teaching his son the rudiments of his art, placed him with Cano. Under this famous artist he made such great progress in both painting and sculpture that Philip IV took him into his service, commanded him to decorate the chapel of Our Lady of Atocha, and made him guardian of the Escorial, for which he henceforth worked. Most of his pictures are in Madrid. His masterpiece is the "St. Barnabas" in the hail of the council-chamber in the Escorial, and was long regarded as by the hand of Guido. Nearly as famous is the "Beatification of St. Augustine" in the chapel of the Augustinian Recollects and the "Nativity" in the church of San Gerónimo. Barnuevo's colouring was as brilliant and harmonious as that of Titian, whom he imitated; his style was scarcely to be differentiated from Guido's; his draughtsmanship was excellent, and his work with the graver and etching-needle highly esteemed. He was an able architect, and won such fame in this branch of art that he received many commissions from the Court and the nobility. He was a simple, modest, urbane, and deeply religious man, as well as a most versatile artist.

SANTOS, La Descripción del Escorial (Madrid, 1657); QUELLIET, Dictionnaire des peintres espagnols (Paris, s. d.); SIRET, Dictionnaire historique des peintres (Louvain, 1883).

LEIGH HUNT.

Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas

A Spanish historian; born at Cuellar, in the province of Segovia, in 1559; died at Madrid, 27 March, 1625. He was a great-grandson of the Tordesillas who was put to death by the Comuneros at Seville. He studied in Spain and Italy, and became secretary to Vespasiano Gonzaga, a brother of the Duke of Mantua, who was afterwards Viceroy of Navarre and Valencia, and who recommended him to Philip II in the last year of that monarch's reign. Philip appointed him grand historiographer (cronista mayor) of America and Castile, and he filled that office during part of his royal patron's reign, the whole reign of Philip III, and the beginning of that of Philip IV. At his death his body was conveyed to Cuellar, and interred in the church of Santa Marina, where his tomb is still to be seen.

His most famous work is the "Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano" (General History of the deeds of the Castilians on the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea), divided into eight periods of ten years each, and comprising all the years from 1472 to 1554. This work was printed at Madrid in 1601; reprinted by Juan de la Cuesta in 1615; revised and augmented by Andrés González and published at Madrid by Nicolas Rodríguez in 1726, and at Antwerp, by Juan Bautista Verdussen, in 1728. Worthy of note is the "Description of the West Indies", in the first volume of his work, which was translated into Latin and published at Amsterdam, by Gaspar Barleo, in 1622, a French version being published at Paris in the same year. In 1660 there appeared a French translation of the first three decades of his "Historia" by Nicolás de la Corte. In writing his great work Tordesillas made use of all the public archives, having access to documents of every kind. It is evident in his writings that he had to deal with a large number of historical manuscripts, and contented himself with relating events as he found them recorded. A great part of his work is more or less a transcript of the History of the Indies left by the famous Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas, though expurgated of wellnigh everything unfavourable to the settlers. A painstaking and conscientious investigator for the most part, his style does not correspond to his other admirable qualifications. He was a learned and judicious man, though, particularly in the later decades, somewhat prone to overpraise the conquerors and their exploits.

In addition to that already mentioned, his most important works are: "A General History of the World during the time of Philip II from the year 1559 to the King's death"; "Events in Scotland and England during the forty-four years of the lifetime of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland" (Historia de lo sucedido en Escocia é Inglaterra en los cuarenta y cuatro años que vivió Maria Estuardo Reina de Escocia); Five books of the history of Portugal and the conquests of the Azores in the years 1582, 1583; "History of events in France from 1585 to 1594" (a work published in Madrid in 1598, but suppressed by command of the king); "A Treatise, Relation, and Historical Discourse on the Disturbances in Aragon in the years 1591 and 1592" (Tratado, relación y discurso histórico de los movimientos en Aragon en los años de 1591 y 1592); "Commentary on the deeds of the Spaniards, French, and Venetians in Italy, and of other Republics, Potentates, famous Italian Princes and Captains, from 1281 to 1559"; "Chronicle of the Turks, following chiefly that written by Juan Maria Vicentino, chronicler to Mahomet, Bajazet, and Suleiman, their lords" (unpublished); various works translated from the French and Italian, preserved in the National Library at Madrid.

Dicc. enciclopédico hispano-americano (Barcelona, 1892), X; ASTRÁIN, Breves apuntes de literatura española; Works of Ant. Herrera (Madrid, 1615, 1726; Antwerp, 1728).

CAMILLUS CRIVELLI.

Marquard Herrgott

A Benedictine historian and diplomat; born at Freiburg in the Breisgau, 9 October, 1694; died at Krozingen near Freiburg, 9 October, 1762. After studying humanities at Freiburg and Strasburg, he became tutor in a private family at the latter place and accompanied his two pupils to Paris, where he remained two years. Upon his return to Germany he entered the Benedictine Abbey of St. Blasien in the Black Forest, made his vows on 17 Nov., 1715, and was sent to Rome to study theology. After being ordained priest on 17 Dec., 1718, he returned to St. Blasien. In 1721 he went to the Abbey of St. Gall to study Oriental languages, but was soon recalled in order to accompany his abbot to Vienna, where he devoted himself for a few months to the study of history. Shortly after, he was sent to the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés to continue his historical studies under the direction of the learned Maurist Benedictines. The first fruit of these studies was a valuable work on old monastic customs, "Vetus disciplina monastica" (Paris, 1726). Shortly after the publication of this work, Herrgott returned to St. Blasien, gathered material for a history of the Diocese of Constance and wrote a history of St. Blasien, which is preserved in manuscript at St. Paul's Abbey in Carinthia. In 1728 he was sent to the imperial Court of Vienna as diplomatic representative of the Estates of Breisgau, which then belonged to Austria, and filled this position very creditably over twenty years. While at Vienna he made a thorough study of the history of the imperial house of Hapsburg and, after eight years of diligent researches, published the first three volumes of his valuable work on the Austrian Imperial family "Genealogia diplomatica Augusta Gentis Habsburgicæ" (Vienna, 1737). The continuation of this work he published under the title "Monumenta Augustæ Domus Austriacæ", vol. I (Vienna, 1750), vol. II (Freiburg, 1753), vol. III (Freiburg, 1760), second edition (St. Blasien, 1773). As reward for his labours he had been appointed imperial councillor and historiographer in 1737. In 1749 he gave offence to the imperial Court by courageously defending the rights of the Church and the privileges of the Estates, and, in consequence, was forced to resign his office. His abbot appointed him provost of Krozingen and governor of Staufen and Kirchhofen, which were dependencies of the Abbey of St. Blasien.

Scriptores Ordinis S. Benedicti qui 1750-1880 fuerunt in Imperio Austriaco-Hungarico (Vienna, 1881), 184-7; WEGELE in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, s. v.; KOENIG in Kirchenlex, s. v.

MICHAEL OTT.

Hersfeld

An ancient imperial abbey of the Benedictine Order, situated at the confluence of the Geisa and Haune with the Fulda, in the Province of Hesse-Nassau, Prussia. Sturmi, a disciple of St. Boniface, originally founded a monastery here in 742, but, owing to its position being exposed to attacks from the Saxons, he transferred it to Fulda. Some years later (about 768) after the defeat of the Saxons by the Franks, Lullus, Bishop of Mainz, re-founded the monastery at Hersfeld. Charlemagne (who had recently succeeded to the crown) and other benefactors provided endowments, and Pope Stephen III granted exemption from episcopal jurisdiction to the house, which soon possessed 1050 hides of land and a community of 150 monks. It became a place of pilgrimage after 780, owing to the bringing thither of the relics of St. Wigbert, and the reputed occurrence of miracles. A valuable library was collected, the annals of the monastery were regularly kept, and it became renowned as a seat of piety and learning. Towards the close of the tenth century Hersfeld suffered from the general decadence of the age, and the monastic discipline became relaxed. Some years later, however, the observance was reformed by St. Gotthard (afterwards Bishop of Hildesheim), and we find members of the community sent out to other houses of the order to carry out in them the work of religious revival.

During the long struggle between the Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII, Hersfeld espoused the imperial cause. Henry himself visited it not infrequently, sometimes accompanied by his consort; and their son Conrad (who afterwards succeeded to the throne) was born and baptized within the precincts of the abbey. In the last decade of the eleventh century the abbey seems to have been fully restored to papal favour, and it continued to prosper for a long subsequent period. The town of Hersfeld, outside the abbey walls, also grew and flourished, one result of this being that it found itself strong enough to assert its independence of the rule of the monks, and in 1371 formally placed itself under the protection of the Landgraves of Hesse. As time went on the state of the monastery again deteriorated, and in 1513 it was at so low an ebb that the abbot (Wolpert) resigned his office into the hands of Pope Leo X, and the Abbot of Fulda was authorized by the Emperor Maximilian to incorporate the house into his own famous abbey. A melancholy account has come down to us of the condition into which the venerable Abbey of Hersfeld had at this time been allowed to fall. The library was in a state of ruin and decay, many precious volumes had altogether disappeared, and manuscripts containing the archives and records of the house were used in the kennels as litter for the dogs. This forced union between Hersfeld and Fulda lasted little more than two years, and a new Abbot of Hersfeld was chosen. Abbot Krato, who held office in 1517, was in sympathy with Lutheranism, and he swore allegiance to Philip, the Lutheran Landgrave of Hesse, in 1525. The abbey church was consequently closed to Catholic worship, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being said only in a chapel within the monastery.

During the remainder of the century the abbey dragged on an inglorious existence, and on the death of the last abbot (Joachim Röll) in 1606, Otto, hereditary Prince of Hesse, was elected lay administrator. The pope made a fruitless endeavour, after Otto's death, to replace the abbey under Catholic administration. It continued in the hands of the princely family until about the middle of the seventeenth century, when, after the conclusion of the Treaty of Westphalia, Hersfeld was, as an imperial fief, united to Hesse under the title of a principality. The town of Hersfeld continued to rank as the capital of a principality until 1828. It is now the chief town of a circle in the government district of Kassel, and has a population of nearly 8000, with some important manufactures. The Stadtkirche, dating from about 1300, was restored in 1899, and there is a Rathaus of the sixteenth century. The ruined collegiate church, in the Romanesque style, was built in the early part of the twelfth century, but was destroyed by the French in 1761, in the course of the Seven Years War. Outside the town, of which the old walls are still preserved, are the remains of the once famous monastery, with its extensive surrounding grounds. The "Annales Hersfeldienses" are often cited as sources of medieval German history (see below).

Annales Hersfeldienaes in PERTS, Mon. Germ. Hist.; Script. (Hanover, 1839), III, 18-116; HAFNER, Die Reichsabtei Hersfeld bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrh. (Hersfeld, 1890); LORENZ, Die Jahrbücher von Hersfeld (Leipzig, 1885); Gallia Christiana, V (Paris, 1877), 567-572; ERSCH-GRUBER, Allgem. Encyclop. (Leipzig, 1830). VII, 46-52; STREBER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; GAUTSCH, Das Lehnsverhältnis zwischen Hersfeld und den Markgrafen von Meissen in Archiv. sächs. Gesch., V (Leipzig, 1867), 233-263.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro

Spanish Jesuit and famous philologist; b. at Horcajo, 1 May, 1735; d. at Rome, 24 August, 1809. Having entered the Jesuit order at Madrid, he studied at Alcalá de Henares, devoting himself with special zeal to architecture and and linguistics. For a time he taught at the royal seminary in Madrid and at the Jesuit college of Murcia; then he went to America as a missionary and remained there until 1767, when in connection with the abolition of the Jesuits the establishments of the Society were taken away from the order. Hervás now returned to Europe, taking up residence first at Cesena, Italy, then in 1784 at Rome. In 1799 he went back to his native land, but four years later left Spain and lived in Rome for the remainder of his life. He was held in high honour; Pope Pius VII made him prefect of the Quirinal library, and he was a member of several learned academies. In Italy he had a chance to meet many Jesuits who had flocked thither from all parts of the world after the suppression of the order. He availed himself diligently of the exceptional opportunity thus afforded him of gaining information about remote and unknown idioms that could not be studied from literary remains. The results of his studies he laid down in a number of works, first in Italian, and subsequently translated into Spanish.

The greatest work of Hervás is the huge treatise on cosmography, "Idea dell' Universo" (Cesena, 1178-87, in 21 vols. in 4to). It consists of several parts, almost all of which were translated into Spanish and appeared as separate works. Of these the most important, which had appeared separately in Italian in 1784, is entitled "Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas, y numeración división y clase de éstas según la diversitad de sus idiomas y dialectos" (Madrid, 1800-5 6 vols.). Here Hervás attempts to investigate the origin and ethnological relationship of different nations on the basis of language. The main object of the book, therefore, is not really philological. Vol. I treats of American races and idioms; vol. II of those islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans; the remaining volumes, devoted to the European languages, are inferior in value to the first two. The American dialects are certainly better described and classified than they had been before; the existence of a Malay and Polynesian speech-family is established. For determining affinity in languages similarity in grammar is emphasized as against mere resemblance in vocabulary. While there were gross errors and defects in the work, it is conceded that it presented its materials with scholarly accuracy and thus proved useful to later investigators. Other parts of the work to appear separately in Italian and later in Spanish were "Virilità dell' Uomo" (4 vols., 1779-80); "Vecchiaja e morte dell' Uomo" (1780); Viaggio estatico al Mondo planetario" (1780); "Storia della Terra" (1781-83, 6 vols.); "Origine, formazione, mecanismo ed armonia degl' Idiomi" (1785); "Vocabolario, Poliglotto, con prolegomeni sopra più de CL lingue" (1787); "Saggio practicco delle Lingue con prolegomeni e una raccolta di orazioni dominicali in più di trecento lingue e dialetti" (1787).

Hervás also wrote a number of educational works for deaf-mutes, the most notable being "La escuela española de sordo-mudos ó arte para enseñarles á escribir y hablar el idioma español (Madrid, 1795), and other works of miscellaneous character, of which we mention "Descripción de los archivos de la corona de Aragón y Barcelona", etc. (Cartagena, 1801). He also left a number of works that have not been edited: "Historia de la Escritura"; "Paleografía universal"; "Moral de Confucio"; "Historia de als primeras colonias de América"; "El hombre vuelto á la religión", as well as tracts of a controversial or theolgical nature.

Consult the article in Diccionario Enciclopédico Hispano-Americano de Literatura, Ciencias y Artes, X, 258; Augustin and Alois de Backer, Bibliothèque des éscrevains de la compagnie de Jésus (Liége, 1859), 302-6. For a critical apprecaition of Hervás's philological work, see Max Müller, Lectures on the Science of Language (New York, 1862), 139-42, and especially Benfey, Geschicte der Sprachwissenschaft (Munich, 1869), 269-71.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Gentian Hervetus

French theologian and controversialist; b. at Olivet, near Orléans, in 1499; d. at Reims, 12 September, 1584. After studying the humanities at Orléans, he went to Paris where he became tutor of Claude d'Aubespine, afterwards secretary of state. Here he became acquainted with Thomas Lupset, an Englishman, whom he later followed to England, where he was charged with the education of a brother of Cardinal Reginald Pole. He accompanied his scholar to Rome, where he remained some time in the house of Cardinal Pole, occupying himself chiefly with the Latin translation of various Greek Fathers. Returning to France he taught the humanities for a short time at the College of Bordeaux, then went back to Rome and became secretary to Cardinal Cervini, the future Pope Marcellus II. In 1546 he accompanied this cardinal to the Council of Trent, and delivered an oration before the assembled fathers against clandestine marriages. In 1556, when he was already fifty-seven years old, he was ordained priest. Soon after, he became Vicar-General of Noyon and received a canonry at Reims. As pastor he preached very successfully against the Calvinists and wrote numerous pamphlets against them. In 1562 he returned to the Council of Trent in company of Cardinal Charles of Lorraine. He is the anthor of "Le saint, universel et general concile de Trente" (Reims, 1564, Rouen, 1583; Paris, 1584), and numerous controversial pamphlets. He also translated into Latin and French many works of the Greek Fathers, collections of canons, decrees of councils, etc.

NICERON, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des hommes illustres, XVII, XX; Germ. ed. BAUMGARTEN, V, 87-102; HUNTER, Nomenclator, III, 296; WEISS, in MICHARD, biographie universelle. s.v.; STREBER, in Kirchenlex., s.v.

MICHAEL OTT

Hesebon

(A.V. HESHBON; Gr. Esebon, Esbous; Lat. Esbus).

A titular see of the province of Arabia, suffragan of Bostra. It is the ancient Hesebon beyond the Jordan, the capital of Sehon, King of the Amorrhites (Num., xxi, 26). Hesebon was taken by the Israelties on their entry to the Promised Land, and was assigned to the tribe of Ruben (Num. xxxii, 37); afterwards it was given to the tribe of Gad (Jos. xxi, 37; I Par., vi, 81). The Canticle of Canticles (vii, 4) speaks of the magnificent fish-pools of Hesebon. The Prophets mention it in their denunciations of Moab (Is., xv, 4, xvi, 8, 9; Jer., xlviii, 2, 34, 45). Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 B.C.) took it, and made it a Jewish town, and Herod established a fort there (Josephus, Ant., XV, viii, 5). It occurs in Josephus very often under the form Esbonitis or Sebonitis (Antq., XIII, xv, 4., XII, iv, 11; Bell, Jud., II, xviii, 1) After the Jewish War (A.D. 68-70) the country was invaded by the tribe that Pliny calls (Hist. Nat., V, xii, 1) Arabes Esbinitae. Restored under the name of Esboús or Esboúta, it is mentioned among the towns of Arabia Petraea by Ptolemy (Geogr. V, xvi). Under the Byzantine domination, as learned from Eusebius (Onomasticon), it grew to be a town of note in the province of Arabia; George of Cyprus refers to it in the seventh centuty and it was from Hesebon that the milestones on the Roman road to Jericho were numbered.

Christianity took root there at an early period. Lequien (Orient Christ., II, 863-64), and Gams (Series Episcoporum, 435) mention three bishops between the fourth and seventh centuries. Gennadius, present at Nicaea (Gelzer, Patrum Nicaen. Nomina, p. Ixi); Zosius, whose name occurs in the lists of Chalcedon, and Theodore, champion of orthodoxy against Monothelism, who received (c. 649) from Martin I a letter congratulating him on his resistance to the heresy and exhorting him to continue the struggle in conjunction with John of Philadelphia. To the latter the pope had entrusted the government of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. Eubel (Hierarchia Catholica, II, 168) mentions two Latin titulars of Hesebon in the latter part of the fifteenth century. At the beginning of the Arab domination Hesebon was still the chief town of the Belka, a territory corresponding to the old Kingdom of Sehon. It seems never to have been taken by the Crusaders. The ruins are to be seen at Hesbân, to the north of Mâdaba, on one of the highest summits of the mountains of Moab.

DE LUYNES, Voyage d'exploration a la mer Mort, a Petra et sur la rive gauche du Jourdain, I, 147; DE SAULEY, Voyage en Terre Sainte, I, 239- 87; HEIDET, in VIG., Dict. de la Bible. s. v.; SEJOURNE in Revue biblique, Il, 136; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), II, 863-64; VAILHE in Echos, d'Orient, Il, 172-173; ROBINSON, Survey of Eastern Palestine, I, 104-109.

S. SALAVILLE

Hesse

(Hessen).

The name of a German tribe, and also a district in Germany extending along the Lahn, Eder, Fulda, Werra, and the Lower Main and Rhine. The district comprises today the Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt and the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau (capital, Kassel). The territory of the Hessians -- the descendants of the Chatti, who, with the Cherusci, were masters of Germany before the Roman domination -- was divided during the period of the Frankish empire into several Gaue (i. e. districts -- Saxon Hessengau, Frankish Hessengau, Buchonia, Oberlahngau, etc.), ruled over by counts.

About 350 Christianity was preached in a portion of this territory by St. Lubentius of Trier, who built a church at Dietkirchen near Limburg. In the sixth century St. Goar preached the Gospel along the Rhine, while in the following century St. Kilian (d. 689) preached in the districts along the Main and the Rhön. The chief missionary of the Hessians was St. Boniface. He baptized two counts at Amöneburg about 722, founded a Benedictine abbey there, felled the celebrated sacred oak of Thor at Geismar, and founded at Büraberg near Fritzlar the first Hessian bishopric in 741, consolidated with Mainz in 774, and also the monastery of St. Peter at Fritzlar. Commissioned by the saint, his disciple Sturmi founded the monastery of Fulda and St. Lullus the Abbey of Hersfeld. From these centres of Christian culture many religious communities and cloisters were founded on the conclusion of the Saxon wars, and Christianity subsequently made rapid progress among the people. The greater portion of the land was throughout the Middle Ages under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Archbishops of Mainz; the smaller portion under the exempt Abbots of Fulda and Hersfeld, or under the Bishops of Trier (10 churches in Lahngau) and Paderborn (4).

Under the weak successors of Charles the Great, the old constitution of the Gaue gradually changed, and the counts (Grafen) from responsible officials became independent lords. As the bishops and monasteries also acquired much landed property, Hesse was parcelled up into numerous territories. Among the Hessian nobility, the most prominent in the tenth and eleventh centuries were the Counts of Ziegenhain, of Felsberg, of Schaumburg, of Diez, but above all the Gisos, Counts of Gudensberg. The daughter of the fourth and last Giso married in 1122 Count Louis I of Thuringia, who in 1130 was raised to the rank of landgrave by Emperor Lothair. As the Hessian nobility recognized him as their overlord, Hesse was thus united with Thuringia. Louis at the same time received the protectorate of the most important religious foundations of the land, and for a period of more than a century the union of Hesse and Thuringia continued unbroken. With Henry Raspe, the brother-in-law of St. Elizabeth of Thuringia, the male line of the Thuringian landgraves became extinct in 1247, whereupon the Hessians chose Henry of Brabant, Elizabeth's grandson, as their landgrave. Hesse was separated from Thuringia, and, after a long struggle with other claimants of the title, Henry established his authority as Landgrave of Hesse. For a large portion of his territories he owed fealty to the Archbishop of Mainz; for his allodial estate and the imperial fiefs which he possessed, he received in 1292 from King Adolph of Nassau the hereditary rank of prince of the empire. He chose Kassel as his residence, and from him is descended the present princely house of Hesse, which can thus trace its line back to St. Elizabeth.

By the acquisition of previously independent territories (Giessen, Treffurt, Schmalkalden, Katzenellenbogen, Diez, etc,) Henry's successors increased the domain of the landgraviate to such an extent that it became one of the most powerful German principalities. Hermann I (1377-1413) played an important rôle in ecclesiastical affairs. Intended originally for Holy Orders and surnamed "the learned" on account of his love of the sciences, he espoused during the Great Schism the cause of Gregory XII in opposition to Mainz. The slumbering quarrel with Mainz broke out under Hermann's son, Louis I the Peaceful (1413-58), and Archbishop Conrad of Mainz suffered a decisive defeat at Fulda in 1427. The schism and the wrangles between the landgraves and the archbishops greatly contributed to disturb ecclesiastical order, and in many of the numerous monasteries the ancient discipline had fallen into decay. On the whole, however, the Hessian Church was in an excellent condition at the outbreak of the Reformation in Germany.

After repeated divisions, all the Hessian lands were reunited by William II. Philip the Magnanimous (1509-67), William's son and successor, at first adopted a hostile attitude towards the doctrines of Luther, which soon found adherents in the Franciscan Jacob Limburg of Marburg and the Augustinian provincial Tilemann Schnabel of Alsfeld. He banished or imprisoned the heretical preachers, and came to be regarded by them as the most dangerous opponent of "the Gospel". In 1525, however, he was won over to Protestantism by Joachim Camerarius and Melanchthon, who wrote for him the "Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ". The recess of the Diet of Speyer in 1526 enabled him to set up a territorial Church. At a synod of the higher dignitaries of the regular and secular clergy at Homberg in October, 1526, the reform regulations devised by the ex-Franciscan, Lambert of Avignon, were adopted. The Franciscan guardian, Nikolaus Ferber of Marburg, alone raised his voice against their adoption, but his protest was disregarded. At the Convention of Hitzkirch, in 1528, the Archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, found himself compelled to waive temporarily his claims to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Hesse. Thus the Reformatory ordinances (Reformationsordnung) -- which were of an extreme type, rejecting the Mass, feasts of the saints, pilgrimages, pictures, relics, etc. -- spread rapidly over the country. Foundations and monasteries were suppressed, their property confiscated, public worship forbidden to Catholics. To establish the new teaching on a firmer basis the first Protestant university was founded at Marburg in 1527, while the Rituals of 1537, 1539, and 1566, in the composition of which Bucer's influence is unmistakable, fixed the constitution of the Hessian Church on an episcopal synodal basis.

Philip's imprisonment by Charles V scarcely exercised a perceptible influence on the progress of the Reformation, and in 1551 Sebastian von Heusenstamm, Archbishop of Mainz, was compelled to resign finally all claims to jurisdiction in Hesse. In this manner was the Church founded by St. Boniface almost entirely annihilated. The Reformation was also introduced into the territories which were subsequently (e. g. in 1648) acquired by Hesse; only in the domain of the Abbey of Fulda and in a few enclaves belonging to the Archbishopric of Mainz (Fritzlar, Amöneburg, Neustadt) did the Catholic Faith survive. Philip the Magnanimous divided Hesse at his death among his four legitimate sons, but, as two of these died without heirs in 1583 and 1604 respectively, his family was split into two chief lines -- that of Hesse-Darmstadt, represented by George I, and that of Hesse-Kassel, represented by William IV. From these two lines sprang in the course of time some collateral lines, but no member of the family at present occupies a throne. In contrast to his father, the first Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, George I (1567-96) espoused the cause of the Hapsburgs. He increased his family possessions considerably, and in this his example was followed by his eldest son Louis V (1596-1626), who for his attachment to the emperor was called "the Faithful". He founded the University of Giessen in 1607. George II (1628-61) acquired a portion of Upper Hesse in 1648; his brother Frederick returned to the Catholic Faith, became Cardinal and Prince-Bishop of Breslau, and died in 1682. Although three sons of Louis VI (1661-78) also returned to Catholicism, there was no mitigation in the stern Lutheranism of the land.

Only in the territory belonging to the collateral branch, Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg, which became Catholic in 1652 and extinct in 1834, was the Catholic Church tolerated. Landgraves Ernest Louis (1678-1739) and Louis VIII (1739-68) sought an understanding with Austria. Louis IX (1768-90) afforded free religious facilities to the Reformed Churches; in 1786 he granted to the Catholics Darmstadt as a "privilege" permission to hold Divine service. General freedom was first received by the Catholics under Louis X (1790-1830), who created the present Grand Duchy of Hesse. In the war against revolutionary France, the possessions of Hesse-Darmstadt on the right bank of the Rhine were ceded to the French by the Peace of Lunéville, a few districts in Baden and Nassau being also lost. In compensation Louis received the Duchy of Westphalia, which had previously belonged to the Archdiocese of Cologne, and some districts in the Archdiocese of Mainz and the Bishopric of Worms, and later (1809) three Hessian domains of the German Order, the Fulda domain of Herbstein, and the estates of the Order of Malta in Hesse. In 1806 Louis received the title of Grand Duke (Louis I); at the Congress of Vienna he received in compensation for the Duchy of Westphalia, which fell to Prussia, the old ecclesiastical and palatinate lands on the left bank of the Rhine together with the towns Mainz and Worms. With the accession of such Catholic territories, the existing anomalous ecclesiastical conditions could no longer be maintained. Hesse therefore took part in the negotiations of several German states, which resulted in the erection of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine by the papal Bulls "Provida solersque" (1821) and "Ad Dominici gregis custodiam" (1827). In furtherance of the arrangements, the Grand Duchy of Hesse founded the new Bishopric of Mainz, which was made subject to the Archbishopric of Freiburg. Although the organic decrees of 1803 had created a kind of national Church, they were only partially carried out, and the position of the Catholic Church was here more favourable than in the other states of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine (e. g. in Baden). Under Louis III (1848-77), who began to rule during the lifetime of his father Louis II (1830-48), conditions were at first favourable to the Catholics. In 1854 Bishop Ketteler concluded with the Minister von Dalwigk the Convention of Mainz, which ensured for the Church a greater measure of freedom and independence, but on the other hand made great concessions to the State. In consequence of the opposition of the Estates, the convention had to be withdrawn in 1866. After the foundation of the German Empire, the Kulturkampf extended also to Hesse under the Liberal ministries of Hofmann and von Starck, that is from 1871 to 1884. The five ecclesiastical laws of 23 April, 1875, are in their Kulturkampf spirit an exact reproduction of the Prussian "May Laws". After the death of Bishop Ketteler in 1877, the episcopal See of Mainz remained vacant until 1886. It was only under Grand Duke Louis IV (1877-92) and during the Finger ministry, that the church laws were revised, and those of 1875 modified. Under Ernest Louis, who succeeded in 1892, further changes facilitated the admission of religious orders. (Concerning the ecclesiastical statistics of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, whose boundaries coincide with those of the Bishopric of Mainz, see MAINZ.)

In Hesse-Kassel William IV (1567-92) was succeeded by Moritz "the Learned" (1592-1627), during whose reign the Thirty Years' War broke out. His son, William V (1627-37), allied himself with Gustavus Adolphus and was forced to retire into exile. Under William VI (1637-63) the foundation of Hersfeld and a portion of Upper Hesse were acquired by Hesse-Kassel. The succeeding rulers were William VII (1663-70) and then Charles (1670-1730), whose son became King of Sweden as Frederick I in 1720, and later, during his government of Hesse (1730-51), was represented by his brother William (landgrave, 1751-60). William's son, Frederick II, reverted to the Catholic Church in 1749, but, when his conversion became known, his father, in concert with the Estates, with Prussia, and Hanover, demanded that Frederick as landgrave should neither appoint a Catholic to a public position nor permit public Catholic worship. To these demands Frederick, to preserve his right of succession, was compelled to agree. During his reign (1760-85) the abuse of selling soldiers to England reached its culmination. In North America between 15,000 and 20,000 Hessians fought for England against the colonies struggling for freedom. His son, William IX (1785-1821), in accordance with the Peace of Lunéville, received rich compensation (mostly in ecclesiastical territory) for Rheinfels, ceded to the French, and was granted in 1803 the title of elector. From 1806 to 1813, Hesse-Kassel belonged to the Kingdom of Westphalia, founded by Napoleon. After the Restoration the greater part of the estates of the Abbey of Fulda was assigned to Hesse-Kassel. The Revolution of 1830 compelled William II (1821-47) to give the land a constitution which ensured to every citizen complete liberty of conscience and freedom to practise his religion. The status of Catholics was regulated by the erection of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine, when Electoral Hesse was placed under the Bishopric of Fulda. The profligacy of William II, the tyrannical rule of his son Frederick William I (1847-66), and the suppression of all political freedom caused an estrangement between princes and people. In the conflict between Prussia and Austria in 1866, when the elector, after a period of neutrality, voted against Prussia at the German Diet and ordered the mobilization of his troops, his territories were occupied by the Prussian army, and united with Prussia on 20 September, 1866, since which date they have shared the destiny of Prussia. It now forms with other territories acquired by Prussia in 1866 (the Duchy of Nassau, the Landgraviate of Hesse-Homburg, Frankfort-on-the-Main, etc.) the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau. The Catholics of the government district of Kassel and those of Bockenheim, one of the wards of the city of Frankfort, belong to the Diocese of Fulda; the remainder belong to the Diocese of Limburg. The ecclesiastical statistics will be found under these articles.

WENCK, Hessische Landesgesch. (4 vols., 1783-1803); ROMMEL, Gesch. von Hessen (10 vol., Gotha and Kassel, 1820-58); STEINER, Gesch. des Grossherzogtums Hessen (5 vols., Darmstadt, 1833-4); REHM, Grundriss der Gesch. der hessischen Kirche (Marburg, 1835); FALCKENHEINER, Gesch. hessischer Städte u. Stifter (2 vols., Kassel, 1841-42); Urkunden zur hessischen Landes-, Volks-, u. Familiengesch. published by BAUR and continued by others in Archiv für hessische Gesch. . . . (15 vols., Darmstadt, 1846-80); HASSENKAMP, Hessische Kirchengesch. im Zeitalter der Reformation (2 vols., 2nd ed., Frankfort, 1864); BRÜCK, Die oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz (Mainz, 1868); WAGNER, Die vormaligen geistlichen Stifte im Grossherzogtum Hessen (2 vols., Darmstadt, 1873-8); HEPPE, Kirchengesch. beider Hessen (2 vols., Marburg, 1876-8); Die Bau- u. Kunstdenkmäler des Grossherzogtums Hessen (6 vols., Darmstadt, 1885-98); SOLDAN, Gesch. des Grossherzogtums Hessen (Giessen, 1896); BRÜCK, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, II-IV (Mainz, 1889-1905); RADY AND RAICH, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche in Hessen vom hl. Bonifatius bis zu deren Aufhebung durch Philipp den Grossmütigen, 722-1526 (Mainz, 1904); REIDEL, Die kathol. Kirche im Grossherzogtum Hessen (Paderborn, 1904); HESSLER, Hessische Landes- u. Volkskunde (3 vols., Marburg, 1904-07); Archiv für hessische Gesch. u. Altertumskunde (42 vols., Darmstadt, 1835-1908); GROTEFEND, Regesten der Landgrafen von Hessen (Marburg, 1909--).

JOSEPH LINS

Jean Hessels

A distinguished theologian of Louvain; born 1522; died 1566. He had been teaching for eight years in Parc, the Dominican house near Louvain, when he was appointed professor of theology at the university. Like Baius, who was his senior colleague, Hessels preferred drawing his theology from the Fathers, especially from Augustine, rather than from the Schoolmen, without, however, ever swerving from traditional doctrine. In 1559 he accompanied the elder Jansen (later Bishop of Ghent, died 1576) and Baius to Trent and took an active part in the council, e. g. he prepared the decree "De invocatione et reliquiis sanctorum et sacris imaginibus". Even at Trent the Scholastic party found fault with his departure from the beaten tracks of learning; after his return the attacks continued. Hessels, however, used his energy against the Protestants instead of wasting it in dogmatic quarrels. He upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (impugned by Baius), and he is a protagonist of papal infallibility in his "De perpetuitate Cathedræ Petri et ejus indefectibilitate", which is an appendix to his polemical work "Confutatio novitiae fidei quam specialem vocant, adv. Johannem Monhemium" (Louvain, 1565) His other polemical works are: "De invocatione sanctorum . . . censura" (1568); "Probatio corporalis præsentiæ corporis et sanguinis dominici in Eucharistia (Cologne, 1563); "Confutatio confessionis hæreticæ, teutonice emissæ, qua ostenditur Christum esse sacrificium propitiatorium" (Louvain, 1565); "Oratio de officio pii viri exsurgente et vigente hæresi" (Louvain, 1565); "Declaratio quod sumptio Eucharistiæ sub unica panis specie neque Christi præcepto aut institutioni adversetur" (Louvain). He also wrote commentaries: "De Passione Domini" (Louvain, 1568); "de I Tim. et I Petri" (Louvain, 1568); "Com. de Evang. Matthæi" (Louvain, 1572); "Com. de Epp. Johannis" (Douai, 1601). His chief dogmatic work is an excellent "Catechism", first published in 1571, by Henry Gravius, who removed from it all traces of Baianism. Hessels is not a brilliant writer, but his judgment is accurate and all his work most conscientious.

J. WILHELM.

Hesychasm

(Greek hesychos, quiet).

The story of the system of mysticism defended by the monks of Athos in the fourteenth century forms one of the most curious chapters in the history of the Byzantine Church. In itself an obscure speculation, with the wildest form of mystic extravagance as a result, it became the watchword of a political party, and incidentally involved again the everlasting controversy with Rome. It is the only great mystic movement in the Orthodox Church. Ehrhard describes it rightly as "a reaction of national Greek theology against the invasion of Western scholasticism" (Krumbacher, Byzant. Litt., p. 43). The clearest way of describing the movement will be to explain first the point at issue and then its history.

I. THE HESYCHAST SYSTEM

Hesychasts (hesychastes -- quietist) were people, nearly all monks, who defended the theory that it is possible by an elaborate system of asceticism, detachment from earthly cares, submission to an approved master, prayer, especially perfect repose of body and will, to see a mystic light; which is none other than the uncreated light of God. The contemplation of this light is the highest end of man on earth; in this way is a man most intimately united with God. The light seen by Hesychasts is the same as appeared at Christ's Transfiguration. This was no mere created phenomenon, but the eternal light of God Himself. It is not the Divine essence; no man can see God face to face in this world (John i, 18), but it is the Divine action or operation. For in God action (energeia, actus, operatio) is really distinct from essence (ousia). There was a regular process for seeing the uncreated light; the body was to be held immovable for a long time, the chin pressed against the breast, the breath held, the eyes turned in, and so on. Then in due time the monk began to see the wonderful light. The likeness of this process of auto-suggestion to that of fakirs, Sunnyasis, and such people all over the East is obvious.

Hesychasm then contains two elements, the belief that quietist contemplation is the highest occupation for men, and the assertion of real distinction between the divine essence and the divine operation. Both points had been prepared by Greek theologians many centuries before. Although there was comparatively little mysticism in the Byzantine Church, many Greek Fathers and theologians had maintained that knowledge of God can be obtained by purity of soul and prayer better than by study. The quotations made by Hesychasts at the councils (see below) supply many such texts. Clement of Alexandria was most often invoked for this axiom. Pseudo-Dionysius seems to have brought the statement a step nearer to Hesychasm. He describes a medium in which God may be contemplated; this medium is a mystic light that is itself half darkness. But it was Simeon, "the new theologian" (c. 1025-c. 1092; see Krumbacher, op. cit., 152-154), a monk of Studion, the "greatest mystic of the Greek Church" (loc. cit.), who evolved the quietist theory so elaborately that he may be called the father of Hesychasm. For the union with God in contemplation (which is the highest object of our life) he required a regular system of spiritual education beginning with baptism and passing through regulated exercises of penance and asceticism under the guidance of a director. But he had not conceived the grossly magic practices of the later Hesychasts; his ideal is still enormously more philosophical than theirs. There seems also to have been a strong element of the pantheism that so often accompanies mysticism in the fully developed Hesychast system. By contemplating the uncreated light one became united with God so intimately that one became absorbed in Him. This suspicion of pantheism (never very remote from neo-Platonic theories) is constantly insisted on by the opponents of the system.

The other element of fourteenth-century Hesychasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute -- energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system, had also been prepared by Eastern Fathers and theologians. Remotely it may be traced back to neo-Platonism. The Platonists had conceived God as something in every way unapproachable, remote from all categories of being known to us. God Himself could not even touch or act upon matter. Divine action was carried into effect by demiurges, intermediaries between God and creatures. The Greek Fathers (after Clement of Alexandria mostly Platonists) had a tendency in the same way to distinguish between God's unapproachable essence and His action, energy, operation on creatures. God Himself transcends all things. He is absolute, unknown, infinite above everything; no eye can see, no mind conceive Him. What we can know and attain is His action. The foundation of a real distinction between the unapproachable essence (ousia) and the approachable energy (energeia) is thus laid. For this system, too, the quotations made by Hesychasts from Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, especially from Pseudo-Dionysius, supply enough examples. The Hesychasts were fond of illustrating their distinction between God's essence and energy (light) by comparing them to the sun, whose rays are really distinct from its globe, although there is only one sun. It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actus purus. This distinct energy, uncreated light that is not the essence of God, would be a kind of demiurge, something neither God nor creature; or there would be two Gods, an essence and an energy. From one point of view, then, the Hesychast controversy may be conceived as an issue between Greek Platonist philosophy and Latin rationalist Aristoteleanism. It is significant that the Hesychasts were all vehemently Byzantine and bitter opponents of the West, while their opponents were all latinizers, eager for reunion.

II. HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY

The leaders of either side were Palamas the Hesychast and Barlaam, from whom the other side is often called that of the Barlaamites. Gregory Palamas (d. about 1360; Krumbacher, op. cit., 103-105) was a monk at Athos, then from 1349 Bishop of Thessalonica. He wrote no less than sixty works in defence of Hesychasm, one especially against the Scholastic identification of God's essence and attributes. He found fifty heresies in his opponents. He was also vehemently anti-Latin, wrote a refutation of John Beccus's latinizing work, and did his duty by Orthodoxy in supplying the usual treatise against the double procession of the Holy Ghost. Naturally his opponents call him a ditheist, while he considers them Arians, Sabellians, and Epicureans. Barlaam (Krumbacher, op. cit., 100), his chief adversary, was a monk from Calabria who came to Constantinople in the reign of Andronicus III (1328-1341). At first he opposed the Latins, but eventually he wrote in defence of reunion, of the Filioque, and the papal primacy. In 1348 he left Constantinople and became Bishop of Gerace in Calabria. The date of his death is unknown. It was from this Barlaam that Petrarch learned Greek. Gregory Akindynos, a friend and contemporary of Barlaam, also a monk, wrote a work against the Hesychasts " Peri ousias kai energeias," in six books, of which the first two are nothing but translations from St. Thomas's "Summa contra Gentes". Nicephorus Gregoras (ib., 101, 293-298), the historian (d. after 1359), was also one of the chief opponents of Hesychasm. He came to the emperor's court as a young man, was educated by the most famous scholars of that time the Patriarch John Glycus (John XIII, 1316-1320), and the Great Logothete Theodorus Metochites, and became himself perhaps the most distinguished man of learning in the Greek world of the fourteenth century. He wrote theology, philosophy, astronomy, history, rhetoric, poetry, and grammar. His best-known work is a Roman history in thirty-seven books, describing the period from 1204 to 1329. In the midst of so many occupations he made the acquaintance of Barlaam, and entered the lists with him against Palamas and the Hesychasts. He wrote a number of controversial works to confute these people, and tells the story of the quarrel in his history (books XV, XVIII, XIX, XXII) with much animus against them. Like most of the anti-Hesychasts Gregoras was a pronounced latinizer. At the time when Barlaam was opposed to the Latins Gregoras wrote against him; with Palamas too he discussed the question of reunion with the West in a friendly and conciliatory way. Eventually Gregoras fell into disfavour with the Court and disappeared.

The monks of Athos might have contemplated their uncreated light without attracting much attention, had not the question become mixed up with the unending Latin controversy and with political issues. They had already practised their system of auto-suggestion for a long time when Barlaam, arriving at Constantinople, began to denounce it as superstitious and absurd. There had been some opposition before. People had heard Palamas boast that he could see the light of God with his eyes, and had accused him of blasphemy; but, since Isaias, the Patriarch of Constantinople (1323-1334), was himself a monk of Athos and a disciple of Palamas, the opposition had not been very successful. However, from the year 1339, when Barlaam arrived in the city, began the really serious quarrel which for twenty years was to rend Orthodox theology, cause enormous commotion at Constantinople, Athos, and all the great centres of the Orthodox world, and lead even to active persecution. Barlaam, like all opponents of Hesychasm, based his objections mainly on a vehement denial of the possibility of an uncreated light that was yet not God's essence; throughout the controversy he and his party used the arguments they had learned in the West to show the impossibility of such distinctions in God. He also made bitter mockery of what he calls the Homphalopsychia of the monks who sit with bent heads gazing at their own person, and brought various accusations against Palamas's life and manners. After Isaias, John XIV (John Aprenus, 1334-47) had become patriarch. Barlaam demanded of him a synod to settle the question. For a time the patriarch refused to take the matter so seriously; eventually, since the quarrel became more and more bitter, in 1341 the first synod of the Hesychast question was summoned at Constantinople. The emperor (Andronicus III) presided. This first synod considered only two questions; (1) Whether the light of Thabor (that of the Transfiguration) was created or not; (2) a certain prayer used by Hesychasts, stated by Barlaam to contain ditheism. The enormous influence of the monks at Court and the want of energy of the patriarch (who was in his heart on Barlaam's side) made this first synod a victory for Hesychasm. In both points the monks and their theory were approved, and Barlaam was forced to withdraw his accusations. Soon afterwards he left Constantinople forever; his cause was taken up by Gregory Akindynos. The emperor died a few days after the synod. John VI, Cantacuzenus (1341-1355), who gradually usurped the imperial power, first as rival, then as fellow-emperor, of Andronicus's son John V, Palæologus (1341-76), was always a friend of Palamas and the Hesychast monks. The second Hesychast synod under Cantacuzenus, but without the patriarch, condemned Akindynos and introduced a new element by representing him and all its opponents as latinizers who were trying to destroy Orthodoxy.

In 1345 the patriarch summoned the third synod. By now he had definitely made up his mind to withstand the Hesychasts. This synod then, under his direction, excommunicated Palamas and Isidore Buchiras, Bishop elect of Monembasia in Thessaly, one of Palamas's disciples. Buchiras and Palamas withdrew their heresy outwardly, and waited for a better chance. The chance came in 1347. By this time their protector John Cantacuzenus had entered Constantinople in triumph and had been crowned emperor. The other party (that of the child-emperor John Palæologus and of his mother Ann of Savoy) was now helpless. The controversy from this time is complicated by a political issue. Cantacuzenus and his friends were Hesychasts; the party of the Palæologi were Barlaamites. As long as Cantacuzenus triumphed the Hesychasts triumphed with him; by the time he fell Hesychasm had become so much identified with the cause of the Orthodox Church against the Latins that the other side never succeeded in ousting it. On 2 February, 1347, the fourth Hesychast synod was held. It deposed the patriarch, John XIV, and excommunicated Akindynos. Isidore Buchiras, who had been excommunicated by the third synod, was now made patriarch (Isidore I, 1347-1349). In the same year (1347) the Barlaamites held the fifth synod, refusing to acknowledge Isidore and excommunicating Palamas. From this time Nicephorus Gregoras becomes the chief opponent of Hesychasm. Isidore I died in 1349: the Hesychasts replaced him by one of their monks, Callistus I (1350-1354). In 1351 the sixth synod met in the Blachernæ palace under Cantacuzenus. Gregoras defended his views boldly and skillfully, but again the Hesychasts had it all their own way, deposed Barlaamite bishops, and used violence against their own opponents. In this synod six questions about God's essence and attributes were answered, all in the Hesychast sense, while Palamas was declared to be without any doubt orthodox and unimpeachable. The synod finally published, in defence of Palamas and his views, a decree (Tomos) which eventually was looked upon as an authentic declaration of the Orthodox Church. From this time Hesychasm may be said to have defeated all opposition. Gregoras was arrested and kept in custody in his own house. He was not set free till Cantacuzenus (with whom rests the eternal disgrace of having first invited to Turks to Europe) was deposed and the Palæologi triumphed in 1354. Cantacuzenus then withdrew to Athos, became a monk himself, taking the name of Joasaph, and spent the rest of his life writing a history of his own times and contemplating the uncreated light. This history in four books (in Migne, P.G., CLIII, CLIV) covers the period from 1320 to 1356, and tells the whole story of the Hesychast controversy. Being written by a violent partisan, it forms an interesting contrast to that of Gregoras.

After the deposition of Cantacuzenus, the Barlaamites held an anti-Hesychast synod at Ephesus; but the patriarchs of Constantinople and the great mass of the people had by now become too firmly persuaded that the cause of Hesychasm was that of Orthodoxy. To oppose it was to incur the guilt of latinizing; so even Cantacuzenus's fall was not enough to turn the scale. Hesychasm from this time is always triumphant. About 1360 Palamas died. In 1368 the seventh Synod of Constantinople (concerning this matter) under the Patriarch Philotheus (1364-1376: Callistus's successor) excommunicated the Barlaamite monk Prochorus Cydonius, confirmed the "Tomus" of 1351 as a "Faultless Canon of the true faith of Christians", and canonized Palamas as a Father and Doctor of the Church. So by the end of the fourteenth century Hesychasm had become a dogma of the Orthodox Church. It is so still. The interest in the question gradually died out, but the Orthodox still maintain the Tomus of 1351 as binding; the real distinction between God's essence and operation remains one more principle, though it is rarely insisted on now, in which the Orthodox differ from Catholics. Gregory Palamas is a saint to them. They keep his feast on the second Sunday of Lent and again on 14 November (Nilles, "Kalandarium manuale", Innsbruck, 1897, II, 124-125). The office for this feast was composed by the Patriarch Philotheus. In the nineteenth century there was among the Orthodox a certain revival of interest in the question, partly historical, but also speculative and philosophical. Nicodemus, a monk of Athos, defended the Hesychasts in his Egcheiridion symbouleutichon (1801); Eugenius Bulgaris and others, especially Athos monks, have again discussed this old controversy; it is always evident that their theology still stands by the Tomus of 1351, and still maintains the distinction between the Divine essence and energy.

There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actus and potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite -- this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. Gilbertus Porretanus (de la Porrée, d. 1154) is quoted as having said that the Divine essence is not God -- implying some kind of real distinction; John of Varennes, a hermit in the Diocese of Reims (c. 1396), said that the Apostles at the Transfiguration had seen the Divine essence as clearly as it is seen in heaven. About the same time John of Brescain made a proposition: Creatam lucem infinitam et immensam esse. But these isolated opinions formed no school. We know of them chiefly through the indignant condemnations they at once provoked. St. Bernard wrote to refute Gilbert de la Porrée; the University of Paris and the legate Odo condemned John of Brescain's proposition. Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics. In the Orthodox Church the controversy, waged furiously just at the time when the enemies of the empire were finally overturning it and unity among its last defenders was the most crying need, is a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause.

I. Sources: The chief sources for the whole story are NIKEPHOROS GREGORAS, Romaike historia, ed. by SCHOPEN in 2 vols. (Bonn, 1829-1830), MIGNE, P.G., CXLVIII-CXLIX; JOHN VI KANTAKUZENOS, Historiai, ed. SCHOPEN in 3 vols. (Bonn, 1828-1832); and in P.G., CLIII-CLIV. The published works of PALAMAS are in P.G., CL-CLI; those of BARLAAM in P.G., CLI; of AKINDYNOS, ib., CLI. KYDONES, Adv. Greg. Palam. in ARCUDIUS, Opusc. aurea theol. (Rome, 1670). Further bibliography and accounts of the various writers who took part in the controversy in KRUMBACHER, Byzantinische Litteratur (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 100-06, 293-300, etc.

II. Literature: ALLATIUS, De eccl. occid. et orient. perpetua consensione (Cologne, 1648); STEIN, Studien über die Hesychasten des XIV Jahrh. (Vienna, 1874); HOLL, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt bei dem griechischen Mönchthum (1898); ENGELHARDT, Die Arsenier und Hesychasten in Zeitschr. f. histor. Theologie, VIII (1838), 48 sqq.; MIKLOSICH AND MÜLLER, Acta patriarchatus Constantinop. (Vienna, 1860).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Hesychius of Alexandria

Grammarian and lexicographer; of uncertain date, but assigned by most authorities to the later fourth or earlier fifth century. We have no information whatever about him, his parentage, or his life; beyond what can be learned from the epistolary preface to his Lexicon. This purports to be written by "Hesychius of Alexandria, Grammarian, to his friend Eulogius": its authenticity was needlessly questioned by Valckenaer. It tells us that the author bases his work on that of Diogenianus (probably Diogenianus of Heraclea, who in Hadrian's reign composed one of the successive anthologies of Greek minor poetry which are imbedded in the "Anthologia Palatina"), who first digested into a single lexicon the various dictionaries of Homeric, comic, tragic, lyric, and oratorical Greek, adding also the vocabularies of medicine and history. The letter ends with "I pray to God that you may in health and well-being enjoy the use of this book"; but Hesychius is commonly held to have been a pagan. The work has certainly not come down to us in its original form: it contains biblical and ecclesiastical glosses, of which the preface gives no hint. It is generally agreed that these are a later interpolation; and there is no good ground for identifying this Hesychius (as Fabricius did) with his namesakes, a third-century bishop and a translator of the Scriptures (Bardenhewer, tr. Shahan, 160). The classical part of the Lexicon is of the greatest importance to Greek scholars, not only as a rich vocabulary of otherwise unknown words and rare usages, but as a mine of information about ancient Realien and lost authors; few instruments have been equally serviceable for the critical emendation of Greek poetry texts.

The disturbance in that alphabetical order which Hesychius (in the preface) says he carefully followed, is only one of many evidences that the book has been altered in the process of tradition: Ernesti held that the true author lived in the first century, and that his work, excerpted by Diogenianus, was roughly brought up to date by the interpolated additions of an otherwise unknown Hesychius; others, that Hesychius's book was "contaminated" with a lexicon attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria. Whoever it may have been who added the "Glossae Sacrae" to Hesychius, they have received much separate attention. They derive, says Ernesti, from three sources: (1) the parallelism of Scripture, i.e. a word is glossed by the correlative word in the parallel half-verse; (2) the synonym, or explanatory doublets of the sacred writer; (3) the early commentators, such as Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion. The difficulties of exploring Hesychius's sources and utilizing his stores are aggravated by the bad state of the text: the Lexicon, first printed by Musurus (fol. ap. Aldum) at Venice in 1514, had only been transmitted in a single deeply-corrupt fifteenth-century codex.

The standard complete edition is by SCHMIDT (Jena, 1857); of the Glossae Sacrae, by ERNESTI (Leipzig, 1785). Discussions and elucidations in BENTLEY, Epistolae; VALCKENAER, Opuscula, i, 175; also MULLER AND DONALDSON, Literature of Ancient Greece, iii, 384; CROISET, Hist. de la litt. Gr., V, 975; and in general, PAULY, Real-Encyclopadie, s.v.

J.S. PHILLIMORE

Hesychius of Jerusalem

Presbyter and exegete, probably of the fifth century. Nothing certain is known as to the dates of his birth and death (433?), or, indeed concerning the events of his life. Bearing as he does the title tou presbyterou, he is not to be confused with Bishop Hesychius of Jerusalem, a contemporary of Gregory the Great. A monograph on this brilliant scholar, whose fame has been so long obscured, would fill one of the most urgent needs of patristic theology.

The writings of Hesychius of Jerusalem have been in part lost, in part handed down and edited as the work of other authors, and some are still buried in libraries in MS. Whoever would collect and arrange the fragments of Hesychius which have come down to us must go back to the MSS.; for in the last edition of the Fathers (P.G., XCIII, 787-1560) the works of various writers named Hesychius are thrown together without regard for order under the heading "Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem". About half of the matter under "Hesychius" must be discarded, namely, the commentary on Leviticus (787-1180) which is extant only in Latin and is unauthentic, being based on the Vulgate text rather than the Septuagint, and therefore the work of a later Latin (Isychius). The collection of ascetic maxims (1479-1544) is the work of Hesychius of Sinai (q.v.), and not of his namesake of Jerusalem. Neither are all the homilies (1449-80) as certainly the work of Hesychius of Jerusalem as the sixth, the authenticity of which is supported by an ancient Escorial MS. (phi, III, 20, saec. 9). Unfortunately, this collection does not include the homily on Bethlehem from the Turin MS., C IV4, saec. 12-13, a gem of religious rhetoric worthy of furnishing the lessons for an Office of the Church. Subjoined to the "Legend of the Martyrdom of St. Longinus" (P.G., XCIII, 1545-60) is the testimony of "Hesychius Presbyter of Jerusalem" himself, that he had found the MS. in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem.

Method and Importance of his Exegetical Writings

Judging from the extant fragments, Hesychius must have been a very prolific writer on Biblical, particularly Old-Testament, exegetics. The notice in the Greek Menology under 28 March, in which mention is made of the exposition of the entire Scriptures, can refer to none other than Hesychius of Jerusalem. In hermeneutics he adheres closely to the allegorico-mystical method of the Alexandrines; he finds in every sentence of the Bible a mystery of dogma, and reads into texts of the Old Testament the whole complexus of ideas in the New. He follows Origen in choosing for the enunciative form of exegesis the shortest possible marginal gloss (paratheseis). His comment on Is., xix, 1, "the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt" is "Christ in the arms of the Virgin". Water represents always to him "the mystical water" (of baptism), and bread, "the mystical table" (of the Eucharist). It is this hyper-allegorical and glossarial method which constitutes the peculiar characteristic of his exegesis, and proves a valuable help to the literary critic in distinguishing authentic Hesychiana from the unauthentic. The anti-Semitic tone of many scholia may find an explanation in local conditions; likewise geographical and topographical allusions to the holy places of Palestine would be expected of an exegete living at Jerusalem. The importance of Hesychius for textual criticism lies in the fact that many of his paraphrases echo the wording of his exemplar, and still more in his frequent citation of variants from other columns of the Hexapla or Tetrapla, particularly readings of Symmachus, whereby he has saved many precious texts. He is likewise of importance in Biblical stichometry. His "Capitula" (P.G., XCIII, 1345-86) and commentaries show the early Christian division into chapters of at least the Twelve Minor Prophets and Isaias, which corresponds to the inner sequence of ideas of the respective books far better than the modern division. In the case of certain separate books, Hesychius has inaugurated an original stichic division of the Sacred Text -- for the "citizen of the Holy City" (hagiopolites) cited in the oldest MSS. of catenae of the Psalms, and the Canticles, is none other than Hesychius of Jerusalem. It has been discovered by Mercati that in some MSS. the initial letter of each division according to Hesychius is indicated in colour. Hesychius must have been generally known as an authority, for he is quoted simply as Hagiopolites, or, elsewhere, by the equally laconic expression "him of Jerusalem" (tou Hierosolymon).

Separate Commentaries

It is certain that Hesychius was the author of consecutive commentaries on the Psalms, the Canticle of Canticles, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Isaias, and Luke (Chapter i?). His name occurs in catenae in connection with an occasional scholium to texts from other books (Genesis, I and II Kings, Ezechiel, Daniel, Matthew, John, Acts, the Catholic Epistles), which, however, apart from the question of their authenticity, are not necessarily taken from complete commentaries on the respective books. Likewise the citations from Hesychius in ascetic florilegia, as in Bodl. Barocc. 143, saec. 12, are taken from exegetical works. The most perplexing problem is the connection of Hesychius with the commentary on the Psalms attributed to him. The numerous citations from Hesychius in catenae of the Psalms and the exegetical works on the Psalms handed down over his name, particularly in Oxford and Venice MSS., are so widely at variance with each other as to preclude any question of mere variations in different transcriptions of one original; either Hesychius was the author of several commentaries on the Psalms or the above-mentioned commentaries are to be attributed to several authors named Hesychius. As a matter of fact Spanish MSS. clearly distinguish between Hesychius the Monk, author of commentaries on the Psalms and Canticles, and Hesychius the Priest. In 1900 the present writer explained the commentary on the Psalms included among the works of St. Athanasius (P.G., XXVII, 649-1344) as the glossary of Hesychius issued over a pseudonym. This hypothesis has since been confirmed by further evidence (Escorial, psi, I, 2, saec. 12).

A complete commentary of Hesychius on the Canticles of the Old and New Testament, which are known to have constituted a distinct book in the early Christian Bible, is preserved in MS.; any edition of this must be based on the Bodl. Miscell., 5, saec. 9. Another codex which would have been particularly valuable for this edition and for the solution of the Hesychius problem, the Turin MS. B, VII, 30, saec. 8-9, has unfortunately been destroyed by fire. The Mechitarists of San Lazzaro have in their possession an Armenian commentary on Job over the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. The scholia of Hesychius to the Twelve Minor Prophets are preserved in six MSS. at Rome, Paris, and Moscow, and await publication. His commentary on Isaias was discovered in 1900 in the anonymous marginal notes to an eleventh-century Vatican MS. (Vatic., 347) by the present writer, who published it with a facsimile; the authenticity of these 2860 scholia was later confirmed by a ninth-century Bodleian MS. (Miscell., 5).

Scholia to the Magnificat, in the catenae of Canticles, and MSS. at Paris and Mount Athos establish beyond doubt the fact that Hesychius left a commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, at least on the first chapter. For evidence as to the authenticity of the "Harmony of the Gospels" (P.G., XCIII, 1391-1448) the treatise on the Resurrection must first be examined. This is extant in two forms, a longer (under Gregory of Nyssa, in P.G., XLVI, 627-52) and a shorter, the latter an abridgement of the former and as yet unpublished. In tenth-, eleventh-, and twelfth-century MSS. of the former, to "Hesychius Presbyter of Jerusalem" is added the further title "the theologian". The works of Hesychius of Jerusalem so far published are to be found in P.G., XCIII, 787-1560 (see also loc. cit., 781-88 for the older literary and historical notices), Faulhaber, "Hesychii Hierosolymitani interpretatio Isaiae prophetae nunc primum in lucem edita" (Freiburg, 1900), and Jagic, "Ein unedierter griechischer Psalmenkommentar" (Vienna, 1906), also Mercati, "Studi e Testi".

BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br., 1909); FAULHABER, Eine wertvolle Oxforder Handschrift in Theol. Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1901); KARO AND LIETZMANN, Catenarum graecarum catalogus (Gottingen, 1902).

MICHAEL FAULHABER

Hesychius of Sinai

A priest and monk of the Order of St. Basil in the Thorn-bush (Batos) monastery on Mt. Sinai, and ascetic author of the Byzantine period in literature. Nothing definite is known concerning his career or the exact time at which he lived. Only a few paltry fragments of the literary remains of this almost completely forgotten author have been preserved, and they have still to be collected and separately criticized. In manuscripts, as a rule, he is given the honorary title of "Our Holy Father" (tou hosiou patros hemon Hesychiou presbyterou) and, in cases where the authenticity of this title on a manuscript is certain, it is sufficient to distinguish him from others of the same name, and especially from the celebrated Hesychius of Jerusalem (q.v.). Examination of the Bible text on which the treatises of one or the other Hesychius are based is just as important a test as this external criterion; thus, Hesychius of Sinai in his Bible quotations regularly follows the version of the "Codex Sinaiticus". How much of the literary material in the latest edition of the works of the Fathers (Migne, P.G., XCIII, 787-1560), published without any attempt at critical selection under the title of "Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem", should properly be ascribed to Hesychius of Sinai, can only be determined by monographic investigation. The pivotal point about which such investigation would turn is a collection of 200 ascetic maxims (Peri nepheos kai aretes, De temperantia et virtute) which Migne, loc. cit. 1479-1544, attributes to Hesychius of Jerusalem under a pseudonym, but which should, without doubt, be credited to Hesychius of Sinai. For the author of these maxims acknowledges, by a play on words (ho hesychias pheronymos), that his name is Hesychius and that he is a Basilian monk; furthermore a number of manuscripts support this intrinsic evidence (Bodl. Barocc. 118, saec. XII-XIII; Bodl. Laud. 21, saec. XIV; Bodl. Canon. 16, saec. XV; Mus. Brit. Burn. 113, saec. XV et al.). The text of the Migne edition could be completed and improved to particular advantage from English MSS. (Mus. Brit. Addit. 9347, saec. XII, and Bodl. Cromwell. 6, saec. XV). The fact that the maxims are dedicated to a certain Theodulus has given rise in certain manuscripts to the erroneous statement that Theodulus was their author. It cannot be determined here how many of these maxims were derived from older ascetics or how many were adopted by later ones. It is probable that the ascetic and Biblical-ascetic fragments that I have found in Turin Codices (B V 25, saec. XV, fol. 171-174 and C VI 8, saec. XIV, fol. 39 verso 41) under the name of "Our Holy Father Hesychius" should also be attributed to Hesychius of Sinai.

MICHAEL FAULHABER

Hethites

(A.V. Hittites)

One of the many peoples of North-Western Asia, styled Hittim in the Hebrew Bible, Khuti or Kheta on the Egyptian monuments, and Hatti in the cuneiform documents. For many centuries the existence of the Hethites was known only from scanty allusions in the Bible. Egyptian and Assyrian documents revealed to the scholars of the latter part of the nineteenth century the power of the Hethite empire, and discoveries now pursued at the very home of this long-forgotten people almost daily supply important new information concerning it, whetting the interest of scholars, and fostering the hope that before long Hethite history will be as well known as that of Egypt and Assyria. In the latter part of the eighteenth century a German traveller had noticed two figures carved on a rock near Ibreez, in the territory of the ancient Lycaonia. Major Fischer rediscovered them in 1838, and made a drawing of the figures and a copy of the two short inscriptions in strange-looking characters which accompanied these figures. But what they were no one could tell at the time. In his travels along the Orontes (1812) Burckhardt had likewise noticed at Hamah, the site of the ancient city of Hamath, a block covered with what appeared to be an inscription, although the characters were unknown. He mentioned this discovery in his "Travels in Syria" (p. 146), without, however, attracting the attention of travellers and Orientalists. Almost sixty years later three other slabs of the same description were found in the same place by Johnson and Jessup; and in 1872 Dr. W. Wright had the stones removed to the Imperial Museum of Constantinople. The characters carved in relief on the stones were long designated as "Hamathite writing", although as early as 1874 Dr. Wright had suggested that they were of Hethite origin. Comparing the inscriptions of Ibreez with those from Hamah, E. J. Davis noticed that the former were also in the "Hamathite writing". Soon new texts were discovered at Aleppo, Jerabûls, Ninive, Ghiaur-ka-lessi, Boghaz-Keui, Mount Sipylus, the Pass of Karabel: all presented the same strange hieroglyphic characters, engraved in relief and in boustrophedon fashion. When figures accompanied the inscriptions, they likewise bore a striking resemblance to one another: all were clad in a tunic reaching to the knees, were shod with boots with turned-up ends, and wore a high peaked cap. It became certain that these monuments belonged to the Hethite population located by Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions in the east of Asia Minor. The true home of the Hethite monuments, indeed, extends from the Euphrates to the Halys River; monuments found beyond these limits either mark the site of eccentric colonies, or are memorials of military conquests. This geographical distribution, as well as some of the features noticeable in the figures carved on these monuments, makes it clear that the Hethites must have been originally inhabitants of a cold and mountainous region, and that the high plateaux of Cappadocia should be regarded as their primeval home. Both their own and the Egyptian monuments describe them as ugly in appearance with yellow skins, black hair, receding foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws. The type may still be found in Cappadocia.

As to their language, it may be said, despite the researches of Conder, Sayce, and others, to have so far challenged the patience and genius of Orientalists. The first Hethite texts known were all written in the so-called Hamathite characters; the royal archives discovered since 1905 at Boghaz-Keui, under the auspices of the "Deutsche Orient- Gesellschaft", contain many Hethite texts written in cuneiform characters. It is to be hoped that this will enable scholars to detect the secret of that old language which still lingered in Lycaonia at the time of St. Paul's missionary journeys in these regions. Little likewise is known of the Hethite religion. The special difficulty here arises partly from the syncretic tendencies manifest in the religious development of the ancient peoples in the East, and partly from the scarcity of information bearing on distinctly Hethite worship. Lucian's description of the great temple of Mabog and its worship may contain some features of the worship going on in the older city of Carchemish; but it seems to be a hopeless task to try to trace back these features over a gap of some ten centuries. Owing to the permanence of popular customs in remote country places, and particularly in mountainous regions, less accessible to foreign influence, there is perhaps more reliable information to gather on the primitive Hethite worship from Strabo's description of Cappadocian religious solemnities in classical times (Strabo, XII, ii, 3, 6, 7). The Hethite pantheon is known, however, to a certain extent, from the proper names which quite frequently contain as a constitutive element the title of some deity. Among the divine names most usually employed may be mentioned here: Tarqû, Rho, Sandan, Kheba, Tishûbû, Ma, and Hattû. The compact entered upon by Ramses II and Hattusil suggests the idea that heaven, earth, rivers, mountains, lands, cities, had each its male or female Sutekh, a kind of genius loci, like the Aramæan Ba‘al or Ba‘alath. A treaty between the same Hattusil and the ruler of Mitanni mentioning first deities of Babylonian origin, then others of a more distinctly Hethite character, and lastly some Indo-Persian gods, witnesses to the syncretic character of the Hethite religion as early as the fourteenth century b.c. Thanks to the Egyptian and Assyrian documents we are in possession of more details concerning the history of the Hethites. At an early date some of their tribes forced their way through the defiles of the Taurus range into Northern Syria and established themselves in the valley of the Orontes: Hamath and Cades (A. V. Kadesh) were very early Hethite cities. Some bands, pursuing their march southwards, settled in the hilly region of Southern Palestine, where they intermingled with the Amorrhites, then in possession of the land. Ezechiel, stating that the mother of Jerusalem was a Hethite (an Hittite–A. V., xvi, 3, 45; D. V.: Cethite), very likely refers to an old tradition concerning the origin of the city. At all events, when Abraham came to Chanaan he found a Hethite colony clustered around Hebron (Gen., xxiii, 3; xxvi, 34, etc.). The bulk of the nation established itself in the Naharina (comp. Hebr.: Aram Naharaim), between the River Balikh and the Orontes, on the slopes of the Amanus range and in the Cilician plains. This position, between the two foremost empires of the ancient world, namely Chaldee and Egypt, made the territory occupied by the Hethites, on the road followed by the merchants of both nations, one of the richest commercial countries in the East.

But the population was perhaps still more inclined to war than to commerce, and local monuments, no less than Egyptian records, bear witness to the military conquests and the power of the Hethites in the distant regions of Western and Southern Asia Minor. There are some grounds for the belief that certain traditions lingering on in those regions centuries later (origin of the Lydian dynasty, legend of the Amazons) originated in the Hethite conquests, and that we may recognize the swarthy Cappadocian warriors in the Kéteioi mentioned in Odyss., XI, 516-521. Certain it is, at any rate, that the Troad, Lydia, and the shores of the Cilician Sea acknowledged the Hethite supremacy at the beginning of the eighteenth century b.c.

The Hethites first appear in historical documents at the time of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty (about 1550 b.c.). Thothmes I, in the first year of his reign, carried his arms to N. Syria and set up his trophies on the banks of the Euphrates, perhaps near Carchemish. His grandson, Thothmes III, was a great warrior. Twice, he tells us, in 1470 and 1463 b.c., the king of the land of the Hethites, "the Greater", paid him tribute. After a signal victory at Megiddo, and the taking of this city, which was the key to the Syrian valleys, Thothmes III repeatedly seized Cades and Carchemish and invaded the Naharina. At his death the Egyptian empire bordered on the land of the Hethites. The successes of the Egyptian armies did not dishearten their sturdy neighbours. Their restless enterprises forced Ramman-Nirari, King of Assyria, to invoke the aid of Thothmes IV against the Hethites of Mer’ash; and the help was apparently given, for an inscription tells us that the first campaign of the Egyptian prince was directed against the Khetas. These, however, with their allies the Minni, the Amurru, the Kasi, and the King of Zinzar, did not cease to press southwards, thereby causing serious alarm to the Egyptian governors. Held in check until the death of Amenhotep III by the King of Mitanni, Dushratti, who had made alliance with the King of Egypt, the Hethites resumed the offensive during the reign of Amenhotep IV. They were led by Etaqqama, son of Sutarna, Prince of Cades, who had formerly warred against them, had been made captive, and, although professing to be still acting on behalf of the pharaoh, had become their warm supporter. Before Etaqqama, Teuwaatti, Arzawyia, and Dasa, one by one the Syrian cities and the Egyptian strongholds fell, and Cades on the Orontes, conquered, became for centuries a strong centre of Hethite power. Subbiluliuma, during whose reign the Hethite empire won, by its military successes, a place of prominence in the Eastern world, is the first great Hethite sovereign named in inscriptions: Carchemish, Tunip, Nii, Hamath, Cades, are mentioned among the principal cities of his empire; the Mitanni, the Arzapi, and other principalities along the Euphrates acknowledged his suzerainty; and Troad, Cilicia, and Lydia owned his sway.

The successors of Amenhotep IV, hampered by the trouble and disorder prevailing at home, were no match for such a powerful neighbour; Ramses I, the founder of the nineteenth dynasty, after an attack, the success of which seems to have been doubtful, was compelled to conclude with Subbiluliuma a treaty which left the Hethites their entire freedom of action. His son and successor, Seti I, attempted to reconquer Syria. At first he was victorious. Marching his armies through Syria as far as the Orontes, he fell suddenly upon Cades which he wrested from the hands of Muttalu. The success of this campaign was, however, by no means decisive, and an honourable peace was concluded with the Hethite ruler, Mursil.

The epoch of Seti's death was one of revolution in the Hethite Government. Muttallu, the son of Mursil, having been murdered, his brother Hattusil was called to the throne (about 1343 b.c.). He at once mustered all his forces against Egypt. The encounter took place near the city of Cades: in a hard-fought battle in which the Egyptian king, surprised from an ambush, hardly escaped, the northern confederacy was defeated and the Hethite ruler sued for peace. The treaty then concluded was, however, but a short truce, and only sixteen years later, the twenty-first year of Ramses, on the twenty-first day of the month Tybi, was peace finally signed between the Egyptian ruler and "the great king of the Hethites". The treaty, the Egyptian text of which has long been known in full, and of which a Babylonian minute was found in 1906 at Boghaz-Keui, was a compact of offensive and defensive alliance between the two powers thus put on a par; this treaty, as well as the marriage of Hattusil's daughter to Ramses in the thirty-fourth year of the latter's reign, shows forcibly the position then attained by the Hethite empire. So powerful a prince indeed was Hattusil that he pretended to interfere in Babylonian politics. An alliance had been entered upon between him and Katachman-Turgu, King of Babylon. At the latter's death Hattusil threatened to sever the alliance if the son of the deceased prince was not given the crown. The peaceful relations of the Hethite empire with its southern neighbour continued during the reign of Ramses' son, Mineptah, the pharaoh of the Exodus; this prince, indeed, soon after his accession, sent corn to the Hethites at a time when Syria was devastated by famine. It is true that Egypt had to repel on its own shores an invasion of the Libyans and other peoples of Asia Minor; but although these peoples seem to have been vassals to the Hethites, nothing indicates that the latter had any interest in the enterprise. Such was not the case under Ramses III. A formidable confederacy of the nations of the coast and of the islands of the Ægean Sea swept N.-W. Asia, conquered the Hethites and other inland peoples and, swollen by the troops of the conquered kingdoms, fell upon the shores of Egypt. The invading army met with a complete disaster, and, among other details, Ramses III records that the King of the Hethites was captured in the battle. The Hethite empire was no longer a political unity, but had been split into independent states: perhaps some tribes in the far west and the south of Asia Minor had shaken off the Hethite allegiance; however, we learn from Theglathphalasar I (A. V. Tiglath-pileser) that, towards the end of the twelfth century, the "land of the Hatti" still extended from the Lebanon to the Euphrates and the Black Sea. As early as the close of the fourteenth century b.c., Hattusil had showed good political foresight in warning the Babylonian king against the progress of Assyria. It was indeed at the hands of the Assyrians that the Hethites were to meet their doom. The first dated mention of the latter in the Assyrian documents is found in the annals of Theglathphalasar I (about 1110 b.c.). In various expeditions against the land of Kummukh (Commagene), he penetrated farther and farther into the Hethite country; but he never succeeded in forcing his way across the fords of the Euphrates: the city of Carchemish, commanding them, compelled his respect.

The two hundred years which followed the death of Theglathphalasar I were for the Assyrian empire a period of decay. The realtions of the Hethites with the Israelite kingdom, which, under David and Solomon, rose then to prominence, seem to have been few. David, we are told, had Hethites in his army and in his bodyguard (I Kings, xxvi, 6; II Kings, xi, 6, etc.); these were possibly descendants of the Hethites settled in S. Palestine. Bethsabee, Solomon's mother, perhaps belonged to their race. At any rate, it seems that Adarezer, King of Soba, was endeavouring to extend his possessions at the expense of the Hethites' Syrian dominion (II Kings, viii, 3) when he was smitten by David. It is known also from II Kings, xxiv, 6, that the officers of David went as far as Cades on the Orontes (Hebrew text to be corrected) when they were sent to take the census of Israel. The text of III Kings, x, 28, sq., adds that in Solomon's time Israelite merchants bought horses in Egypt and from the Syrian and Hethite princes. What Adarezer could not effect the rulers of Damascus succeeded in doing; they built up their power partly out of the empire of Solomon and partly out of the Hethite dominion, which betokens that the once unshaken supremacy of Carchemish was apparently on the wane. Of this the inscriptions of Assurnasirpal (885-860) leave no doubt. Renewing the campaigns of Theglathphalasar I against the Eastern Hethite tribes, he succeeded in crossing the Euphrates; Carchemish escaped assault at the hands of the Assyrian conqueror by buying him off at a tremendous price. Continuing his raid westwards, Assurnasirpal appeared before the capital of the Kattinians: like Carchemish, the city bribed him away and induced him to turn towards the Phœnician cities. A few centuries of profitable commercial operations had, it seems, altogether changed the warlike spirit of the once aggressive Hethite race. Year after year Shalmaneser II (860- 825)–D. V. Salmanasar–led his armies against the various Hethite states, with the purpose of possessing himself of the high road between Phœnicia and Ninive. The overthrow of the Khattinians finally aroused once more the warlike spirit of the Hethite princes; a league was formed under the leadership of Sangara of Carchemish; but the degenerate Hethites, unable to withstand the Assyrian onslaught, were compelled to purchase peace by the payment of a heavy tribute (855). This victory, breaking the power of the Hethites of Syria, and reducing them to the rank of tributaries, opened to the Assyrians the way to Phœnicia and Palestine. The very next year Shalmaneser came into contact with Damascus and Israel. Carchemish, however, was still in the hands of the Hethites. A period of decadence for the Assyrian empire followed Shalmaneser's death; during this period the mutual relations of the two nations appear to have remained unaltered. But new enemies from the East were pressing close on the land of the Hethites. Vannic inscriptions record the raids of Menuas, King of Dushpas, against the cities of Surisilis and Tarkhigamas, in the territory of the Hethite prince Skadahalis. In another expedition Menuas defeated the King of Gupas and overran the Hethite country as far as Malatiyeh. Menuas's son, Argistis I, again marched his armies in the same direction, conquering the country along the banks of the Euphrates from Palu to Malatiyeh. The accession of Theglath- phalasar III (745) put a stop to the conquests of the Vannic kings; but this meant no respite for the much weakened Hethites; their country indeed was soon again visited by the Assyrian troops, and, in 739, King Pisiris of Carchemish had to pay tribute to the Ninivite ruler. Profiting, it seems, by the political troubles which marked the close of the reign of Shalmaneser IV, Pisiris, with the help of some neighbouring chieftains, declared himself independent. It was, however, of no avail; in 717 Carchemish fell before Sargon, its king was made a prisoner, and its wealth and trade passed into the hands of the Assyrian colonists established there by the conqueror. The fall of the great Hethite capital resounded through the whole Eastern world and found an echo in the prophetical utterances of Isaias (x, 9); it marked indeed the final doom of a once powerful empire. Henceforth the Hethites, driven back to their original home in the fastnesses of the Taurus, ceased to be reckoned among the peoples worth retaining the attention of historians.

Sayce, The Hamathite Inscriptions in Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, V, p. 27-29; Idem, The Monuments of the Hittites, ibid., VII, pp. 251, 284; Idem, The Hittites. The Story of a Forgotten Empire (3rd ed., London, 1903); Wright, The Empire of the Hittites (London, 1884); Conder, Heth and Moab (London, 1889); Idem, Altaic Hieroglyphs and Hittite Inscriptions (London, 1887); Idem, The Hittites and their language (London, 1898); Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient classique, II (Paris, 1897); De Lantsheere, De la race et de la langue des Hittites in Compte rendu du congrés scientifique international des catholiques (1891); Idem, Hittites et Omorites (Brussels, 1887); HalÉvy, La langue des Hittites d'après les textes assyriens in Recherches Bibliques, pp. 270-288; Vigouroux, Les Héthéens de la Bible, leur histoire et leurs monuments in Mélanges bibliques, (2nd ed., Paris, 1889); Jensen, Hittiter und Armenien (Strasburg, 1898); Winckler, Die im Sommer 1906 in Kleinasien ausgeführten Ausgrabungen in Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung (15 Dec., 1906); Idem in Mitteilungen der Orient-Gesellschaft (Dec., 1907).

Charles L. Souvay

Franz Hettinger

A Catholic theologian; born 13 January, 1819, at Aschaffenburg; died 26 January, 1890, at Würzburg. He attended the gymnasium in his native city and afterwards, from 1836 to 1839, the academy in the same city, where he finished philosophy and began theology. As the teaching of the latter science was discontinued in this academy in 1839, he entered the ecclesiastical seminary at Würzburg and continued his studies there from the autumn of 1839 to that of 1841. Acting on the advice of Bishop Georg Anton Stahl of Würzburg, who had taught him Christian doctrine in the gymnasium of Aschaffenburg, and had then been his professor of dogmatic theology at Würzburg until 1840, he went to Rome in the fall of 1841 for a four years' course in the German College. Here he was ordained on 2 September, 1843, by Cardinal Patrizi, and upon the completion of his studies, in 1845, he received the degree of Doctor of Theology. In the first volume of his work, "Aus Welt und Kirche", Hettinger gives a full and interesting account of his student days in Rome.

After his return home, he was made chaplain at Alzenau, 3 October, 1845. On 25 October, 1847, he was appointed assistant, and on 20 May, 1852, subregent, in the ecclesiastical seminary of Würzburg. On 1 June, 1856, he became extraordinary professor, and on 16 May, 1857, ordinary professor, of patrology and propædeutics in the University of Würzburg. He took up the teaching of apologetics and homiletics, with the direction of the homiletic seminary, on 1 January, 1867. From 1871 he lectured on dogmatic theology in the place of Denzinger, whose health had failed, and after the latter's death, he became ordinary professor of dogmatic theology (16 Dec., 1884). In 1859 he received the honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the philosophical faculty of Würzburg. Twice, 1862-63 and 1867-68, he was rector of the university. Hettinger and his colleagues, Hergenröther and Denzinger, formed a brilliant constellation to which the theological faculty of Würzburg owed the high repute which it enjoyed for many years. Hettinger's merits were also recognized abroad. He was made an honorary member of the college of doctors of the theological faculty of the University of Vienna in 1866, honorary doctor of theology of Louvain in 1884, and, in 1885, honorary member of the Academia Religionis Catholicæ of Rome. He was called to Rome with Hergenröther in 1868 to assist in the preliminary work of the Vatican Council, and appointed consultor to the theologico-dogmatic commission. On 21 November, 1879, he was appointed a domestic prelate by Leo XIII.

With the qualities of a distinguished scholar of wide culture, of a clear and penetrating thinker, and of an enthusiastic teacher singularly fitted for academic instruction, Hettinger joined the brilliant gifts of a classic writer. His famous masterpiece, the "Apologie des Christenthums", was published in 2 vols. in 5 parts (Freiburg im Br., 1863-67; 2nd ed., 1815-67; 3rd ed., 1867-69; 4th ed., 1871-73; 5th ed., 1875-80; 6th ed., 1885-87). After the death of Hettinger, his pupil, Professor Eugen Müller, of Strasburg, prepared the further editions in 5 vols.; 7th ed., 1895-98; 8th ed., 1899-1900; 9th ed., 1906-8. It was translated into French, English, Portuguese, and Spanish. This work was not intended for theologians alone, but also for circulation among people of culture generally. It is one of the most important productions of apologetic literature, on account of the richness of its content and its thoroughness of argument, combined with classic clearness and beauty of language and exposition, even in its most technical and complicated passages. This was followed by the more strictly scientific "Lehrbuch der Fundamental-Theologie oder Apologetik" (2 parts, Freiburg, 1879; 2nd ed. in 1 vol., 1888). If we except the "Apologie des Christenthums", the beautiful work "Aus Welt und Kirche; Bilder und Skizzen" has had the widest circulation of any of Hettinger's writings (2 vols., Freiburg, 1885; 2nd ed., 1887; 3rd ed., 1893; 4th ed., 1897; 5th ed., 1902). It was the fruit of his repeated sojourns in Italy, and particularly Rome, and of his other vacation trips through various parts of Germany, Austria (especially Tyrol), Switzerland, and France. Some of the sketches of travel from which this work was compiled appeared first in various issues of the "Historisch-politische Blätter" (1874-84). His long and intimate study of Dante inspired the following productions: "Grundidee und Charakter der göttlichen Komödie von Dante Alighieri" (Bonn, 1876); "Die Theologie der göttlichen Komödie des Dante Alighieri in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt" (Cologne, 1879); "Die göttliche Komödie des Dante Alighieri nach ihrem wesentlichen Inhalt und Charakter dargestellt. Ein Beitrag zu deren Würdigung und Verständniss" (Freiburg, 1880; 2nd ed., 1889, tr. by Father Sebastian Bowden as "Dante's Divina Commedia, Its Scope and Value", London, 1887); "De theologiæ speculativæ ac mysticæ connubio in Dantis præsertim trilogiâ" (Würzburg, 1882); "Dante und Beatrice" (Frankfort, 1883); "Dantes Geistesgang" (Cologne, 1888). To the domain of practical theology belong the two following excellent and invaluable works, which were the last written by Hettinger: "Aphorismen über Predigt und Prediger" (Freiburg, 1888; 2nd ed., edited by P. Hüls, 1907), and "Timotheus. Briefe an einen jungen Theologen" (Freiburg, 1890; the following editions prepared by Albert Ehrhard: 2nd ed., 1897; 3rd ed., 1909; also tr. into Spanish and English, Freiburg, 1901 and 1902).

Of Hettinger's lesser writings there remain to be mentioned: "Das Priesterthum der katholischen Kirche. Primizpredigten" (Ratisbon, 1851; 2nd ed. edited by Eugen Müller, 1897); "Die kirchlichen und socialen Zustände von Paris" (Mainz, 1852); "Die Idee der geistlichen Uebungen nach dem Plane des hl. Ignatius von Loyola" (Ratisbon, 1853; 2nd ed. prepared by Rudolf Handmann, S.J., 1908); "Herr, den du liebst, der ist krank. Ein Kranken- und Trostbuch" (Würzburg, 1855, 3rd ed., 1878; 5th ed., 1904); "Die Liturgie der Kirche und die lateinische Sprache" (Würzburg, 1856); "Der Organismus der Universitätswissenschaften und die Stellung der Theologie in demselben" (rectoral discourse, Würzburg, 1862); "Die Kunst im Christenthum" (rectoral discourse, Würzburg, 1867); "Die kirchliche Vollgewalt des apostolischen Stuhles" (Freiburg, 1873; 2nd ed., 1887); "Der kleine Kempis, Brosamen aus den meist unbekannten Schriften des Thomas von Kempis" (Freiburg, 1874; 2nd ed., 1900); "David Friedrich Strauss. Ein Lebens- und Literaturbild" (Freiburg, 1875); "Thomas von Aquin und die europäische Civilisation" (Frankfort, 1880); " Die 'Krisis des Christenthums', Protestantismus und katholische Kirche" (Freiburg, 1881); "Dreifaches Lehramt. Gedächtnissrede auf Denzinger" (Freiburg, 1883). Numerous treatises and some more considerable essays, which were partly preparations for his great works, were published by Hettinger in various reviews: "Katholische Wochenschrift" (Würzburg, 1853-56); "Katholik" (1860-62); "Chilianeum" (Würzburg, 1862-69); "Oesterreichische Vierteljahresschrift für katholische Theologie" (1865); "Historisch-politische Blätter" (1874-90); "Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift" (Linz, 1881-87, 1889-90). "Gutachten der theologischen Facultät der k. Julius-Maximilians-Universität in Würzburg über fünf ihr vorgelegte Fragen das bevorstehende ökumenische Concil in Rom betreffend" (printed in "Chilianeum", New Series, Vol. II, 1869, pp. 258-307; and separately, Würzburg, 1870) was written jointly by Hettinger and Hergenröther, the former being the author of the parts concerning dogma, and the latter, of the historico-canonical matter.

STAMMINGER, Gedenkblatt an den Hochwürdigsten Herrn Dr. Franz Ser. Hettinger (2nd ed., with portrait, Würzburg, 1890); RENNINGER, Prälat Hettinger, ein Lebensbild, in Katholik, I (1890, 385-402; GÖPFERT, Gedächtnissrede auf F. Hettinger (Würzburg, 1890); ATZBERGER in Jahresbericht der Görres-Gesellschaft (1890), 25-29; MÜLLER in Vol. I of the 7th-9th editions of Apologie des Christenthums, edited by him; KAUFMANN, Franz Hettinger, Erinnerungen eines dankbaren Schülers (Frankfort, 1891); Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, L, 283 sq.

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT.

Pierre Heude

Missionary to China and zoologist; b. at Fougères in the Department of Ille-et-Vilaine, France, 25 June, 1836; d. in the Jesuit college at Zi-ka-wei, near Shanghai, 3 January, 1902. Heude entered the Society in 1856 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1867. He went in 1868 to China, where he was destined to accomplish most of his scientific work. As a boy he secured a manual of botany and eagerly learned its secrets. Even after his arrival in China he continued his botanical researches, but soon turned to zoology, in which for more than thirty years he was to labour with admirable and unflagging zeal. His first step was to pass through middle and eastern China, chiefly by water routes, between 1868 and 1881, his chief subjects of investigation then being the fresh-water molluscs of those regions. The results of these researches are to be found in "Conchyliologie fluviatile de la province de Nanking et de la Chine centrale" (Paris, 1876-85), which appeared in ten numbers. It contained eighty plates which made known numerous new species and received high commendation from the scientific colleagues of the author. To this day the most important work on the land molluscs of China is Heude's treatise: "Notes sur le mollusques terrestres de la vallée du Fleuve Bleu" (188 pages of text and 32 plates). This essay may be found in the first volume of the "Mémoires concernant l'histoire naturelle de l'Empire Chinois" (Shanghai, Imprimerie de la Mission Catholique), founded by the Jesuits of Zi-ka-wei in 1882. Of these "Mémoires" there had appeared at the time of Heude's death four volumes, of four numbers each, and the first number of volume V, containing in all more than 800 pages and, in round numbers, 200 illustrations and plates, partly coloured, in royal folio. There is in the first volume a short article by P. C. Rathouis; the rest is due to the pen of Father Heude, who by this time had taken up the study of mammals. He had in the meanwhile (1881-83) founded, with the cooperation of a number of missionaries a museum in Zi-ka-wei for the natural history of Eastern Asia, and had visited Europe to study the great museums of natural history in Paris, London, Antwerp, and Leyden.

Henceforth he directed his studies particularly to the systematic and geographical propagation of Eastern Asiatic species of mammals, as well as to a comparative morphology of classes and family groups according to tooth-formation and to skeleton. His fitness for this work arose from an extremely keen eye, and accurate memory, and the enormous wealth of material which he partly accumulated in the course of his earlier travels, partly found in the museum of Zi-ka-wei, and partly ferreted out in new expeditions which he undertook in all directions. These expeditions covered chiefly the years from 1892 to 1900. They took him to the Philippines (which he visited three times), to Singapore, Batavia, the Celebs, the Moluccas, New Guinea, Japan, Vladivostock, Cochin-China, Cambodia, Siam, Tongking. Volumes II to V of the "Mémoires" give the results of these studies in numerous articles which treat practically of all classifications of mammals, notably the "Etudes odontologiques", and, lastly, discuss the tooth-formation of the anthropoid apes and of man. As an investigator in connection with his morphological treatises, Heude carried on his work with absolute independence of method. He contented himself with the facts before him and sought little assistance from authorities. He did not fear to deduce theoretical conclusions from his own observations, which flatly contradicted the views of other investigators—e.g., Rütimeyer—consequently, he was drawn into controversies. Heude fell seriously ill at Tongking in July, 1900 (his travelling diary, which he kept scrupulously up to date, began in November, 1867, and ended 22 July, 1900), and after October, 1900, resided in Zi-ka-wei, where, though in bad health, he continued his scientific work until just before his death.

Etudes, XC (Paris, 1902); Natur und Offenbarung, XLVIII (Münster, 1902).

JOSEPH ROMPEL

John Hewett

(Alias WELDON).

English martyr; son of William Hewett of York; date of birth unknown; executed at Mile End Green, 6 October, 1588. The two names Hewett and Weldon gave rise to some confusion, and Challoner in his "Memoirs", in addition to his sketch of "John Hewit", records under the same date one John Weldon "priest of the College of Douay according to Champney and Molanus". That but one martyr is referred to is proved by Law in "Martyrs of the Year of the Armada" (The Month, XVI, 3rd ser., 71-85), chiefly on the testimony of a certain tract dated 24 Oct., 1588, entitled "A True Report of the inditement, arraignment, conviction, condemnation, and Execution of John Weldon, William Hartley, and Robert Sutton; Who suffered for high Treason, in several places, about the Citie of London on Saturday the fifth of October, Anno 1588. With the Speeches, which passed between a learned Preacher and them: Faithfullie collected, even in the same wordes so neere as might be remembered. By one of credit, that was present at the same" (London, 1588). From Caius College, Cambridge, Hewett passed to the English College, Reims, where, in 1583, he received minor orders.

Later he went to England where he was captured and banished, reaching Reims once more in November, 1585. After his ordination he returned to England, where he was again captured and exiled, early in 1587, to the Netherlands, this time only to fall into the hands of the Earl of Leicester who arrested him on a false accusation and sent him back to England for trial. In October, 1588, he was formally arraigned on a charge of obtaining ordination from the See of Rome and entering England to exercise the ministry. He was sentenced to death, and the day following was taken through the streets of London to Mile End Green, where before his execution he held disputes with two preachers, one of whom seems to have been the author of the above-mentioned tract.

CHALLONER, Memoirs of English Catholics, I (London, 1878); Douay Diaries, ed. KNOX; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.

F.M. RUDGE

Augustine Francis Hewit

Priest and second Superior General of the Institute of St. Paul the Apostle; b. at Fairfield, Conn., U.S.A., 27 November, 1820; d. in New York, 3 July, 1897. His father was Rev. Nathaniel Hewit, D.D., a prominent Congregationalist minister; and his mother, Rebecca Hillhouse Hewit, was a daughter of Hon. James Hillhouse, United States Senator from Connecticut. He was educated at the Fairfield public school, Phillips (Andover) Academy, and Amherst College, from which he was graduated in 1839. Although strictly educated in the religious sect of his parents, his aversion to its peculiar Calvinistic tenets prevented him from joining their Church until after his graduation from college, when, as he declares, he first learned that "a baptized person may claim the privilege of a Christian, if he is willing to acknowledge and ratify the covenant of which the sacrament is the sign and seal". Shortly after his conversion he began the study of theology at the Congregationalist seminary at East Windsor, Conn. Scarcely had he finished its prescribed course and been licensed to preach when he became convinced that episcopacy is of Divine origin and he entered the Episcopal Church. The Oxford Movement in that Church had already extended to America, and Hewit became one of its most ardent followers. He received the Anglican order of deacon in 1844, but with the expressed condition that he might interpret the Thirty-nine Articles in the sense of "Tract 90". The conversion of Newman in 1845 gradually unsettled his belief in the validity of the claims of Anglicanism, and he made his submission to the Catholic Church, 25 March, 1846. He then studied Catholic theology privately under the direction of Dr. Patrick N. Lynch, afterwards Bishop of Charleston, S.C., and Dr. James A. Corcoran, subsequently professor at Overbrook Seminary, Philadelphia. He was ordained priest on the first anniversary of his profession of faith by Right Rev. Ignatius A. Reynolds, D.D., Bishop of Charleston. He then became a teacher in a collegiate institute founded by Bishop England at Charleston, and assisted Bishop Reynolds in the compilation of Bishop England's works for publication. This occupation called him to Baltimore and Philadelphia, where he resided with Bishop Francis P. Kenrick and became acquainted with the Venerable John Nepomucen Neumann, C.SS.R. [Editor's note: St. John N. Neumann was canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1977]. Here he was attracted to the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, which he entered in 1849. He made his religious profession 28 Nov., 1850. As a Redemptorist he laboured principally on missions with Fathers Isaac T. Hecker, Clarence A. Walworth, Francis A. Baker, and George Deshon, until with them he was dispensed from his religious vows by a decree of the Roman Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 March, 1858. Under the leadership of Father Hecker all of these priests immediately formed the Institute of St. Paul the Apostle in New York, with a rule enjoining poverty and obedience with the obligations of the vows. Father Hewit, on account of his rare judgment, learning, and piety, was chosen to draft the first constitution and laws of this new institute, which aims to satisfy the aspirations of clerics who desire to lead an apostolic and religious life in community without assuming the canonical responsibilities of the religious state, strictly so called. As a Paulist, Father Hewit laboured assiduously in the parochial and missionary fields and in the establishment and management of "The Catholic World" magazine. He was a deep student of philosophy, theology, patristic literature, church history, and Scripture, and taught all of these branches to the first novices of the institute. He was also a prolific writer and for twenty years was one of the foremost Catholic apologists in the United States. In this field he was chiefly noted for his loyalties to the magisterium of the Church and his agreement with the opinions of the most approved theologians. He wrote nothing that could be styled original; he simply aimed to explain and popularize the teaching of the doctors and saints of Holy Church. Most of his articles were published in "The Catholic World" and "The American Catholic Quarterly Review", and a few of them have reappeared in a volume entitled "Problems of the Age with Studies in St. Augustine on Kindred Topics". His most popular book was "The Life of Rev. Francis A. Baker", one of his companions, who died in 1865. "The King's Highway", which he wrote in 1874, is an excellent work to place in the hands of Protestants who are seeking truth from Scripture. Upon the death of Father Hecker (1888), Father Hewit was almost unanimously chosen superior general of the institute and held this office until his death. One of his first acts as superior was to pledge the Paulist community to support the Catholic University at Washington, D.C. St. Thomas College for the education of candidates of the institute was accordingly opened in one of the university buildings in 1889. Under his direction, Rev. Walter Elliott, C.S.P., gave the first regular missions to non-Catholics in the United States, and a new foundation of the institute was established in San Francisco, Cal.

Hewit, How I became a Catholic, Stories of Conversions (New York, 1892). Very Rev. Augustine F. Hewit in The Cahtolic World (August, 1897); O'Keefe, Very Rev. Augustine F. Hewit in Amer. Cath. Quarterly Review (July, 1903); Hewit, Life of Rev. Francis A. Baker (New York, 1865); Elliott, Life of Isaac Thomas Hecker (New York, 1891); Walworth, The Oxford Movement in America (New York, 1895).

HENRY H. WYMAN

Hexaemeron

Hexaemeron signifies a term of six days, or, technically, the history of the six days' work of creation, as contained in the first chapter of Genesis. The Hexaemeron in its technical sense -- the Biblical Hexaemeron -- is the subject of the present article. We shall consider: I. Text; II. Source; III. Meaning .

I. TEXT OF THE HEXAEMERON

The Hexaemeron prooper deals with the six days of the earth's formation, or the so-called Second Creation. In its Biblical setting it is preceeded by the account of the First Creation, and is followed by the mention of the seventh day, or the Day of Rest. Completeness and clearness render it advisable to give the text of both of these additions.

A. First Creation

Verse 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2: And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

B. Second Creation

(a) Work of Division

First Day. -- Verse 3: And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4: And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5: And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Second Day. -- Verse 6: And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7: And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8: And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

Third Day. -- Verse 9: God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. 10: And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

(b) Work of Adornment

Verse 11: And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12: And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Fourth Day. -- Verse 14: And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. 15: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done. 16: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. 17: And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. 18: And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19: And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

Fifth Day. -- Verse 20: God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. 21: And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22: And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. 23: And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

Sixth Day. -- Verse 24: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25: And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26: And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27: And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28: And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29: And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. 31: And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

C. Day of Rest

Chapter ii, verse 1: So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. 2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3: And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The work of division separates between light and darkness, between the waters above and the waters below, between the seas and the dry land: the work of adornment covers the earth with vegetation, beautifies the firmament with heavenly bodies, fills the waters with fishes, the air with birds, and the continents with animal life. The third day and the sixth are distinguished by a double work, while each of the other four days has only one production assigned to it. Including the account of what is called the First Creation, God intervenes nine distinct times: (1) He creates matter; (2) He produces light; (3) He develops the firmament (the atmosphere); (4) He raises the continents; (5) He produces vegetation; (6) He causes the heavenly bodies to be visible; (7) He produces aquatic and bird life; (8) He calls into being the land animals; (9) finally, He creates man and makes him ruler of the earth. Hence the suspicion arises that the division of God's creative acts into six days is really a schematism employed to inculcate the importance and the sanctity of the seventh day. A trace of schematism may also be detected in the grouping of the Hexaemeron into the works of division and the works of adornment, in the division of things immovable (first three days) and things that move (second three days), and even in the separate accounts of each day. These latter begin with the respective Divine edict, add in the second place the description of its fulfillment, and end with the Divine approval of the work. On each of the first three days the Creator gives a name to His new production, and He imparts His special blessing at the end of each of the last two days.

II. SOURCE OF THE HEXAEMERON

The critics no longer ask whether the Biblical cosmogny taught by the Hexaemeron can be reconciled with the results of natural science, but whence the cosmogonic ideas expressed in the Old Testament have been derived. Prescinding from minor variations, the various views as to the source of the Hexaemeron may be reduced to four: (1) The Hebrews borrowed their ideas from others; (2) the Hebrew cosmogony is an independent development of a primitive Semitic myth; (3) the Biblical cosmogony is the resultant of two elements: Divine inspiration and Hebrew folk-lore; (4) the Hexaemeron is derived from Divine Revelation.

(1) Babylonian Source

Professor J. P. Arendzen has treated of the various cosmogonic ideas of the principal ancient and modern nations in the article Cosmogony. For our present purpose it suffices to keep in mind a summary of the Babylonian traditions. The Babylonian account carries us back to a period prior to the existence of any god. The universe begins with a double, purely material, principle, Apsu and Tiamtu, male and female, probably personifying the mass of salt and sweet water, mixed into one. From these sprang first Lalimu and Lahamu, more probably the personifications of dawn and twilight than the monsters and demons with which popular mythology identified them. After a long interval Ansar and Kisar were produced, the personified ideas of the above and the below, or of heaven and earth in their most general acceptation. Another long interval intervened, and then Anu, Bel, and Ea (the sky, the earth, and the water) sprang forth. Then Ea and his consort Dauke gave birth to Belos or Marduk, the sun-god.

After this the differentiation of the watery All is seriously threatened. Tiamtu creates a set of monsters which endeavour to bring back the original chaos. Who were these monsters? Nightly darkness obscuring and enveloping all nature in the primeval shroud; black mists and vapours of fantastic shape, reuniting at times the waters of heaven and earth; continued rains threatening to deluge the earth and again to convert the celestial and terrestrial waters into the one vast original ocean; the crashing thunder and the fierce tornado, too, were among the offspring and the abetters of Tiamtu in her bitter warfare against the established order. Ansar, the lord of the comprehensive heavens, attempted in vain to overcome these foes; Ea, the deity of the earthly waters, availed still less. Finally, Marduk, the rising sun, is sent. A fearful storm ensues, a battle between Marduk and Tiamtu; but the god of the rising sun dispels the darkness, lifts the vapours in masses on high, subdues the tempest, reopens the space between heaven and earth. According to the personifying ideas of the Babylonian records, Marduk slays Tiamtu, establishes the superiority of Ansar, cleaves Tiamtu in twain, and with one half overshadows the heavens. Then he measures the watery abyss opposite the heavens and founds an edifice like Ishara, which he had built as heaven, and lets Amu, Bel, and Ea occupy their dwellings. Then he embellishes the heavens, prepares places for the great gods, makes the stars, sets the Zodiac, founds a place for Nibiru, fixes the poles, opens the gates provided with locks on either side, causes the moon to shine forth and establishes its laws. The remainder of the Babylonian tablet-series, as first known, is fragmentary, narrating only the creation of plants (possibly) and animals. Any reference to man it may have contained is broken off. But Berosus, priest of Bel, supplies this deficiency. Bel commanded one of the gods to remove his (Bel's) head and mix the earth with the thence-flowing blood, and to form men and beasts capable of enduring the light. The more recently recovered additional fragments of the Babylonian Creation Epos agree with Berosus. "Let me gather my blood", says Marduk, "and let me [take my] bone, let me set up man".

We do not here consider the question of some remote connexion between the Babylonian creation story and the Hexaemeron -- which is of course possible. But we ask: can the Babylonian story claim to be the source of the Biblical account? Their difference in form is striking, though not fully decisive. The Babylonian story knows nothing of a division into days, whereas a division into six days forms the whole framework of the Hebrew account. Again, the Babylonian presentation amplifies the plain narrative of creation with the account of the choice and of the deeds of a demiurgus: it is highly figurative and anthropomorphic to the highest degree. The Hexaemeron, on the contrary, is the sober recital, in simple yet stately prosse, of the impressive teaching concerning the development of the ordered universe from chaos. This literary excellence of the Hebrew account might be due to the special capability of the inspired writer; if no other considerations prevented it, the Hebrew writer might be thought to have borrowed his material from the Babylonian cosmogony. But the discrepancy of ideas between the profane and the inspired writer prevents such an assumption. The cuneiform record goes back to a time when the gods did not exist: the Hebrew account places God before all creation. The Babylonian cosmogony knows nothing about the production of the original chaotic matter the Hebrew writer derives even the primeval matter from the action of God. There is no idea of any creative action in the Babylonian tablets; the inspired account opens with God's creative act. The Babylonian record starts with a double material principle; the Hebrew text knows only one God. The Babylonian stories taken together describe the primeval waters as spontaneously generative; the Hebrew acount represents the material of the universe as lying waste and lifeless, and as not assuming order or becoming productive of life until the going forth of the Divine command. The Babylonian course of cosmic development is interrupted by the opposition of Tiamtu; the Hebrew Hexaemeron proceeds uninterruptedly from the less to the more perfect. According to the Babylonians the world arises out of a struggle between chaos and order, between good and evil; according to the Hebrew conception there is no opposition to the power of the Divine command. In the light of all these discrepancies between the Babylonian and the Hebrew cosmogonies, it is hardly possible to consider the former the source of the latter.

In reply, the critics grant that "the cosmogony of Gen., i, cannot have been simply taken over from the Babylonians"; they add, therefore, the following two modifications: (a) The Hebrew Hexaemeron does not correspond to the first part of the Babylonian account, but only to the formative work ascribed to Marduk. (b) "Circumstanced as the Israelites were, we must allow for the possibility of Phœnecian, Egyptian, and Persian, as well as Babylonian influences, and we must not refuse to take a passing glance at cosmogonies of less civilized peoples."

Both of these modifications deserve a passing examination.

(a) It is urged that in Marduk's work the primeval light, the primeval flood, the production of heaven by the division of the primeval flood, the order of the creative acts, the Divine admonitions addressed to men after their creation, and the creation by a word are so many points of contat between the Hebrew and the Babylonian cosmogony. But several of these points present a discrepancy rather than a harmony. The critics themselves admit that the parallelism "in the present form of Gen., i, is imperfect"; they admit, too, that the Babylonian record does not mention creation by a word, but they merely suppose that this idea must have been prominent in the full Babylonian epic. It is true that Marduk, being the sun-god, was a god of light, but it is probable that the Babylonian primeval light is represented by Lahmu and Lahamu, the dawn and the twilight; again, Marduk is only a demiurge, a creature, and as such does not resemble the Hebrew God. Moreover, Marduk has no connexion with the primeval waters in the Babylonian account; he is at best the restorer of the order destroyed by Tiamtu. He does not produce heaven, but only reopens the space between heaven and earth. Finally, it would be hard to imagine a greater discrepancy than is found between the Babylonian story of man's creation and the Hebrew account of the event. The source of the Hexaemeron, therefore, is not the Babylonian record of Marduk's work.

(b) The appeal of the critics to Phœnician, Egyptian, and Persian influences is of a rather elusive character. It is hard to see which particular points of these various cosmogonies can be said to have influenced the Hebrew writer. The Phœnicians begin with air moved by a breath of wind, and dark chaos; another account places first time, then desire, then darkness. The union of desire and darkness begets air (representing pure thought) and breath (the prototype of life); from these springs the cosmic egg. Sun, moon, and stars spring from the cosmic egg, and under the influence of light and heat the cosmic development continues, till the present universe is completed. The Egyptian cosmogony does not appear to contain any elements more fit to serve as the source of the Hexaemeron than are the Phœnician successive evolutions. In the beginning we find the primeval waters called Nun, containing the male and female germs, and informed by the divine proto-soul. The latter felt a desire (personified as the got Thot) for creative activity, the image of the future universe having formed itself in the eyes of Thot. Thot causes a movement in the waters, and the latter differentiate themselves into four pairs of deities, male and female. These cosmogonic gods transform the invisible divine will of Thot into a visible universe. First an egg is formed, out of which arises the god of light, Ra; he is the immediate cause of life in this world. In the subsequent formation of the universe the great Ennead of gods concurs. Variations of this cosmogony are found in the more popular accounts of creation, but they are not such as might be regarded as the source of the Hebrew cosmogony. The Persian cosmogony is really the second phase of the Iranian concept of creation. The great characteristic of Iranian thought is its dualism, which gradually tends towards monism. The early Persian phase dates from the time of the Sassanids, but in its present form is not earlier than the seventh century of the Christian Era. At any rate it seems quite impossible that the well-ordered and clear account of the Hexaemeron should be the outcome of the complicated and obscure presentation of the Avesta and the Pahlavi literature. Generally speaking, the Biblical Hexaemeron cannot be surpassed in grandeur, dignity, and simplicity. To derive it from any of the profane cosmogonies implies a derivation of order from disorder, of beauty from hideousness, of the sublime from the bizarre.

(2) Primitive Semitic Myth

Professor T. K. Cheyne ("Encyclopædia Biblica", art. "Creation", 940) writes: "Either the Hebrew and the Babylonian accounts are independent developments of a primitive Semitic myth, or the Hebrew is borrowed directly or indirectly from the Babylonian." We have already excluded the second alternative. Professor Cheyne himself proves, against Dillmann, that the first alternative is inadmissible. A specifically Hebrew myth ought to be in keeping with the natural surroundings of the people. And, as the human mind naturally pictures to itself the first rise of the world as it still arises every day and every year, a distinctively Hebrew myth of the first rise, or the creation, of the universe should be a picture of the early morning and the springtime in Palestine or the Syro- Arabian desert. The watery chaos of the Hexaemeron, its division into the waters above and the waters below, and its separation between the waters and the dry land, do not agree with the sandy and desert country of the Hebrews. If it could be established that the Babylonian cosmogony is a mere nature myth, the foregoing data would agree with the phenomena of the Babylonian spring and the Babylonian morning. Owing to the heavy rains, the Babylonian plain looks like the sea during the long winter; then the god of the vernal sun, Marduk, brings forth the land anew, dividing the waters of Tiamtu, and sending them partly upwards as clouds, partly downwards to the rivers and canals. Again, the god of the rising sun, Marduk, every day conquers the cosmic sea, Tiamtu, dispelling the chaos of darkness, and dividing the nightly mists and fogs of the plain. A similar origin is quite impossible from a purely Hebrew point of view. While the foregoing considerations are hardly conclusive against those who admit a supernatural element in the formation of the Hebrew cosmogony, they are quite convincing against those who regard the Hebrew views on creation as a mere nature myth.

(3) Hebrew Folk-Lore

Those who regard Hebrew folk-lore as the source of the Hexaemeron point out that each nation has its tradition concerning its early history, or rather concerning men who lived and events which happened before the properly historical age of the nation. Among the Hebrews similar traditions must have existed, even including views as to the origin of the universe. Combining this fact with the Christian doctrine that the Biblical Hexaemeron is Divinely inspired, we may ask whether its text may not be a snatch of folk-lore, by Divine influence purged of error and of all that is not in keeping with the sacred character of the word of God, and committed to writing in order to teach men that the whole universe is the creature of God, and that the seventh day must be sanctified. In this case, the first chapter of Genesis would not be supernaturally revealed in the strictest sense of the word, but it would be an infallible record of an ancient belief, current among the Hebrews, as to the origin of the world. The sacred writer would have left us an inspired report of a Hebrew tradition just as other inspired writers have left us inspired accounts of certain historical documents. In itself, such a view of Gen., i, does not seem impossible; but, taking the Hexaemeron in the light of Christian tradition, its folk-lore theory of origin seems to be inadmissible. The Fathers, the early ecclesiastical writers, the Scholastics, and the more recent commentators would have been wrong in their endeavours to explain each sentence and even every word of Gen., i, in the same strict way in which they interpret the most sacred passages of Scripture. Their occasional recourse to figure and allegory only shows their conviction that the Hexaemeron contains not only inspired but also strictly revealed truth. A Catholic interpreter can hardly surrender such an uninterrupted Christian tradition in order to make room for a theory which sprang up only towards the end of the nineteenth century. Nor can it be urged that every sentence and every word of the Hebrew tradition concerning the origin of the universe, purified and infallibly preserved to us by inspiration, are equivalent to the strictly revealed passages of Scripture. Such an assumption concerning a profane ancient tradition implies the admission of a greater miracle than is demanded by a supernatural revelation in the strict sense of the word. Besides, the patrons of the folk-lore theory must explain the origin or source of the sublime Hebrew tradition, the existence of which they assume; thus they burden themselves with all the difficulties which are encountered by the critics in their endeavours to explain the natural origin of the creation myths.

Finally the Biblical Commission in a decree issued 30 June, 1909, denies the existence of any solid foundation for the various exegetical systems devised and defended with a show of science to exclude the literal, historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis; in particular, it forbids the teaching of the view that the said three chapters of Genesis contain, not accounts of things which have really happened, but either fables derived from mythologies and the cosmogonies of ancient peoples, and by the sacred author expurgated of all error of polytheism and adapted to monotheistic doctrine, or allegories and symbols destitute of any foundation of objective reality and proposed under the form of history to inculcate historical and philosophical truths, or legends partly historical and partly fictitious freely composed for the instruction and edification of minds. The commission bases its prohibition on the character and historical form of the Book of Genesis, the special nexus of the first three chapters with one another and with those that follow, the almost unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and the traditional sense which, transmitted by the people of Israel, the Church has ever held.

(4) Revelation

As no man witnessed the creation and formation of the universe, all human speculations concerning this subject present only conjectures and hypotheses. In this field we obtain certain knowledge only by Divine revelation. Whether God granted this revelation by way of language, or by vision, or by another more intellectual process, we do not know; all of these methods are possible, and as such they may enter into the exegesis of Gen., i. Again, though very plausible reasons may be advanced for the thesis that God granted such a revelation to the first man, Adam, they are not absolutely convincing; the full instruction as to the origin of the world may have been given at a later period, perhaps only to the inspired writer of the Hexaemeron. If the revelation in question was granted at an earlier time, perhaps immediately after man's creation, its substance may have been preserved by the aid of a special providence among the ancestors of the Hebrews. While the primitive doctrine degenerated among the races into their respective cosmogonies, modified by their various natural surroundings, one race may have kept alive the spark of Divine truth as it had been received from God in the cradle of humanity. Or, if such a purity of doctrine among the Hebrew ancestors appears to be incompatible with the vagaries of other Semitic cosmogonies, it may be assumed that God partially or wholly repeated His primitive revelation, during the time of the Patriarchs, for instance, or of Moses. At any rate, the attitude of Christian tradition towards the Hexaemeron implies its revealed character; hence, whatever theories may be held as to its transmission, its ultimate source is Divine revelation.

III. MEANING OF THE HEXAEMERON

The genuine meaning of the Hexaemeron is not self-evident. The history of its exegesis shows that even the greatest minds differ in their opinion as to its real meaning. All interpreters begin by feeling the need of an explanation of this passage of the Bible, and all end by differing from all other interpreters. There are hints as to the meaning of Gen., i, in other parts of Scripture. Prov., iii, 19 sq.; viii, 22 sq.; Wisd., ix, 9; Ecclus., xxiv, refer to the personal Divine Wisdom what the Hexaemeron attributes to the word of God; Prov., viii, 23 sqq., and Ecclus., xxiv, 14, exclude eternal creation. The words of the woman recorded in II Mach., vii, 28, inculcate a production out of nothing. Ps. ciii and Job, xxxviii sq., give a poetical amplification of the Hexaemeron. But these Biblical elucidations cannot claim to be a commentary on Gen., i. Nor has the Church given us any official explanation of the Mosaic account of God's creative work. We must, therefore, rely on the principles of Catholic hermeneutics and the writings of Catholic interpreters for our understanding of the Hexaemeron. It will be found convenient, in our review of the pertinent exegetical work, to distinguish between literal and allegorical explanations.

The legitimate character of this method of proceeding will become clear in the light of the aforesaid decree of 30 June, 1909, issued by the Biblical Commission. After safeguarding the literal, historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis in as far as they bear on the facts touching the foundations of the Christian religion -- e.g., the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race -- the commission lays down several special principles as to the interpretation of the first part of Genesis: -- (1) Where the Fathers and Doctors differ in their interpretation, without handing down anything as certain and defined, it is lawful, saving the judgment of the Church and preserving the analogy of faith, for everybody to follow and defend his own prudently adopted opinion. (2) When the expressions themselves manifestly appear to be used improperly, either metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when either reason prohibits our holding the proper sense, or necessity compels us to set it aside, it is lawful to depart from the proper sense of the words and phrases in the above-mentioned chapters. (3) In the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church herself, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some parts of the said chapters may be wisely and usefully employed. (4) In interpreting the first chapter of Genesis we need not always look for the precision of scientific language, since the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the intimate constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but to give his people a proper notion according to the common mode of expression of the time. (5) In the denomination and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis the word yôm (day) can be taken either in its proper sense, as a natural day, or in an improper sense, for a period of time, and discussion on this point among exegetes is legitimate.

A. Literal Explanations

Literal explanations do not necessarily exclude the admission of any figurative language in the Hexaemeron. The various actions of God, for instance -- His commands, His review of His work, His blessings -- are expressed in anthropomorphic language. But a literal explanation insists on the literal interpretation of the six days, understanding them as periods corresponding to our spaces of twenty-four hours.

(a) Non-Concordist Interpretations

The author of IV Esdr., vi, 38 sqq., is excessive in the literalness of his interpretation; he also supplements the Biblical account of creation with profane Jewish traditions. Omitting the views of Theophilus of Antioch ("Ad Autol.", II, in P. G., VI, 1069 sqq.), Hippolytus (fragm, in P. G., X, 583 sqq.), Tertullian ("Adv. Hermog.", xix sqq., in P. L., II, 214 sqq.), and Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.", V, xiv, in P. G., IX, 129 sqq.), who have dealt only cursorily with the Hexaemeron problem, we find patrons of the literal interpretation of Gen., i, in such writers as Ephraem (Opp., ed. Rome, 1737, I), Jacob of Edessa (ibid., p. 116), Diodorus of Tarsus (P. G., XXXIII, 1561 sqq.), Theodore of Mopsuestia (P. G., LXVI, 636 sqq.), St. Basil (P. G., XXIX, 17), Gregory of Nyssa ("Hexaemeron" in P. G., XLIV, 68), Philoponus ("De mundi creatione"; ed. Corderius, Vienna, 1730), Gregory the Great ("Mor." in Job, xl, 10, in P. L. LXXVI, 644 sqq.), the Venerable Bede ("Hexaemeron" in P. L., XCI, 10 sqq.), Rabanus Maurus ("Comm. in Gen." in P. L., CVII, 439), Walafried ("Gloss ord." in P. L., XCIII, 67), Hugh of St. Victor ("Annot. in pentateuch"; "De sacram. fidei" in P. L., CLXXV, 29, and CLXXVI, 173), and other authors of minor importance. During the Scholastic age, too, the literal interpretation of the Hexaemeron was the prevalent one, as may be seen in the great works of Peter Lombard (Sent., II), Bl. Albertus Magnus (Summ. theol., II, tract. XI), and St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. lxv sqq.). Most of the subsequent commentators urged the literal sense of the Hexaemeron; this is true even of the early Protestant writers who were always insisting on the primitive text of Scripture. The scientific difficulties implied in the literal interpretation of Gen., i, were explained mainly by recourse to miracle, a method occasionally employed even down to our own day by some theological writers. We call these interpreters non- Concordist, not because they do not explain the difficulties in an absolutely possible way, but because they have no regard for the harmony between the inspired record and the laws of nature.

(b) The Hexaemeron Prior to the Geological Strata

In order to avoid any opposition between the Hexaemeron and the data of geology, it has been attempted to place the geological formations after the six days of creation. A. González de Sala (1650), I. Woodward (1659), I. Scheuchzer (1731), and others expressed the opinion that our present geological strata, fossils, etc. are due to the waters of the Deluge. G. Leibniz, A. L. Moro (1740), and others expressed their belief that the influence of fire and heat had been at least partial causes of the present conformation of the earth's crust and surface. There was a great diversity of opinion as to the real length of time covered by the six days: G. Wiston (1696) maintained that before the rotation of the earth around its axis a day lasted a year; G. L. Buffon (1749) required a hundred thousand years for the Hexaemeron; while I. E. Silberschlag (1780) is content with six natural days. Among more recent writers the following are Diluvialists: C. F. Keil ("Biblischer Commentar", Leipzig, 1866), P. Laurent ("Etudes géologiques", Paris, 1863), A. Sorignet ("La Cosmogonie de la Bible", etc., Paris, 1854), V. M. Gatti ("Institutiones apologetico-polemicæ", 1867), I. E. Veith ("Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt", Vienna, 1865), A. Bosizio ("Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie", Mainz, 1865; "Die Geologie und die Sündfluth", Mainz, 1877), A. Trisel ("Sündfluth oder Gletscher?" Munich, 1894, and "Das biblische Sechstagewerk", Ratisbon, 1894), G. I. Burg ("Biblische Chronologie", Trier, 1894). But this theory does not fully agree with the Biblical account of the Flood, nor does it satisfy the geologists.

(c) The Hexaemeron Posterior to the Geological Data

Another class of writers, whom we may call Restitutionists, are of the opinion that the Hexaemeron gives the history of the restoration of the earth after it had been so utterly destroyed that its chaos is properly described in Gen., i, 2. The geological data belong, therefore, to the period preceding this destruction of the world. Among the patrons of this theory we may mention: I. G. Rosenmüller ("Antiquissima telluris historia", Ulm, 1776), W. F. Hetzel ("Die Bibel, Altes und Neues Test.", Lemgo, 1780), Th. Chalmers ("Review of Cavier's Theory of the Earth", Edinburgh, 1814; "Evidence and Authority of the Divine Revelation", Edinburgh, 1814), N. Wiseman ("Twelve Lectures", London, 1849), W. Buckland ("Geology and Mineralogy", London, 1838). The following interpreters identified the primeval destruction of the earth with the catastrophe brought on by the fall of the angels: L. Schmid ("Erklärung der hl. Schriften", etc., Münster, 1834), A. Westermayer ("Das Alte Testament und seine Bedeutung", Schaffhausen, 1861), and I. H. Kurtz ("Bibel und Astronomie", Berlin, 1842). The speculations implied in this theory are hardly upheld by Sacred Scripture.

(d) The Hexaemeron within the Geological Formations

Father Pianciani has expressed the view that the six days of the Hexaemeron, though natural days, may not be continuous days; they may be picked out from among the long geological periods to which they respectively belong in such a way as to illustrate, as it were, the work going on in the several formative ages. A vast space of time may intervene between every two consecutive days, so as to make the six days cover the whole period of geological formation. But this explanation is hardly in keeping with the Biblical account of the six days. Besides, it can hardly be maintained that long ages intervened between the sixth and seventh day.

(e) The Hexaemeron is a Vision

Father von Hummelauer ("Commentarius in Genesim", Paris, 1895) feels convinced, on the one hand, that the Hexaemeron speaks of six natural days, and that, on the other hand, it does not oppose the certain results of science. He believes that the vision theory will safeguard both these requirements. Instead of revealing the origin of the world in so many words, God showed Adam in a vision the general dependence of everything on His creative power; hence the Biblical Hexaemeron must be explained in the way in which other Scriptural visions are interpreted. The real length of time covered by the six visional days is not determined by Scripture; even the sequence of certain details may be different in nature from that in the vision, so that this theory does not interfere with the data of geology, while it safeguards the veracity of the inspired record. It is urged that the idea of Adam's learning the history of the origin of the world in a vision was suggested by Chrysostom (P. G., LIII, 27), Severianus Gabalitus ("Or. V", P. G. LVI, 431), and Junilius Africanus ("Instit. regularia", lib. I, iii sq., in P. L. LXVIII, 17), for they taught that Moses learned the cosmogony by means of a prophetic light illuminating past, instead of future, events. Similar views concerning the origin of the Biblical cosmogony are advanced by Basil (P. G., XXIX, 5), Ambrose (P. L., XIV, 131 sqq.), Eustathius (P. L., LIII, 869), Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLIV, 65), Procopius (P. G., LXXXVII, 28), and other early writers. In more recent times the vision theory has ben explained and partly defended by such writers as I. H. Kurtz ("Bibel und Astronomie", Berlin, 1842), H. Miller ("The Testimony of the Rocks", Edinburgh, 1857), F. W. Schultz ("Die Schöpfungsgeschichte nach Naturwissenschaft und Bibel", Gotha, 1865), H. Reusch ("Bibel und Natur", Freiburg, 1870), F. de Rougemont ("Le surnaturel démontré par les sciences naturelles", Neuchâtel, 1870), B. Schäfer ("Bibel und Wissenschaft", Münster, 1881), Moigno ("Les splendeurs de la foi", Paris, 1877), E. Bougaud ("Le christianisme et les temps présents", Paris, 1878), M.I. Scheeben ("Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik", Freiburg, 1878), von Hummelauer ("Der biblische Schöpfungsbericht", Freiburg, 1877; "Stimmen aus Maria Laach", XXII, 1882, p. 97), V. Becker ("Studien op godsdienstig, wetenschappelik en letterkundig gebied", Brussels and Bar-le-Duc, 1879), I. Corlay ("Spicil. dogm.-bibl.", I, 880 sqq., Ghent, 1884; "La science catholique", 15 July, 1889), W. Gray Elmslie ("The First Chapter of Genesis" in "Contemporary Review", 1887), and some anonymous authors ("The Mosaic Record in Harmony with the Geological", London, 1855; the "Katholik", I, 1879, p. 250 sqq.). Still, there are other interpreters who take exception to the vision theory; they urge that in other parts of the Bible the presence of a vision is always indicated, that such a practical precept as the observance of the Sabbath cannot be based on a mere vision, etc.

(f) The Poetic Theory

We omit here the view that the Hexaemeron is merely an inspired record of a Semitic myth or a profane tradition (cf. F. Lenormant, "Origines", I); this theory has been considered above. In a modified form it has been adopted by those writers who consider the Biblical cosmogony as a poem incorporated by Moses in the Book of Genesis. G. E. Paulus ("Neues Repertorium", Jena, 1790) calls Gen., i, a Sabbath hymn; Rorison ("Replies to Essays and Reviews", 1861), a creation psalm; Huxtable (The Sacred Record of Creation), a parable intended to teach the keeping of the Sabbath; Bishop Clifford ("Dublin review", 1881, I, p. 311 sqq.; II, p. 498 sqq.; "The London Tablet", 1881, April to July), a scheme to consecrate each day of the week to a particular creative act of God, so as to do away with the previous consecration of the weekdays to the several heathen gods. But both the setting of the Hexaemeron in the Book of Genesis and the constant tradition concerning its literary character agree in proclaiming its historicity; the poetic theory is at variance with this testimony.

B. Allegorical Explanations

Philo maintained the eternity of matter, identified the light of the first day with the angels, and gave a similar allegorical explanation of the other cosmogonic days. Origen, too ("Hom. in Hex." in P. G., XII, 145 sqq.; "De princ.", lib. IV, n. 16, and "C. Cels.", lib. VI, 60, in P. G., XI, 376 sq., 1380), follows an allegorical explanation -- the light of the first day denotes the angels, the abyss is hell, the upper and lower waters are the good and bad angels, the sun and the moon are Christ and His Church, etc. The world was created simultaneously, the various days denote only the diversity of created objects. Athanasius ("Or. II, c. Arian.", n. 60, in P. G., XXVI, 276) also appears to maintain a simultaneous creation of the world; Procopius ("Comment." in P. G., LXXXVII, 28 sqq.) regards the days of the Hexaemeron as purely ideal, indicating the order of created things. St. Augustine attempted three different times to explain the Hexaemeron in a literal sense, but each time he ended with an allegorical exegesis. In 389 ("De Gen. c. Manich." in P. L., XXXIV, 173) he arrived at the conclusion that the cosmogonic evening and morning denote the completion and the inception of each successive work. In 393 ("De Gen. ad lit. lib. imperf." in P. L., XXXIV, 221) the great African Doctor starts again with a literal explanation of Gen., i, but is soon perplexed by the questions: Did God consume the whole day in creating the various works? -- How could there be days before there were heavenly luminaries? -- How could there be light before the existence of the sun and the stars? -- This leads him to adopt simultaneous creation, to identify the light of the first day with the angels, and to explain the evening and morning by the limitation and the beauty of the various created objects. In 401 Augustine began the third time to explain the Hexaemeron ("De Gen. ad lit. libr. XII" in P. L., XXXIV, 245; cf. "Retract.", II, 24; Confess.", lib. XII sq., in P. L., XXXII, 825), but published his results only fifteen years later. He admits again a simultaneous formation of the world, so that the six days indicate an order of dignity -- angels, the firmament, the earth, etc. Morning and evening he refers now to the knowledge of the angels, assuming that they denote respectively the angelic vision of things in the Word of God, and the vision of the objects themselves. The opinion of Augustine was followed by pseudo-Eucherius ("Comm. in Gen." in P. L., L, 893), Isidore ("Quæst. ex V. et N. T." in P. L., XXXV, 2213), Alcuin ("Interr. et respons. in Gen." in P. L., C, 515), Scotus Eriugena ("De divis. natur." in P. L., CXXII, 439), Rupertus ("De Trinit. et oper. ejus" in P. L., CLXVII, 199), and Abelard ("Expos. in Hex." in P. L., CLXXVIII, 731). In the sixteenth century, too, Cajetan and Melchior Cano adhered to the view of a simultaneous creation (cf. "Loc. theol.", Salamanca, 1563). In the following centuries this allegorical interpretation developed into two main branches. --

(a) The Concordists

I. Kant (1755) and P. S. Laplace (1796) suggested that the stars were formed under the influence of the force of gravity by the rotation of the primitive body of matter around its own axis. G. Cuvier ("Discours sur les révolutions du globe", Paris, 1812) divided the ages of geological formation into six periods and separated one from the other by great catastrophes. He was followed in this by M. de Serres (De la cosmogonie de Moïse), J. F. Krüger ("Geschichte der Urwelt", Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1822), D. A. de Frayssinous ("Défense du christianisme", Paris, 1825), A. Nicolas ("Etudes philosophiques sur le Christianisme", Paris, 1842), and I. B. Pianciani ("In historiam creationis mosaicam commentatio", Naples, 1851). C. Lyell (1836-38) denied the occurrence of the six great catastrophes, substituting an imperceptibly slow process of geological formation in their place. Still, there remains the general division into the palæozoic, the mesozoic, and the cenozoic strata; the first are characterized by their remains of carboniferous plants; the second by traces of amphibious and fish life; the third show remnants of mammals. These periods correspond, therefore, roughly speaking, to the third, fifth, and sixth days of the Hexaemeron. Similarly, there appear to be astronomical periods which correspond to the first, second, and fourth days of Gen., i. It is not surprising, therefore, that the so-called Concordists have found these six long periods in the six days of the Hexaemeron, and have endeavoured to establish an identity between the product of each period and the work described in each day of Gen., i. Moreover, these scholars point out that the Hebrew word translated "day" does not necessarily mean a natural day; that, in the absence of the sun, the first three days of the Hexaemeron cannot be natural days, and that therefore the second three days are not necessarily natural days; again, that the seventh day is certainly not a natural day, so that the first six days must be indefinite periods of time rather than natural days. Among the writers who favour this theory we may name: C. G. Hensler ("Bemerkungen über Stellen aus den Psalmen und der Genesis", Kiel, 1791), S. Turner ("Sacred History of the World", 3rd ed., London, 1833), H. Miller ("The Testimony of the Rocks", Edinburgh, 1857), I. Ebrard ("Der Glaube an die heilige Schrift und die Ergebnisse der Naturforschung", Königsberg, 1851), Mgr Meignan ("Le monde et l'homme primitif", Paris, 1869), G. Molloy ("Geology and Revelation", London, 1870), M. Pozzy ("La terre et le récit biblique de la création", Paris, 1874). On the other hand, it has been pointed out that more than 20,000 species of animal life are found in the old palæozoic strata, while the fruit-bearing plants are found only in the mesozoic strata; moreover, that the plants found in the palæozoic strata resemble the plants found in the more recent strata, so that they must have needed the light of the sun, though the sun appeared only in the period succeeding that of the palæozoic strata; finally, that, according to the obvious sense of the text, the work of each day of the Hexaemeron was complete before the next day commenced. Arguments like these are urged by such writers as H. Reusch ("Bibel und Natur", 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1870, pp. 235 sqq.; 4th ed., 1876, pp. 344 sqq.) and C. Gütler ("Naturforschung und Bibel", Freiburg, 1877, pp. 91 sqq.).

(b) The Idealists

We have seen that St. Augustine and a number of patristic writers maintained the simultaneity of creation, and regarded the division into six days only as a classification of the various things created. The Idealists take their start from the second part of St. Augustine's position, while for the great African Doctor's simultaneous creation they substitute the gradual development of the earth as demanded by the scientist. Among the first to propose this theory was F. Michelis ("Natur und Offenbarung", Münster, 1855). He believes that Moses narrates the creation story as an historian might write the life of Charlemagne by considering him successively as king, as lawgiver, as Christian, as father of a family. Reusch, who had been a Concordist in the first editions of his great work, became an Idealist in the third edition ("Bibel und Natur", Freiburg, 1870). Father Braun ("Ueber Kosmogonie vom Standpunkt christlicher Wissenschaft", Münster, 1889) endeavours to combine Concordism with Idealism. I. B. Baltzer ("Die biblische Schöpfungsgeschichte", Leipzig, 1867), Reusch ("Theol. Literatur-Blatt", Bonn, 1867, p. 232), C. Gützler ("Naturforschung und Bibel", Freiburg, 1877, pp. 101 sqq.), and Schäfer ("Bibel und Wissenschaft", Münster, 1881, pp. 237 sq.) have written against Idealism either as a whole or in its various special forms. The cosmogonic days and their succession, as exhibited in the Hexaemeron, appear to lose all meaning in the Idealists' theory.

Considering the foregoing theories without bias, and in the light of both science and Revelation, a moderate form of Concordism or the theory of vision will be found to serve the Catholic interpreter most effectually both from a scientific and a critical point of view.

Gunkel and Zimmern, Schöpfung und Chaos (Göttingen, 1895); Delitsch, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos (Leipzig, 1896); Jensen, Mythen und Epen (Berlin, 1900); Loisy, Les mythes babyloniens (Paris, 1905); Damascus, Quæstiones de primis principiis, ed. Kopf (1826); Abydenus in Eusebius, Præpar. evang., IX, xli; Berosus in Eusebius, Chronicon, Armenian version, according to Alexander Polyhistor; Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition (London, 1894); Lagrange, Etudes sur les religions sémitiques (2nd ed., Paris, 1905); Vigouroux, Manuel biblique (9th ed.), I, 499 sqq; Idem, Les Livres saints et la critique rationaliste (4th ed.), III, 235 sqq; Idem, La cosmogonie mosaïque d'après les Pères in Les Mélanges bibliques (2nd ed.), 11 sqq.; Motais, Moïse, la science et l'exégèse (Paris, 1882). -- Add all the authors and works cited in the body of the article.

A.J. Maas

Hexapla

The name given to Origen's edition of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek, the most colossal critical production of antiquity. This work was urgently demanded by the confusion which prevailed in Origen's day regarding the true text of Scripture. The Church had adopted the Septuagint for its own; this differed from the Hebrew not only by the addition of several books and passages but also by innumerable variations of text, due partly to the ordinary process of corruption in the transcription of ancient books, partly to the culpable temerity, as Origen called it, of correctors who used not a little freedom in making "corrections", additions, and suppressions, partly to mistakes in translation, and finally in great part to the fact that the original Septuagint had been made from a Hebrew text quite different from that fixed at Jamnia as the one standard by the Jewish Rabbis, under Akiba the founder of Rabbinical Judaism. Aquila, a proselyte from Christianity, gave (c. a.d. 130) a very accurate translation of this text, aiming above all at being literal; still he borrows quite freely from the Septuagint when its rendering is consistent with his own chief aim. Symmachus and Theodotion both flourished towards the end of the second century, but it is uncertain which had priority as translator. Symmachus, who was an Ebionite according to Eusebius and Jerome, a Jewish proselyte from Samaritanism according to Epiphanius, gave a new translation which was to a considerable extent a more idiomatic and elegant rendering of Aquila. It was followed extensively by Jerome in his own work as translator of the Old Testament. Both Aquila and Symmachus produced two editions to which Jerome refers. Theodotion, who was an Ebionite or a Jew, and perhaps had been a Christian, gave a version much closer than the others to the Septuagint.

The circulation of these versions, each so insistent in its claim to superiority, in so many instances differing from the Septuagint and yet so close to it in many others, made a comparison between them and the Septuagint imperative for a knowledge of the true text of Holy Scripture. The Hexapla, the concept of a great genius executed with unexampled patience and industry, is Origen's attempt to show the exact relations of the Septuagint to these versions and especially to the Hebrew text. The work itself has perished; its character, however, has been pretty well known to scholars through statements in early Church writers, through scholia on numerous manuscripts of the Bible, and through chance quotations found in the works of certain Fathers. Quite recently (1896 and 1900) fragments of the Hexaplar Psalms were fortunately discovered, which give us our only specimens of connected portions of Origen's work and afford a good idea of its general appearance. Our earliest authorities, Eusebius of Cæsarea, St. Epiphanius, and St. Jerome, agree that Origen made a collection into one work of texts and versions of the entire Old Testament, arranging them in parallel columns according to the following order: First, the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters; second, the Hebrew text transliterated into Greek characters; third, the version of Aquila; fourth, that of Symmachus; fifth, the Septuagint; sixth, the version of Theodotion. The recovered fragments corroborate this testimony, though they lack the first column. Aquila's version was placed next to the Hebrew, most probably because it was the most literal rendering; Symmachus next to Aquila, because his version was largely a revision of the other; for a similar reason, Theodotion's version came after the Septuagint. To these six columns, according to the same testimony, Origen added, but for certain books only, a seventh and an eighth column containing two more Greek versions, which were called respectively the Quinta and the Sexta, because they were the fifth and sixth versions in Origen's arrangement. Eusebius and Jerome mention a seventh Greek version, however nothing seems to be known of the character of the Septima. It may have been a very fragmentary version, a collection of variant readings which later editors did not consider worth preserving. Concerming the Quinta and Sexta, St. Jerome tells us that their authors were Jews. Field finds traces of the Quinta not only in Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and the Canticle of Canticles, but also in the Pentateuch and IV Kings, though, in regard to IV Kings, Burkitt has advanced good reasons for considering the Quinta a collection of variant readings, probably rejected from the Septuagint. The Sexta is quoted for Exodus, III Kings, Psalms, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Amos, and Habacuc.

The presence of these two additional versions in the Hexapla has led to a discussion of that term and of others applied to Origen's work. By some the "six-fold" Bible was considered so called because it contained six Greek versions of certain books; but the common opinion has been that the name designates probably the six columns (the two of Hebrew and the four of the chief Greek versions, which consititute the bulk of the work), and came to be extended to the entire work. The terms Pentapla, Heptapla, Octapla, were also used of Origen's work, according as it contained five, seven, or eight columns. Since the six or seven columns, as the case might be, were visible at every opening of the Hexapla, each column must have been quite narrow. The fragments show, in fact, that one or at most two Hebrew words were placed on each line, with the transliteration in the adjoining column and the various renditions in the succeeding columns, all on the same level. This arrangement would naturally necessitate, at times, a shifting of the Greek words from their proper order, although this was not always done. An arrangement so minute and liberal must produce a work of enormous bulk. Swete estimated 3250 leaves, or 6500 pages, but Nestle considers 6000 leaves not far beyond the number. In addition to these columns of texts and versions, Origen copied out on the margins or between the lines other readings which he cited as given by ‘o ‘Ebrâios, ‘o Eúros, tò Samareitikón, the meaning of which is obscure. Field considers "the Hebrew" to be the Hebrew author of a Greek version, otherwise unknown, of certain books; "the Syrian", the author of another Greek version made in Syria; while "the Samaritan" gives Greek readings taken, not from the current Hebrew text, but from the Samaritan Pentateuch (thirty-six out of forty-three readings agree with that text). Loisy's opinion, not the mention many others, is that "the Hebrew" denotes citations from a Targum, "the Syrian", from the Peschito.

Origen's purpose, as regards the Septuagint, was to indicate very clearly its exact relation to the Hebrew text, and incidentally to the other Greek versions. With this in view, he adopted (and placed in the Septuagint column only) the symbols used by Aristarchus in his edition of Homer. "As employed by Origen in the fifth column of the Hexapla, the obelus was prefixed to words or lines which were wanting in the Hebrew, and therefore, from Origen's point of view, of doubtful authority, while the asterisk called attention to words or lines wanting in the Septuagint, but present in the Hebrew. The close of the context to which the obelus or asterisk was intended to apply was marked by another sign known as the metobelus" (Swete). The fifth column, therefore, contained not the mere text of the Septuagint only, but in addition a translation taken generally from Theodotion (occasionally from Aquila) of these words or lines of the Hebrew which were lacking in the Septuagint. In certain instances, where the Septuagint translation differed widely from the Hebrew meaning, Origen inserted the true rendering (from Theodotion or Aquila) alongside the false; he deleted nothing from the Septuagint text. By this arrangement and these symbols, any reader, even if ignorant of Hebrew, could generally tell at a glance the exact relation of the Septuagint text to the Hebrew.

The principles which guided Origen in his work as textual critic are partly explained by Origen himself. He began by assuming the correctness of the current Hebrew textus receptus, and considered the Septuagint as more or less pure according to the degree in which it approximated to the Hebrew. He frequently changed the spelling of proper names to conform with the Hebrew. The symbols were intended not only to indicate a difference between the two texts, but to mark a departure from the Hebrew verity or genuine text. These principles are rightly discredited by modern scholars, who recognize that the Septuagint often bears plain witness to a Hebrew original different from the textus receptus and older than it in some parts. Moreover, of two readings, one a free, the other a literal, translation of the Hebrew, the free is more likely to be the original rendering of the Septuagint translator, while the literal is more apt to represent the effort of correctors, who very frequently endeavoured to bring the Greek into greater conformity with the Hebrew. Origen's critical principles were at fault, then, but his use of symbols ought to have guarded others from being led by his work into error. Unfortunately, the symbols were not reproduced in many copies which were taken of the fifth column — the Septuagint together with the readings from Theodotion and Aquila.

After the completion of the Hexapla, Origen prepared a minor edition, or extract from it, consisting of the four principal versions, Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion; this is the Tetrapla. It has been sometimes maintained, however, that the Tetrapla is the earlier work and was expanded into the Hexapla, principally on the ground that the Hexapla, which in a few instances has a superior reading, as at Ps. lxxxvi, 5, presents light missing to Origen when he composed the Tetrapla, a very unstable ground, we judge, for the Hexapla did not leave the hand of Origen as a printed work becomes independent of a modern author, but received occasional additions and corrections with the progress of his knowledge. The language of Eusebius implies that the Tetrapla was the later work. The dates of the two works, however, cannot be definitely fixed; all we know, says Field, is that the Hexapla or the Tetrapla was composed before Origen's letter to Africanus (c. 240).

No copy of the entire Hexapla, on account of the immense labour and expense involved, seems ever to have been made, but the Psalter, minus the first column, was copied, as the two fragments prove. A reading in Isaias is quoted from the Pentapla, which possibly (though very doubtfully) implies the existence of a similar copy. Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century, Pamphilus, the martyr, and Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, gave out an edition of the fifth column of the Hexapla, containing the Septuagint, the insertions from Theodotion and Aquila, and the symbols, together with variant readings on the margin, in the belief that they were bestowing on the Church the purest text. It was through the reproduction of this edition by later scribes, without Origen's critical signs, that arose the Hexaplar text which so greatly increased the confusion of Septuagint manuscripts. However, it hardly circulated outside of Palestine. It was translated into Syriac, "with the Origenic signs scrupulously retained", by Paul, Bishop of Tella, in Mesopotamia, who accomplished the work at Alexandria about 616-17. Several books and large portions of this Syro-Hexaplar text survive, and are the source, in a very great measure, of our knowledge of Origen's work. The Hexaplar text also influenced St. Jerome very strongly in his first two translations of the Psalter into Latin, the Psalterium Romanum and (particularly) the Gallicanum. Saint Jerome also followed the Hexaplar text, for which he had a very high regard, as the basis of his translations, no longer extant, of other books. The same influence is further seen in the Coptic (Sahidic), the Arabic, and the Armenian versions. If the original Septuagint text be taken as the standard, it is unquestionable that Origen's influence, both upon the Septuagint and its daughter versions, ultimately availed, through the negligence of copyists, to remove them further from the pristine purity of the Biblical text; but by all those who regard the Hexaplar text, by reason of its insertions and corrections from the textus receptus, as nearer to the original Hebrew than is the Septuagint, his influence must be judged to have worked, on the whole, for the spread of a truer text. The Hexaplar MS. was kept at Cæsarea in Palestine, where it was consulted by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome; it disappeared from sight shortly after the beginning of the seventh century.

The first attempt to collect its disjecta membra, scattered over Biblical manuscripts and patristic writings, was made by Drusius (Driesch) in his work "In Psalmos Davidis Veterum Interpretum quæ extant Fragmenta", Antwerp, 1581 (so Mercati). Additions were made by Peter Morin in his notes to the Greek Bible authorized by Sixtus V (158), as also in the posthumous work of Drusius (1622), and the monumental work of Montfaucon (1713). The publication of the Syro-Hexaplar text by Ceriani and others gave back to the world a great part of Origen's work. Frederick Field in his "Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt … fragmenta" (Oxford, 1875) collected into one grand work the results of two centuries of investigation and discovery. Since his day, Pitra's "Analecta Sacra", III (Venice, 1883), Klosterman's "Analecta zur … Hexapla" (Leipzig, 1895), and Dom Morin's "Anecdota Maredsolana", III, i, have given the world further discoveries. Add to these, to complete the history of the Hexapla's recovery, the palimpsest fragments of several of the psalms discovered by Mercati in the Ambrosian Library of Milan (1896), and the palimpsest fragment of Ps. xxii recovered from a genizah of Cairo (1900), which reproduce almost the exact form of Origen's work. Though much has been lost, including most of the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, still, by these patient, untiring labours, vast materials have been gathered for the reconstruction of a purer Sacred Text. [See Manuscripts of the Bible; Origen; Septuagint; Versions of the Bible Greek)].

Of the above mentioned works Field is by far the most important. See also Taylor in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1902); Loisy, Histoire Critique du Texte et des Versions de la Bible (Amiens, 1892); Nestle in Hast., Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Septuagint; Ermoni in Vig., Dict de la Bible s. v. Hexapla; Howarth, The Hexapla and Tetrapla of Origen in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology (London, May, 1902); Burkitt, The So-Called Quinta of IV Kings, ibid. (June, 1902); Mercati, Un Palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli (Turin, 1896), extract from Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino (1895-96); Mercati, Psalmorum Hexaplorum Reliquiæ a Codice rescripto Ambrosiano (Rome, 1901)–cf. Expository Times (Nov., 1901); Dryer, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford, 1890), pp. 44 sqq. A considerable number of patristic and other references may be found in Field and Swete.

John F. Fenlon

Hexateuch

A name commonly used by the critics to designate the first six books of the Old Testament, i.e. the Pentateuch and Josue. The purpose of the name is to show that the five books of the Pentateuch, together with the book of Josue, form a literary whole. The name Hexateuch, in the intention of the critics, does not mean that the sources of these books are to be found only in the six books herein included. (See PENTATEUCH and JOSUE.)

WALTER DRUM

Hexham and Newcastle

Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle (Hagulstadensis et Novocastrensis).

Hexham, in Northumberland, England, receives its name from the stream Hextold; its old name, Hagustald, came from another stream, the Halgut, whence the adjective Hagustaldensis used by Bede and medieval writers. It was founded as an abbey by St. Wilfrid of York, in 674, on land given by the Northumbrian queen St. Etheldreda. When the Diocese of York was divided (678) Hexham was made a bishopric for the country between the Rivers Aln and Tees; although, under its first bishop, St. Eata, it remained for a time united with Lindisfarne (founded in 635 by St. Aidan), which diocese extended northwards from the Aln to the Forth. Of the eleven bishops of Hexham who followed St. Eata, six were saints, among them being St. John of Beverley (685-705), St. Wilfrid, who, resigning the See of York, died Bishop of Hexham in 709; and his successor, St. Acca, to whom Venerable Bede dedicated several of his works. The last bishop of this ancient line was Tidfert, who died about 821; no successor was appointed, the condition of the country being too unsettled. A period of disorder followed the Danish devastations, after which Hexham monastery was reconstituted in 1113 as a priory of Austin Canons, which flourished until its dissolution under Henry VIII. Meantime the bishopric had been merged in that of Lindisfarne, which latter see was removed to Chester-le-Street in 883, and thence to Durham in 995.

On the establishment of the present English hierarchy in 1850, the See of Hexham was revived, that of Newcastle (where the cathedral is) being joined to it in 1861. The previous Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District, William Hogarth, became its first bishop under the new regime, being followed by James Chadwick (1866-82), John William Bewick (1882-86), and Henry O'Callaghan (1888-89). Bishop Thomas William Wilkinson, consecrated as auxiliary in 1888, succeeded in 1889, and resided at Ushaw College as its president till his death on 17 April, 1909. The present diocese answers to the two medieval Dioceses of Durham and Carlisle, comprising the Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. Its Catholic population was estimated in 1908 at 179,021, the secular clergy numbering 182, the regular clergy (Benedictines, Dominicans, Redemptorists) 45, and the public churches and chapels (not counting those of communities), 122. It contains three convents of contemplative nuns and numerous schools and institutions conducted by religious. St. Cuthbert's College, Ushaw, educates some 300 students, clerical and lay; and there is a boys' grammar school at Newcastle. Together with Our Lady Immaculate, the diocese's chief patron is St. Cuthbert, to receive whose incorrupt body Durham's magnificent cathedral was originally built; his ring, now preserved at Ushaw, is worn by the bishop when ordaining. Its long list of native saints includes St. Bede the Venerable, recently proclaimed Doctor of the Church; St. Oswald, king and martyr; St. Godric, hermit; and Blessed Thomas Percy, Earl of Northumberland, with other martyrs of the penal days.

"Northern Catholic Calendar for Hexham and Newcastle Diocese" (Halifax, 1909); "Catholic Directory (London, 1909); BEDE, "Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. PLUMMER (Oxford, 1896); "Hexham Priory, Historians", etc,. "Surtees Society" (Durham, 1864); WILLIAM OF MALMSBURY, "Gesta Pontificum" in "Rolls Series" (London, 1870).

G.E. PHILLIPS

Johann Heynlin of Stein

(A LAPIDE)

A theologian, born about 1425; died at Basle, 12 March, 1496. He was apparently of Swabian origin. On the completion of his academic studies in Germany, presumably at Leipzig and Freiburg, he proceeded to Paris to pursue the study of philosophy and theology. Here he came in contact with the foremost representatives of Realism, who, recognizing his abilities and probable future influence, exerted their powers to the utmost to mould his mind after their own and thus make him like themselves a bitter opponent of Nominalism. Their efforts were successful. In 1464 he went to the University of Basle and applied for admission to the professorial faculty of arts. The old controversy regarding the nature of Universals had not yet subsided and in the university of Basle Nominalism held sway. Hence in view of this and the maintenance of peace within the institution, the admission of Heynlin to the faculty was not accomplished without a most vigorous opposition. Once a member of the faculty he hoped to rid it of all Nominalistic tendencies nor was he disappointed in his expectation. In 1465 he became dean of the faculty of arts and in this capacity he revised the university statutes and thus brought about a firmly established curriculum of studies. In 1466 he returned to Paris, obtained the doctorate in theology, was in 1469 elected rector of the university and became professor of theology at the Sorbonne. His most noteworthy achievement was the establishment, in connexion with Fichet, of the first printing-press in Paris in 1470; Ulrich Gering and his two associates were put in charge of it and Heynlin gave valuable pecuniary aid to their undertakings, especially for the printing of the works of the Fathers. In 1478 he was called to teach theology in the newly founded University of Tübingen, where his learning, eloquence and reputation secured for him the same year the rectorship. The opposition, however, he met from the Nominalists Gabriel Biel, Paul Scriptoris, and others, rendered his service here of short duration. He severed his connexion with the university, proceeded to Baden-Baden and thence to Berne, where he engaged in preaching. Dissatisfied with Berne he returned to Basle, and tired of wandering, he entered in 1487 the Carthusian Monastery of St. Margarethenthal to spend his declining years in prayer and literary work. As a scholar and academic disputant Heynlin manifested an erudition and intellectual acumen of no mean order. Naturally of a peaceful disposition he was often forced by circumstances to play an important part in the theological controversies of his time. At his suggestion Johann Amerbach, the early printer of Basle, undertook the editing of the works of the ancient philosophical writers. Of his theological works the only important one thus far issued is the "Resolutorium dubiorum circa missarum celebrationem".

HURTER, Nomenclator, s. v.; PRANTL, Allg. deutsche Biogr., XII, 379; Biographie universelle, XXXIII, 289.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER.

Jasper and John Heywood

(1) Jasper Heywood

A poet and translator; born 1535 in London; died 1598 at Naples. As a boy he was page of honour to Princess (afterwards Queen) Elizabeth. In 1547 he was sent to Oxford, and took the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1553, and of Master in 1558. In 1554 he was elected probationary fellow of Merton College where he distinguished himself in public and private disputations, in writing verse translations of Seneca's dramas, and in acting as Lord of Misrule at the Christmas festivities. He and his brother are said by Anthony à Wood to have been "for a time very wild", and he resigned his fellowship to prevent expulsion in 1558. Later on, however, in the same year he was elected fellow of All Souls, but before long had to resign on account of his non-compliance with the new religious order of things under Elizabeth. Having been ordained priest he was admitted to the Society of Jesus at Rome in 1562. After two years at the Roman College he was made professor of moral philosophy and controversy at the Jesuit College of Dillingen in Bavaria where he stayed for seventeen years. In 1570 he took the full Jesuit vows. In 1581 he came to England as a missionary with Father William Holt, and together they were the means of numerous conversions to the Catholic Faith. Father Heywood was appointed superior of the English Mission in succession to Father Parsons. In the controversy then rife concerning the observance by English Catholics of the severe ancient fasts, Heywood opposed the rigid party. He was considered by the authorities to have erred on the side of laxity, and was therefore recalled from England by his superiors. On this return journey he was arrested as a suspected priest, brought back to London and imprisoned. Several times he was examined by the Privy Council and strongly urged to conform, but neither bribes nor threats moved him, and he was brought up for trial at Westminster with other priests. Before the trial finished, however, he was taken to the Tower and closely imprisoned for seventeen months. Finally, he was exiled with others to the coast of France, and forbidden under pain of death to return. He then went to the Jesuit College at Dôle in Burgundy, and in 1589 was sent to Rome and afterwards to Naples, where, worn out by the sufferings and hardships he had undergone, he died at the age of sixty-three. His authentic literary work consists of:

• (1) translations into English verse of three of Seneca's tragedies (the "Troas", "Thyestes", and "Hercules Furens"). He was the first to translate these into English. He takes liberties with the Latin text and occasionally introduces original matter.
• (2) Four poems in the Elizabethan collection known as the "Paradise of Dainty Devices", three didactic and one upon Easter Day. None is of much poetical value. He is known to have written many other verses not preserved.
• (3) According to Wood's statement, he also wrote "A Compendium of Hebrew Grammar".

No edition of his Senecan translations has been issued since 1591. The "Paradise of Dainty Devices" is reprinted in "Collier's Seven English Miscellanies" (London, 1867).

(2) John Heywood

Father of the above, dramatist and epigrammatist; born probably c. 1497; died about 1580. The first certain record of him is in 1515 as one of the king's singing men, receiving the wages of eightpence per day. He would seem to have been first a choir boy and afterwards retained as a singer at the Chapel Royal. He was perhaps also engaged to train companies of boy actors for court performances. Tradition says that he was a member of Broadgates Hall, now Pembroke College, Oxford, but nothing further is known of his college life. His wit and his musical gifts seem to have led to his promotion and general prosperity. He received an annuity of ten marks as king's servant in 1521, and in 1526 he was paid a sum as "player of the Virginals", while in 1538 he again received payment for "playing an interlude with his children" before the Princess Mary. It was through Sir Thomas More, whose niece Eliza Rastell he had married, that he was introduced to the princess. It is probable that Heywood became attached to her retinue. He was a sincere Catholic and would seem to have got into trouble in Edward VI's reign for denying the king's spiritual supremacy. Unfortunately there is some proof, though not perhaps quite conclusive, that he publicly recanted this denial.

At the coronation of Queen Mary, however, he delivered a Latin oration and he was undoubtedly "in complete sympathy with her policy in Church and State". There is evidence that he was a favourite with Mary, who could take, as Dr. A. W. Ward says "an intelligent delight" in his accomplishments and his wit. He wrote poems in her honour and is said to have been present at her last moments. Anthony à Wood quaintly tells us that "after her decease he left the nation for religion sake, and settled at Mechlin in Brabant, which is a wonder to some who will allow no religion in poets, that this person should above all of his profession be a voluntary exile, for it". He probably lived at Mechlin till his death.

Heywood's chief writings consist of:

• (1) three interludes (i. e. "short comic pieces containing an element of action that entitles them to be called dramatic") of which the most famous is "The Four P's". These pieces form a dramatic link between the morality plays and comedy proper, the personified abstractions of the morality being superseded by personal types;
• (2) "The Play of the Weather", a kind of mythological morality;
• (3) "The Play of Love", a disputation between four characters, with slight dramatic action;
• (4) "The Dialogue of Wit and Folly";
• (5) "Proverbs and Epigrams". All the above are comprised in the edition of Heywood's works issued by the Early English Drama Society (2 volumes, London, 1905-6);
• (6) "An Allegory of the Spider and the Fly", in which the flies are the Catholics and the spiders Protestants, and Queen Mary the maid with a broom sweeping away cobwebs (not reprinted since 1556).

All the works of Heywood show wit and humour with some underlying pathos. His humour has been defined by Dr. Ward as "of a kind peculiarly characteristic of those minds which, while strongly conservative at bottom, claim a wide personal liberty in the expression of opinion, and are radically adverse to all shams". A devout Catholic, Heywood did not hesitate to satirize the folly or vice of unworthy members of the Church. Some of his wit is marked with the coarseness of his age, though less so than that of many other sixteenth-century writers. To judge justly of the literary quality of his work it must be viewed with its own background of the "dull and tedious" dramatic literature of the time. Certain judges have even gone so far as to regard him in wit and satire as a not altogether unworthy follower of Chaucer.

(1) COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; WARTON, Hist. English Poetry, ed. HAZLITT, IV (London, 1871); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., III (London, 1887); OLIVER, Jesuit Collections; WOOD, Athenœ, ed. BLISS, I (Oxford, 1813).

(2) WARD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; WARTON, Hist. Eng. Poetry, ed. HAZLITT, IV (London, 1871); WARD, Hist. English Drama, I (London, 1899); WOOD, Athenœ, ed. BLISS, I (Oxford, 1813); SYMONDS, Predecessors of Shakspere (London, 1900); COLLIER, Hist. Dram. Poetry (London, 1879); GAYLEY, Representative English Comedies; POLLARD, Introduction to Heywood (New York and London, 1903).

K. M. WARREN.

Ancient Order of Hibernians (in America)

This organization grew up gradually among the Catholics of Ireland owing to the dreadful hardships and persecutions to which they were subjected. It is impossible to give the exact date of the foundation of the order in Ireland. Some authorities contend that the first impulse towards forming such an association was due to the publication of an edict against the Catholic religion by the Earl of Sussex (Thomas Radcliffe), who was made Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1562. He prohibited all monks and Catholic priests from either eating or sleeping in Dublin, and ordered the head of each family to attend Protestant services every Sunday, under the penalty of a fine. Not only did the English begin a bitter persecution of the Catholics, they also confiscated the property of the Irish nobles. The prince Rory O'Moore with his companions took up the cause of religion and the protection of the priesthood as well as the defence of their dominions, and through their asssistance the priests said Mass, on the mountains, in the valleys and glens, while "The Defenders", as they were called, acted as faithful sentinels to guard them from danger. The principality ruled over by Rory O'Moore was called Leix; it covered the greater part of Queen's County and part of County Kildare. The O'Moore's belonged to the Clan Rory of the Province of Ulster, and were descended from the celebrated hero, Conall Cearnach, who was the chieftain of the Red Branch Knights at the beginning of the Christian Era. This famous Rory O'Moore was victorious over the English forces in many battles during the reigns of Queens Mary and Elizabeth, and in consequence recovered the principality of Leix, which had been the property of his forefathers and which he governed until his death in 1578.

It is claimed that this Rory Oge O'Moore organized and founded Hibernianism in the year 1565, in the County of Kildare, in the Province of Leinster, and gave to his followers the name of "The Defenders". After the death of Rory, "The Defenders" rallied around the Irish chieftains, and after many glorious battles betook themselves to the mountains and defied the tyranny of England. In the course of time branches sprang up among the descendants in opposition to the Protestant organizations, such as the "Hearts-of-Steel", the "Oak-Boys", the "Peep-O'Day-Boys", the "Protestant-Boys", the "Wreckers", and finally the "Orangemen". The principal Catholic organizations were the "White-Boys", so called from wearing a white shirt, the "Rapparees", who received this designation on account of a half pike which they carried, and the "Ribbon-Men", so called because their badge was two pieces of green and red ribbon. In due time there arose also the "Terry-Alts" and the "Fenians". The spirit of these organizations gave rise to what is known in Ireland as the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Anyone familiar with the history of Ireland under English and Protestant domination will recognize that it was natural enough for such organizations to be formed among Irish Catholics. When the laws were made against the interests of the great mass of the people, it was the necessary to erect a barrier of defence. No doubt, some abuses were occasionally connected with the operation of these societies, but, in the main, they defended the religious and civil liberties of the Irish people.

While we have no authentic information as to when the Ancient Order of Hibernians was formally established under that title in Ireland, we know that, in 1836, certain Irishmen in New York, who desired to establish a branch of the organization in America, communicated with their brethren in Ireland, and received the following reply:

Brothers, Greeting: Be it known that to you and to all whom it may concern that we send to our few brothers in New York full instructions with our authority to establish branches of our society in America. The qualifications for membership must be as follows: All the members must be good Catholics, and Irish or of Irish descent, and of good and moral character, and none of your members shall join any secret societies contrary to the laws of the Catholic Church, and all times and at all places your motto shall be: ‘Friendship, Unity, and True Christian Charity' * * *.

This letter concluded with the date: "This fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1836", and it is signed by fourteen officers representing the organization in Ireland, Scotland, and England. The association rapidly increased in membership, but, after a few years, factions arose. They vainly attempted to heal the breach by consultation among themselves, and then referred their difficulties to the present writer, who was selected as arbitrator. Mr. P.J. O'Connor, of Savannah, Georgia, was national president of the faction called, "The Ancient Order of Hibernians of America", and Rev. E. S. Phillips, of the Diocese of Scranton, national delegate of the other faction, called "The Ancient Order of Hibernians of the Board of Erin". The arbitrator, after several months' deliberation with the principal leaders of both organizations successfully adjusted all difficulties, and the unified body became henceforth known as "The Ancient Order of Hibernians in America". This union was ratified at the national convention held at Trenton, New Jersey, from 27 June to 1 July, 1898.

Preamble of constitution revised and adopted at the national convention held at Indianapolis, Ind., 21-26 July, 1908:

The members of The Ancient Order of Hibernians in America declare that the intent and purpose of the Order is to promote Friendship, Unity and Christian Charity among its members by raising or supporting a fund of money for maintaining the aged, sick, blind and infirm members, for the payment of funeral benefits, for the advancement of the principles of Irish nationality, for the legitimate expenses of the Order, and for no other purpose whatsoever.

The motto of this Order is Friendship, Unity and Christian Charity. Friendship shall consist of helping one another and in assisting each other to the best of our power. Unity, in combining together for mutual support in sickness and distress. Christian Charity, in loving one another and doing to all men as we would wish that they should do unto us.

(1) This Order is to be formed exclusively of practical Catholics. Therefore, each member is expected to comply with all his Christian duties. (2) Should any of the members fail in the above, and instead of giving edification and encouragement, become a stumbling block and a disgrace to the Organization, such a one, after proper charitable admonition, unless there be an amendment in his conduct, shall be expelled from the Order. (3) In order, however, that all may be done with justice, Christian charity and edification, there shall be in each county a Chaplain, appointed by the Ordinary of the Diocese, to be consulted by the Division before determining anything relating to morality or religion. (4) The Chaplain in each county shall see that nothing is done or countenanced within his jurisdiction which is contrary to the laws of the Catholic Church, the decrees of the Plenary Councils of Baltimore, and the Synodical Constitutions of the Diocese. In any difficulty or doubt which he may not be able to solve, he shall consult the Ordinary of the Diocese. (5) All Divisions of this Order shall adopt the foregoing preamble, and their special Constitution and By-Laws shall be in harmony with the Constitution and By-Laws of this Order.

The constitution of 1908 gives full directions regarding the government of the organization and the manner of joining it. Article XXXV, sect. 1, treats of the place of joining the order: "Members of this Order shall join and belong to a Division in the city or town in which they reside if the Order exists therein or in the nearest locality in which a Division is located."

The membership of the A.O.H., according to the annual report for the year ending 31 Dec., 1908, is 127,254, distributed over the United States, including Hawaii, and the Dominion of Canada. The immense good done by the order can be estimated from the amount of funds expended during the part twenty-four years. During that period, about $8,000,000 have been paid for sick and funeral benefits, and for charitable purposes over $4,500,000. Among some of the noble works of the order may be mentioned the endowment of a $50,000 Gaelic chair at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and a donation of $40,000 towards their members who suffered in the San Francisco earthquake. The order also made generous gifts to the Gaelic League and established scholarships in colleges and academies to encourage the study of Irish literature and history. It was likewise instrumental in having Congress appropriate $50,000 towards the erection of a monument at Washington, D.C., to perpetuate the memory of Commodore John Barry, "Father of the American Navy".

THE LADIES AUXILIARY TO THE ANCIENT ORDER OF HIBERNIANS IN AMERICA

The Ladies Auxiliary is the female branch of the order. It was established in Omaha, Nebraska, in May, 1894, and has the same objects and principles as the male branch. The Ladies Auxiliary remained for some time under the tutelage of the male Ancient Order, but, as it rapidly advanced in numbers, the ladies were permitted in 1906, at the Saratoga National Convention, to elect their own national officers, and to conduct their own affairs generally, although remaining an auxiliary organization. It is now a national body, having a membership of about 56,000 in the United States and the Dominion of Canada. The ladies have followed the generous example of the men and have established a scholarship in Trinity College, Washington, D.C., with an endowment of $10,000.

MACGEOGHEGAN, History of Ireland, contd. by JOHN MITCHEL (New York, 1868); MCGRATH, History of the A.O.H. (Cleveland, Ohio, 1898); SHAHAN, Lecture on the A.O.H. (Chicago, 1904); Proceedings of National Conventions and Annual Reports of the A.O.H.

JAMES A. MCFAUL

Antony Hickey, O.F.M.

A theologian, born in the Barony of Islands, Co. Clare, Ireland, in 1586; died in Rome, 26 June, 1641. He received his early education in his native place, entered the college of St. Antony at Louvain, which had just been founded as a refuge for Irish students, and received the Franciscan habit on 1 November, 1607. Among his teachers at Louvain were the celebrated Irish scholars Hugh Mac an Bhaird (Ward) and Hugh Mac Caghwell, later Archbishop of Armagh. After his ordination to the priesthood, Father Antony was appointed lecturer in theology at Louvain, and subsequently professor in the college of St. Francis at Cologne. In 1619 he was summoned to Rome to collaborate with Father Luke Wadding in preparing for publication the Annals of the Franciscan Order and the works of Duns Scotus. He lived for some time at S. Pietro in Montorio on the Janiculum and, from 1624 till his death, in the college of St. Isidore. During the discussions which were held in Rome concerning the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Father Hickey won distinction by his learning and acuteness. His treatise on this subject is called by Marracius (Bibliotheca Mariana) "opus insigne et absolutum". In his work on the Fourth Book of Sentences, he shows great breadth of view and critical perception; in addition to the scholastic method, he makes use of the historical method and fully recognizes the development of sacramental theology. He took an active part in the labours of the commissions appointed by Urban VIII to revise the Roman Breviary, and to examine into the affairs of the Eastern Church. At the general chapter of the order held in Rome in 1639, he was elected definitor general.

Hickey wrote "Commentarii in Lib. IV Sententiarum" (Lyons, 1639), "Nitela Franciscanæ Religionis" (Lyons, 1627), in this book he refutes the aspersions cast on the early history of the Franciscan Order by Abraham Bzovius; "De Conceptione Immaculata B. Mariæ Virginis"; "De Stigmatibus S. Catharinæ Senensis", written by order of the Sacred Congregation of Rites; "Ad pleraque dubia moralia, et ascetica, gravissimæ responsiones". This work, which Wadding calls "opus doctissimum", is still in Manuscript. Among the Manuscripts preserved in the Franciscan Convent, Dublin, are several letters written to Father Hickey from Ireland on the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of that country. There is also an important letter of his on the Irish language. Many of the Irish bishops consulted him on matters of grave moment. His acquaintance with the history, language, and antiquities of Ireland was extensive, and in co-operation with John Colgan, Hugh Ward, and other Irish scholars, he drew up a plan for a critical history of Ireland in all its branches, — but this idea was not realized.

WADDINGUS-SBARALEA, Scriptores Ord. S. Francisci (Rome, 1806); IOANNHS A S. ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Univ. Franciscana (Madrid, 1732); VERNULÆUS, De Academia Lovaniensi; WARE-HARRIS, Works (Dublin, 1764); BRENNAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1840).

GREGORY CLEARY.

Hierapolis

Titular Archdiocese, metropolis of the Province of Euphrates, in the Patriarchate of Antioch. The native name, Mabog or Maboug, the Greeks make Bambyke and Seleucus Nicator transforms into Hierapolis or Hieropolis, both forms being found on the coins. This appellation of "Holy City" is an allusion to the celebrated temple erected to the Syrian goddess Atargatis or Derceto, who was also venerated at Palmyra, Ascalon, and elsewhere. The dove was sacred to this goddess, who is represented under the form of a woman-fish. The temple of Hierapolis was pillaged by Crassus at the time of his expedition against the Parthians. Lucian of Samosata tells us that numerous pilgrims repaired thither twice a year in order to pour water through the opening of an abyss. Under the Seleucides and the Romans, Hierapolis became a great commercial centre, a halting-place for the caravans going from Seleucia to Babylon. As the capital of the province of Commagene, or Euphrates, it became an important military stronghold where the Roman and Byzantine armies were concentrated, once the Persians had crossed the frontier and taken the first line of the defences. Julian the Apostate stopped here for some days before marching against Sapor. In 540 the city escaped pillage by the troops of Chosroes only by the payment of a heavy fine. Justinian fortified it, reducing the extent of the ramparts, which, with their numerous towers, also built by this emperor, are still standing. It requires about an hour to make the circuit of them. In 1068 the Emperor Romanus Diogenes took the city, thus staying the progress of the Turks.

Lequien (Or. Christ., II, 925-8) names ten bishops of Hierapolis. Among the best-known may be mentioned Alexander, an ardent advocate of the Nestorian heresy, who died in exile in Egypt; Philoxenus or Xenaia (died about 523), a famous Monophysite scholar; Stephen (c. 600), author of a life of St. Golindouch. Under the Patriarch Anastasius, in the sixth century, the metropolitan See of Maboug had nine suffragan bishoprics (Echos d'Orient, 14, 145). Chabot (Revue de l'orient chrétien, VI, 200) mentions thirteen Jacobite archbishops from the ninth to the twelfth century. One Latin bishop, Franco, in 1136, is known (Lequien, III, 1193). This see must not be confounded with Hierapolis in Arabia, a large number of whose titulars in the fifteenth century are mentioned by Eubel (II, 181). To-day Membidj is a caza of the sanjak and vilayet of Aleppo in a rich plain. The village is situated twenty miles west of the Euphrates, and contains 1500 inhabitants, all Circassians. The ruins of the city of Hierapolis are thirteen miles north, at Kara-Membidj, where remains of aqueducts and the Byzantine walls of Justinian are still to be seen.

CHESNEY, Expédition Euphrate, I, 5, 6; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, I, 1064; CHABOT, La frontière de l'Euphrate (Paris, 1907), 338-340; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, II (Paris, 1892), 218-20.

S. VAILHÉ

Hierapolis

A titular see of Phrygia Salutaris, suffragan of Synnada. It is usually called by its inhabitants Hieropolis, no doubt because of its hieron (which was an important religious centre), is mentioned by Ptolemy (v, 2, 27), and by Hierocles (Synecd., 676, 9). It appears as a see in the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" from the sixth to the thirteenth centuries. It has been identified as the modern village of Kotchhissar in the vilayet of Smyrna, near which are the ruins of a temple and the hot springs of Ilidja. Hierapolis once had the privilege of striking its own coins. We know three of its bishops: Flaccus, present at the Council of Nicæa in 325 and at that of Philippopolis in 347; Avircius, who took part in the Council of Chalcedon, 451; Michael, who assisted at the second Council of Nicæa in 787. St. Abercius, whose feast is kept by the Greek Church on 22 October, is celebrated in tradition as the first Bishop of Hierapolis. He was probably only a priest, and may be identical with Abercius Marcellus, author of a treatise against the Montanists (Eusebius, H.E., V, xvi) about the end of the second century. On the epitaph of Abercius and its imitation by Alexander, another citizen of Hierapolis, see ABERCIUS, INSCRIPTION OF. The town in question must not be confounded with another Hierapolis or Hieropolis, more important still, a see of Phrygia Pacatiana. Lequien in his "Oriens Christianus" makes this error (I, 831 sqq.). There is also another Hierapolis, a see of Isauria, suffragan of Seleucia (Lequien, II, 1025).

RAMSAY, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1895-1897); IDEM, Trois villes phrygiennes in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 1882, VI; DUCHESNE, Hierapolis, patrie d'Abercius in Revue des questions historiques (July, 1883).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Hierarchy

(Gr. Hierarchia; from hieros, sacred; archein, rule, command).

This word has been used to denote the totality of ruling powers in the Church, ever since the time of the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (sixth century), who consecrated the expression in his works, "The Celestial Hierarchy" and "The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" (P. G., III, 119 and 370). According to this author and his two commentators, Pachymeres (P. G., III, 129) and Maximus (P. G., IV, 30), the word connotes the care and control of holy or sacred things, the sacer principatus. The "Hierarcha", it is here explained, is he who has actual care of these things; who, indeed, both obeys and commands, but does not obey those he commands. There is, consequently, a necessary gradation among hierarchs; and this gradation, which exists even among the angels, i.e. in the heavenly hierarchy (on which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is modelled), must a fortiori be found in a human assembly subject to sin, and in which this gradation works for peace and harmony ("S. Gregorii Reg. Epist.", V, 54, in P. L., LXXVII, 786; "Decreta Dionysii papæ", in the Hinschius ed. of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, 195-6, Berlin, 1863; "Decretum" of Gratian (Pseudo-Boniface), pt. I, D. 89, c. vii). The hierarchy, therefore, connotes the totality of powers established in the Church for the guiding of man to his eternal salvation, but divided into various orders or grades, in which the inferior are subject to and yield obedience to the higher ones.

I. HIERARCHY OF ORDER AND OF JURISDICTION

It is usual to distinguish a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of order and that of jurisdiction, corresponding to the twofold means of sanctification, grace, which comes to us principally through the sacraments, and good works, which are the fruit of grace. The hierarchy of order exercises its power over the Real Body of Christ in the Eucharist; that of jurisdiction over His Mystical Body, the Church (Catech. Conc. Trid., pt. II, c. vii, n. 6). Christ did not give to all the faithful power to administer His sacraments, except in the case of baptism and matrimony, or to offer public worship. This was reserved to those who, having received the sacrament of order, belong to the hierarchy of order. He entrusted the guidance of the faithful along the paths of duty and in the practice of good works to a religious authority, and for this purpose He established a hierarchy of jurisdiction. Moreover, He established His Church as a visible, external, and perfect society; hence He conferred on its hierarchy the right to legislate for the good of that society. For this double purpose, the sanctification of souls and the good or welfare of religious society, the hierarchy of jurisdiction is endowed with the following rights:

• the right to frame and sanction laws which it considers useful or necessary, i.e. legislative power;
• the right to judge how the faithful observe these laws, i.e. judicial power;
• the right to enforce obedience, and to punish disobedience to its laws, i.e. coercive power;
• the right to make all due provision for the proper celebration of worship, i.e. administrative power.

Furthermore, with the power of jurisdiction there should be connected the right to exercise the power of order. The acts of the power or order are, it is true, always valid (except in the sacrament of Penance, which requires in addition a power of jurisdiction). However, in a well-ordered society like the Church, the right to exercise the power of order could never be a mere matter of choice. For its legitimate exercise the Church requires either jurisdiction, or at least permission, even of a general character.

Ordinarily, also, the teaching power (magisterium) is connected with the power of jurisdiction. It is possible, of course, to distinguish in the Church a threefold power: the potestas magisterii, or the right to teach in matters of faith and morals; the potestas ministerii, or the right to administer the sacraments, and the potestas regiminis, or the power of jurisdiction. Christ, however, did not establish a special hierarchy for the "potestas magisterii", nor does the teaching power pertain to the power of order, as some have maintained, but rather to the power of jurisdiction. The Vatican Council, indeed, seems to connect the supreme magisterial power of the pope with his primacy of jurisdiction (Constitutio de Ecclesiâ Christi, cap. i and iv). Moreover, the power of jurisdiction implies the right of imposing on the faithful a real obligation to believe what the Church proposes. Finally, in the Church, no one can teach without a missio canonica, or authorization from ecclesiastical superiors, which brings us back again to the power of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, as a general rule, the "potestas magisterii" belongs to those only who have also the power of order, i.e. to the pope and the bishops, and cannot be separated from the latter power; the same is equally true of the power of jurisdiction (Schnell, "Die Gliederung der Kirchengewalten" in "Theologische Quartalschrift", LXXI 1889, 387 sq.). Jurisdiction is exercised in foro interno (potestas vicaria), and in foro externo. The latter aims directly at the welfare of religious society, indirectly at that of its individual members; the former deals directly with individuals, and only indirectly with the religious society as a whole.

Finally, jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated; the first is acquired by the acceptance of specified functions to which the law itself attaches this power, that the possessor must exercise in his own name; the second is obtained by virtue of a special delegation from ecclesiastical authority, in whose name it is to be exercised.

A. Hierarchy of Order

The Council of Trent has defined the Divine institution of the first three grades of the hierarchy of order, i.e. the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate (Sess. XXIII, De sacramento ordinis, cap. iv, can. vi). The other orders, i.e. those of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter, are of ecclesiastical institution. There is some controversy about the subdiaconate. The Council of Trent did not decide the question, but only declared that Fathers and councils place the subdiaconate among the major orders (loc. cit., cap. ii). It is now pretty generally held that the subdiaconate is of ecclesiastical institution, chiefly because of the lateness of its appearance in ecclesiastical discipline. Its introduction was due to the unwillingness of certain Churches to have more than seven deacons, conformably to Apostolic practice in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, vi, 1-6). Furthermore, the ordination rite of subdeacons does not seem sacramental, since it contains neither the imposition of hands nor the words "Receive the Holy Ghost". Finally, in the Eastern Catholic Churches the subdiaconate is reckoned among the minor orders. For this opinion may be quoted Urban II in the Council of Benevento in 1091 (Hardouin, "Acta Conc.", VI, ii, 1696, Paris, 1714), the "Decretum" of Gratian (pars I, dist. xxi, init.), Peter Lombard ("Sent.", Lib. IV, dist. xxiv), and others; see Benedict XIV, "De Synodo Di cesanâ.", VIII, ix, n. 10). This hierarchy of ecclesiastical origin arose at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century, and appears definitely fixed at Rome under Pope Cornelius (251-252), who tells us that in his day the Roman Church counted 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 clerics of lower grades, exorcists, lectors, and porters (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, 43). In the primitive Church there were also deaconesses, widows, and virgins, but these did not belong to the hierarchy properly so called, nor does Pope Cornelius include them in his list of the Roman clergy. Their principal functions were prayer, the practice of works of charity, and of hospitality; while they performed certain liturgical functions, as in the baptism of women and at the agape, they never took any part, except by unauthorized abuse, in the ministry of the altar strictly speaking (Duchesne, "Christian Worship", London, 1904). Finally, although abbots of monasteries may confer the four minor orders, they do not constitute a special order or grade in the hierarchy. It is not by virtue of the blessing they receive from the bishop that they may confer orders, but by virtue of a privilege which canon law grants to abbots who have received such solemn blessing from a bishop (Gasparri, "Tractatus Canonicus de sacrâ ordinatione", I, iv, Paris, 1893). The Latin Church, therefore, counts eight grades in the hierarchy of order, the episcopate being counted a separate order from that of the priesthood, and ecclesiastical tonsure not being an order.

This latter point, formerly controverted by canonists, is no longer in doubt: the tonsure is, in the present discipline, a simple rite by which a layman becomes an ecclesiastic, a necessary antecedent condition for the lawful reception of orders proper, and not an order itself, except in a very inaccurate way of speaking, since the ceremony conveys no "potestas ordinis". In the Middle Ages Scholastic theologians denied that the episcopate was a distinct order from priesthood, alleging that the former is only the complement and perfection of the latter. In respect of the offering of the Holy Sacrifice the bishop, it is true, has no more power than a priest; on the other hand, it is only a bishop who can ordain a priest; and this difference of power implies a distinction of order. Against this distinction it has been objected that an episcopal ordination would be invalid unless the subject had first of all received sacerdotal ordination. It is true that, according to the modern practice, one should admit this theory; but formerly, especially in the case of the ordination of the bishops of Rome, the practice of the Church was different. The title De septem ordinibus, which we read in the editions of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, De sacramento ordinis cap. ii), is an addition of a later period, and the council expressly declares that bishops have a power of order superior to that of priests. The Byzantine Catholic Church, as a general rule, only counts two grades of ecclesiastical institution: the subdiaconate and the lectorship. Nevertheless, ordination to the subdiaconate implies also the minor orders of acolyte and porter, and ecclesiastical tonsure is given when the bishop confers the lectorship. The order of exorcist is in reality the only one not known to the Greek Church. It considers the power of exorcising as a special gift of Divine goodness, not as something acquired by ordination. By the Constitution "Etsi pastoralis" Benedict XIV derogated from the decision of Innocent IV, and completely approved the discipline of the Greek Church on this matter (Papp-Szilàgyi, "Enchiridion juris Ecclesiæ Orientalis catholicæ", Grosswardein, 1862, 405-7). It is probable that no other minor orders were originally known to the Greek Church. In Christian antiquity, it is true, especially among the Greek Christians, we meet with many subordinate functionaries, e.g. singers (" cantores", or "confessores"); "parabolani", who cared for the sick; "copiatæ" (fossores), or sextons who buried the dead; "defensores", who attended to ecclesiastical trials; notaries and archivists; "hermeneutæ", or interpreters, whose duty it was to translate for the people the Scriptures, also the homilies of the bishop; with these, however, there is not question of orders, but of functions entrusted, without ordination, either to clerics or laymen (Benediet XIV, "De Synodo Di cesanâ.", VIII, ix, n. 8; Gasparri, "op. cit.", I, vii).

B. Hierarchy of Jurisdiction

In the hierarchy of jurisdiction the episcopate and the papacy are of Divine origin; all the other grades are of ecclesiastical institution. According to the Vatican Council the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, has been established by Christ as the visible head of the whole Church militant, and possesses a real primacy of jurisdiction, in virtue of which he has supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and the government of the Church. This power is ordinary and immediate over all the Churches, and over each one in particular, over all the pastors and faithful, collectively and individually (Const. de Eccl. Christi, cap. i-3). The government of the Church is strictly monarchical. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, but do not inherit their personal prerogatives, such as universal jurisdiction and infallibility (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIII, De sacramento ordinis, cap. iv). The pope is bound to establish bishops who enjoy genuine ordinary power in the Church (potestas ordinaria), and who are not merely his delegates or vicars, as some medieval theologians held. On the other hand, the theory proposed in the fifteenth century at the Councils of Constance and Basle, which made the pope subject to an cumenical council; the Gallican theory, that would impose limits on his power by the ancient canons received in the Church, and requiring the acceptance or consent of the Church before his decisions could become irreformable; and the theory of Febronius, who maintained that the Holy See had usurped many rights which properly belonged to the bishops and that ought to be restored to them, are all equally false and opposed to the monarchical constitution of the Church (see GALLICANISM; FEBRONIANISM). An cumenical council does, indeed, possess sovereign authority in the Church, but it cannot be cumenical without the pope.

It will suffice to mention the now universally rejected opinion of Gerson and a few other doctors of the University of Paris in the Middle Ages, who held that parish priests were of Divine institution, being (in this opinion) the successors of the (72) disciples of Christ. This opinion was defended, in more recent times, by certain Jansenists, by Van Espen, and a few other canonists (Houwen, "De parochorum statu", Louvain, 1848, 7 sqq.).

The composition of the hierarchy of jurisdiction in the (Western) Catholic Church is indicated, in summary form, as follows. By virtue of his primacy, supreme authority over the whole Church belongs to the pope, who is at the same time Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, and bishop of the city of Rome. In the actual discipline of the Church, the cardinals hold second place. They are the pope's advisers in the more important matters concerning the universal Church, and exercise their jurisdiction in the various congregations, tribunals, and offices instituted by the pope for the government of the universal Church. (For the recent reorganization of the Roman Curia and the Roman Congregations, see articles under those headings; and cf. the "Sapienti Consilio" of Pius X, 29 June, 1908.) Next in order come the patriarchs. The Councils of Nicæa (325), of Constantinople (381), of Chalcedon (451) recognized in the Bishop of Rome for the West, in those of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople for the East, over the territories included within their patriarchates, a jurisdiction higher than that of archbishops. The four Eastern patriarchates, as a consequence of the Mohammedian invasion and the Greek schism, gradually lost communion with Rome, but were re-established in the Latin Rite at the time of the Crusades.

After the Fall of Constantinople (1453) the Holy See contented itself with nominating for these sees four titular patriarchs resident in Rome; however, since 1847, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem resides in that city. Besides these ancient or "greater" patriarchs there are, in the Latin Rite, minor patriarchs, whose title is purely honorary. They are: the Patriarch of Venice (formerly Patriarch of Grado); the Patriarch of the West Indies, who resides in Spain; the Patriarch of the East Indies (Archbishop of Goa); and the Patriarch of Lisbon. The Patriarchate of Aquileia was suppressed in 1751.

In the West the dignity of primate corresponds to that of exarch in the East. With the exception of the Primate of Gran (Strigonensis) in Hungary, primates have a mere pre-eminence of honour over metropolitans. Among the primates are the Archbishop of Salzburg (Germany), Prague (Bohemia), Gnesen-Posen and Warsaw (Poland), Toledo and Tarragona (Spain), Rouen (France), Armagh (Ireland), Venice (for Dalmatia), Mechlin (Belgium), and Carthage (Africa). Metropolitans, on the other hand, have real rights over the bishops within their ecclesiastical province, and over the province itself. The bishops subject to their jurisdiction are called episcopi comprovinciales or provinciales, also suffraqanei or suffragans. Since the sixth century metropolitans have been also known as archbishops, which title they share with titular archbishops. By this term are meant archbishops who administer a diocese but have no suffragans, also archbishops merely titular, i.e. who have no jurisdiction, but only the title of some extinct archdiocese. Metropolitans arc obliged at stated times to summon provincial synods, to legislate for the whole province.

After the archbishops come the bishops, who of Divine right administer the dioceses entrusted to them by the Holy See, which may determine or in a measure limit their rights. If they are not subject to the authority of an archbishop, they are known as exempt bishops, and are directly subject to the Holy See. Besides the diocesan bishops there are also titular bishops, formerly called bishops in partibus infidelium. These receive episcopal consecration, but have no jurisdiction over the dioceses of which they bear the title. They may be appointed by the pope as auxiliary bishops or coadjutors to diocesan bishops. In the eighth century there are found, in the West, chorepiscopi, i.e. auxiliary bishops and substitutes for diocesan bishops sede vacante. They had no distinct territory and ceased to exist in the ninth century.

After the bishops in the hierarchy of jurisdiction come the pr lati nullius; they are more correctly styled pr lati nullius cum territorio separato, and exercise episcopal authority over a territory not belonging to any diocese; they must be carefully distinguished from the pr lati nullius cum territorio conjuncto, and from superiors of exempt religious colleges, whether secular or regular. "Prælati nullius cum territorio conjuncto" exercise a quasi-episcopal authority over a territory which forms part of a diocese, whereas superiors of exempt colleges have authority only over the personnel of their own community.

In the government of his diocese the bishop is assisted by various ecclesiastics. Chief among these formerly was the archdeacon, i.e. the principal deacon of the cathedral church. In time dioceses came to be divided into several archdeaconries, the titulars of which exercised a right of surveillance over their particular territory and enjoyed extensive judicial power. The Council of Trent (1547-65) limited their powers, after which they gradually disappeared. At present the bishop's chief assistant is known as his vicar-general, an institution dating back to the thirteenth century. The members of the cathedral chapter, or canons, make up the council of the bishop, and in certain matters he may not act without their consent. Where there is no chapter, the consultores cleri di cesani take their place, but have only at consultative voice. To the chapter belongs the right of nominating the vicar capitular, charged with administering the diocese during a vacancy. After the ninth century archpriests or deans appear, charged with the supervision of the clergy and laity in their districts; it was their duty to enforce the observance of the canons in the administration of church property.

Finally, at the head of a parish is the pastor (parochus), with ordinary jurisdiction. Where parishes have not been canonically erected, his place is taken by a "rector", whose jurisdiction is merely delegated, but whose rights and duties are those of a parish priest (see RECTOR). A few words are here pertinent concerning the manner in which the pope exercises his immediate jurisdiction in the various parts of the Catholic world. This is done principally through legates, of whom there are three kinds:

• legati nati, or incumbents of certain archdioceses to which was formerly attached the right of representing the Holy See (e.g. Canterbury), such pre-eminence is now purely honorific;
• legati a latere, or cardinals sent by the pope on extraordinary missions or as temporary representatives;
• nuntii apostolici, i.e. ordinary representatives of the pontifical authority in certain countries; they also act as diplomatic representatives with civil governments. When they lack the latter quality they are known as Apostolic delegates.

In mission countries, i.e. where the hierarchy is not established, the pope delegates vicars Apostolic, who are, as a rule, titular bishops, and whose rights resemble, in general, those of bishops. Prefects Apostolic govern a mission, whether subject to a vicar Apostolic or not; a final category is known as missionaries Apostolic, who differ from simple missionaries in that they receive their powers directly from the Holy See, and not from a vicar or prefect Apostolic. When the latter has no coadjutor with the right of succession, he is bound to appoint a pro-vicar or pro-prefect.

In the Eastern Catholic Church the hierarchy in general resembles that of the West; the variations are few, and may be briefly stated as follows. The Holy See exercises its authority over Churches of the Eastern Rite through a "Congregatio pro negotiis rituum Orientalium", attached to Propaganda, but charged exclusively with questions concerning the Eastern Churches; the Holy See acts also through Apostolic delegates. While the patriarchic organization is preserved, all patriarchs have not equal powers; some of them are even subject to Apostolic delegates. In the Maronite Church we find among the bishop's assistants an archdeacon who is also vicar-general, but has no authority over the priests; an " conomus", who looks after the property and revenue of the church, subject to the bishop's supervision; a "periodeuta" or bardût, charged with the supervision of the churches and the clergy of the diocese (he has also the right to consecrate baptisteries, churches, and altars, and, with the consent of the patriarch, to administer confirmation). The "chorepiscopus" resembles the bardût, but may also give minor orders. The bishop has the right to establish a chorepiscopus wherever there is a numerous clergy; in the cathedral city itself he is known as the archipresbyter, or chûri-episcoupe. These various functions are conferred by a rite resembling that of ordination (Silbernagl-Schnitzer, "Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämtlicher Kirchen des Orients", Ratisbon, 1904, 346 sqq.).

The Hierarchy of the Anglican Church

The organization of the Anglican closely resembles that of the Catholic Church. In its hierarchy of order it counts three grades of Divine institution, episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate. In its hierarchy of jurisdiction come first the archbishops, some of whom have the title of primate, are at the head of an ecclesiastical province, and may convene a provincial synod or Convocation (see CONVOCATION OF THE ENGLISH CLERGY). The bishop rules his diocese with the aid of a chancellor or vicar-general; in the larger dioceses there are suffragan or auxiliary bishops. Chapters and deans of cathedral churches have survived, but are not active in diocesan administration. The bishop may convene a diocesan synod. The Anglicans have also retained archdeacons, deans, and pastors. At present the Anglican Church counts 15 ecclesiastical provinces, comprising 216 dioceses; there are 33 dioceses belonging to no province, of which 24 acknowledge to some extent the Archbishop of Canterbury, 2 the Archbishop of York, 3 the Primate of Canada, 4 the Primate of Australia. There are also 42 suffragan bishops. At the time of the schism Henry VIII proclaimed himself head of the Anglican Church; but the authority of the sovereign in church matters, even within his own dominion, has greatly lessened. The Archbishop of Canterbury enjoys a sort of pre-eminence of honour. Since 1867 a Lambeth Conference is held every ten years at London, to which all the Anglican bishops of the world are invited. In 1897 it established a "Central Consultative Body", reorganized in 1908, but without judicial authority. In spite of many efforts to unify the Anglican Church this aim has not yet been realized. (Siegmund-Schultze in "Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht", 1909, XLI, 52-63.)

BANOSIUS, De politiâ civitatis Dei et hierarchiâ (Frankfort, 1592); COLUMBUS, De angelicâ et humanâ hierarchiâ (Lyons, 1647); PETAVIUS, De ecclesiasticâ hierarchiâ (Paris, 1643); HALLIER, De ecclesiasticâ hierarchiâ (Paris, 1646); DARTIS, De ordinibus et dignitatibus ecclesiasticis (Paris, 1648); MORINUS, Commentarium de sacris ecclesi ordinationibus (Antwerp, 1695); BINER, Tractatus de Summâ Trinitate, fide catholicâ et hierarchiâ ecclesiasticâ (Augsburg, 1765); ANDREUCCI, Hierarchia ecclesiastica in varias suas partes distributa (Rome, 1766); HOFFMANN, De ecclesi catholic hierarchiâ tum ordinis quum jurisdictionis (Warsaw, 1825); SCHNEEMAN, Die kirchliche Gewalt und ihre Träger in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Supplement VII (l867). -- See also theological works on the tract De ecclesiâ et de Romano pontifice; likewise treatises on orders, v. g. GASPARRI, Tractatus canonicus de sacrâ ordinatione (Paris, 1893): MANY, Pr lectiones de sacrâ ordinotione (Paris. 1905) -- See also manuals on canon law, especially HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1869-97), I and II; SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, I (Gratz, 1886-98); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1881); WERNZ, Jus decretalium, I (Rome, 1899); SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des katholischen KirchenrechtS (Freiburg, 1900-04); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). For the Eastern Churches see BISHOP. Cf. articles on the various grades in the hierarchy.

A. VAN HOVE

Hierarchy of the Early Church

The word hierarchy is used here to denote the three grades of bishop, priest, and deacon (ministri). According to Catholic doctrine (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can. vi), this threefold gradation owes its existence to Divine institution. Another name for this hierarchy is hierarchia ordinis, because its three grades correspond to the three grades of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The word hierarchy is, however, also used in a wider sense. A further gradation of dignity is obtained by the inclusion of the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, to whom, by reason of the Divine origin of the hierarchy, the three grades just mentioned are subordinated. If however, those features be taken into account which are of merely ecclesiastical origin, the hierarchy will include not only the remaining sacred orders, viz, the subdiaconate and the minor orders, but also all clerics who possess definite faculties not conferred by the orders themselves. Such are cardinals, nuncios, delegates, patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, vicars-general, archdeacons, deans, parish priests, and curates. This hierarchy in the wider sense is called hierarchia jurisdictionis, because the persons in question have actual power in the Church. There is still a third sense in which the expression hierarchy may be used; in this it includes the whole clergy and laity, inasmuch as they are all members of the Church. No instance of the word hierarchia, corresponding to the term hierarches, can be shown before Dionysius, the Pseudo-Areopagite. It is not to be interpreted as hiera arche (sacred office), but as hieron arche (office of sacred rites) (Petavius, "De angelis", II, ii, 2). That the expression heriarchia found general acceptance is due to the authority of the Pseudo-Areopagite. The third sense of the expression may be also traced to Dionysius [cf., J. Stiglmayr in "Zeitschr. für kathol. Theologie", XII (1898), 180 sqq.].

In the present article the expression hierarchy is employed in its narrowest sense. Since, however, the earliest history of this threefold institution -- the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate -- cannot be given without a detailed inquiry into the entire organization and inner constitution of the early Church, it is proposed to survey in full the earliest history of the organization of the Christian Church up to the year 150; and in this survey it is essential that we extend our inquiry to the Apostolic Office, as the root from which sprang the early Christian episcopate. The foundation of the Church by Christ, the history of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome will not be dealt with here (cf. the articles: BISHOP; CHURCH; COLLEGE, APOSTOLIC; DEACON; PRIEST; PRIMACY; POPE; SUCCESSION, APOSTOLIC). The treatment of the subject will be under these six main heads:

I. THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE GROUPING OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

The common division into an Apostolic and a post-Apostolic period cannot be aptly applied to the collection of historical testimony bearing on the constitution of the early Church; such a division is indeed misleading. Because:

A. Our sources for the very earliest times are too scanty and fragmentary to give us anything approaching a clear picture of the institutions; it is therefore plain that the mere omission of certain things in these sources gives us no right to infer their non-existence.

B. Although the development of the primary elements and fundamental principles of the inner constitution of the Church was surprisingly rapid and uniform, at least in the essential features, the variations in different localities were not inconsiderable.

C. Several testimonies taken from the end of the first and the first half of the second century contain valuable historical information directly concerning the organization of the early Church and thus lead us to the border of the earliest epoch.

D. A wealth of formulæ of archæological interest, and many implicit statements of contemporary legal conceptions are found in these testimonies. They contain, as it were, the crystallized institutions of the earliest period.

E. One should not imagine the primitive ecclesiastical structure as a mere aggregate of disjoined fragments, but rather as a living and regularly developed organism, from whose inner construction we can under certain conditions arrive at definite conclusions as to its origin and growth.

The last two points show that it is allowable, and even necessary to determine from later sources the earliest state of the ecclesiastical constitution by cautious and critical method. A scientific investigation will first bulk together all the sources up to the middle of the second century, and then conceive as a whole, the development up to that time. Research will show that many of the institutions are undoubtedly post-Apostolic, while of the greater number of them, it can only be said that they followed one another in a certain order: it is impossible to determine the exact date of their first appearance. The encyclicals of St. Ignatius (about 110) mark the close of a definite period; and there are other sources, the dates of which are exactly known, that enable us to ascertain the first beginnings and some intermediate steps in the development of this period. This makes it possible to sketch more or less accurately the remaining stages without fixing upon the exact date of each document. For instance, it cannot be doubted that certain descriptions in the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" (Didache) suppose an older phase of corporate development than that which we meet with in the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle of Clement. This fact however does not decide the question whether the Didache was actually written before the Epistle of Clement and the Pastoral Epistles. As to the latter, it is clear that the system of government depicted therein represents an earlier phase than that given in the Letters of Ignatius.

It is not our intention in this article to undertake a preliminary and cursory review of the sources, which would only establish the most evident facts of chronology. This task has been already sufficiently often undertaken from widely different standpoints, and it has been shown on incontestable evidence that the several grades of the hierarchy did not exist from the beginning in their later finished form, but grew up to it by various processes, partly of development and partly of self-differentiation. Supposing therefore that the process of development has been determined in its most general outlines, we can arrange the sources accordingly. Whether the chronology be treated previously or consequently to such an arrangement, that factor must be considered separately.

The classification will now follow of the whole documentary material up to the second half of the second century. From the entire material we shall first collect those testimonies which evidently exhibit the most advanced stage of development and the closest resemblance to the institutions of this period. These documents will form the fourth group. We then gather all those accounts in which the plenitude of the Apostolic authority is shown in conjunction with a somewhat unfinished and fluctuating system of ecclesiastical government; these form the first group. The remaining documents will be assigned to the second or third group accordingly as they are more nearly related to the first or to the fourth.

II. GROUPS OF DOCUMENTS

A. Enumeration

(1) The First Group includes:

(a) the first six chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, and the passages in the Synoptics concerning the special call and unique position of the Twelve,
(b) the two Epistles to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, the two to the Thessalonians, and the Epistle to the Romans,
(c) some texts from the Acts of the Apostles (to be collected later) about the Apostles as witnesses and preachers, about the obedience due to them, and about the fellow-labourers of St. Paul,
(d) the account in the Acts about the seven helpers of the Apostles (vi, 10), of the presbyters of Palestine (xi, 30; xv, xvi, 4; xxi, 18), of the presbyters in Asia (xiv, 23), of the prophets (xiii, 1-3; xv, 32; xxi, 8 sq.).

(2) The Second Group includes:

(a) the Epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and to Philemon,
(b) the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (17 sq.),
(c) the First Epistle of Peter,  
(d) the Didache.

(3) The Third Group includes:

(a) the Treatise to the Hebrews,
(b) the Epistle of James,
(c) the Second Epistle of Peter,
(d) the Epistle of Jude,
(e) the Three Epistles of John,
(f) the Pastoral Epistles,
(g) the First Letter of Clement,
(h) the Ascension of Isaias.

(4) The Fourth Group includes:

(a) the Apocalypse,
(b) the Gospel of St. John,
(c) the Seven Encyclicals of Ignatius, and the Letter of Polycarp,
(d) the Letter of Barnabas, and the homily known under the title of the Second Letter of Clement,
(e) the Pastor of Hermas,
(f) Justin,
(g) Hegesippus,
(h) Abercius, besides
(i) a brief dissertation on Gnosticism and Montanism.

B. Explanation of the Groups

(1) General Remarks

The Apologists (Justin excepted), the fragments of the presbyters and of Papias, the Letter to Diognetus (chaps. xi and xii are spurious), the "Acta" and "Passiones" of the martyrs of this period, excepting a passage from the "Passio Polycarpi"; the Apocrypha properly so called, with the exception of the Ascension of Isaias; all these furnish nothing directly bearing on our matter. The same is true of the Christian papyri, the Ostraka, and the inscriptions. One cannot attach the value of independent testimony to four passages dealing with the special call and vocation of the Twelve, viz, from the Ebionitic Gospel (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xxx, 13), from the Apology of Aristides (Texte und Untersuch., IV, iii, 1893, 9, 10), from the Mission Sermon of Peter (Kerygma Petrou; Robinson, "Texts and Studies", 1891, 86 sq., fragm. 1), and from a Coptic papyrus at Strasburg -- (cf. Göttinger gel. Anz., 1900, 481 sq.). In regard to the oldest Greek Christian papyri, see Wessely "Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme écrits sur Papyrus" ("Patrologia Orientalis", ed. Graffin and Nau, IV, 2). Even without taking into account the lack of a critical text, we must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from the Clementines, since even the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the third century. The writer of the original document may now and then have made use of valid traditions, in questions affecting the constitution of the Church, but he is guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes. All the conclusions regarding primitive conditions which Hilgenfeld's acumen and learning enabled him to draw from the Clementines, must give way under the pressure of careful criticism. Neither does the present writer make use of the so-called "Apostolic Church Ordinance", because of the invalidity of Harnack's hypothesis ("Die Quellen der sog. Apost. Kirchenord.", 1886, 32 sq.), which would base Chaps. 16-21:22-28 on two ancient sources dating from the middle of the second century. The work belongs to the third century and hardly admits of critically safe conclusions. The same is true of the Syriac Didaskalia.

(2) Remarks on the First Group, Section (a)

According to the restrictions made above, we consider here the Gospel accounts only in so far as their testimony enables us to form an idea of the Church as it existed in the first generation. The accounts about the position, the authority, the activity of the original Twelve in Jerusalem (Acts, i-vi) bear the most evident signs of antiquity and genuineness, and agree with all the other information about the dignity of the Apostles handed down to us from early times.

(3) Remarks on the First Group, Section (d)

It will not suffice, with regard to the presbyters of the Acts of the Apostles, to establish historically the fact that about A. D. 50 there were presbyters in Jerusalem and in other localities in Palestine, and that at the same time, Paul on his first journey appointed presbyters in Asia Minor. There remains another important question to be solved, whether all these presbyters are, in a true sense of the word, the predecessors of that primitive college which we meet, for instance about 115, in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. There is not the slightest critical reason -- we shall prove this later on at full length -- why the presbyters of Asia Minor should be understood as different from the superiors mentioned in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. On the other hand, we regard the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus (Acts, xx) as belonging to the second group of the sources, because they represent an authority that is much more definite.

(4) Remarks on the First Group, Section (b) and on the Second Group

In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, the state of the Church as a corporate body does not differ in any essential point from that described in the accounts of the first group. The Apostle Paul appears as the first, nay, the only authority. In the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, the conditions have changed a little. Indeed, the personal rule of the Apostle is still supreme; but some traits point to a gradual passing of power to other superiors. We are reminded of this fact by the title of the Epistle to the Philippians, in which bishops and deacons are mentioned. We are again reminded of it by the mention of Archippus, the minister, in the Epistle to the Colossians. The note to Philemon is likewise connected to some extent with this change. In the second group we place also the Epistle to the Ephesians, since it shows a remarkable decrease in the importance, of individuals endowed with the charismata as members of the organized Body of Christ. For similar reasons we insert here the Didache.

(5) Remarks on the Third and Fourth Group

All the writings enumerated in the third group show the organization of the Church more developed. The fourth group witnesses the preponderance of the monarchic episcopate. It is not easy to find the right place for the Pastor of Hermas. The degree of organic development supposed in that work, the pronounced control of the presbyters, and the presence to all appearances of a leading personality, Clement, all this points to an intermediate stage, the place of which we are much inclined to fix between the First Letter of Clement and the Encyclicals of Ignatius. Only once is Clement mentioned and then in passing; little therefore can be gathered as to the position assigned him by Hermas. On the other hand, the Church's organization is more stable than it was in Corinth at the time of the first Clement about A. D. 98. Whether Hermas really attempted to carry back his description of the Church to the end of the first century by giving it a tinge of antiquity is as yet an open question; the categorical "No" of recent scholars provokes contradiction. At all events the attempt of Hermas, supposing it to have been made, was rather weak. But, on the other hand, the personal tone is no proof to the contrary. Still, there are strong indications that the prophet wrote about A. D. 150. A monarchic bishop, it is true, is nowhere mentioned, but from this it does not follow that Hermas finished his work before the election of his brother Pius to the Bishopric of Rome. Just because he was the brother of the Head of the Church, he must have thought it more advisable to be silent concerning him and to antedate the abuses which he reprehends.

III. DISCUSSION OF TEXTS OF DATE NOT LATER THAN THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY

A. The Texts of the First Group

If we judge of the organization of the Churches depicted in the first group of documents simply according to the account given in the texts, without using a definite theory as a basis, nine questions naturally present themselves as to:

(1) The Position of the Twelve

In the first six chapters of the Acts the Eleven (Twelve if we include Matthias) appear as a governing body to whom the community of Jerusalem is subject (i, 13, 25, 26; ii, 14, 37, 42, 43; iv, 33, 35, 37; v, 2, 12, 18-42; vi, 2 sq., 6). The chief personality is Simon Peter (i, 15 sq., ii, 14, 37; iv, 8; v, 3 sq., 15, 29). Next to him stands John (iii, 1, 3, 4, 11; iv, 1, 13 sq.). According to these texts the Twelve are heralds of the Word of God and rulers of the community. This conception agrees with the traditions in the Synoptics. These traditions inform us: (a) of the special appointment of the Twelve, (b) of the office entrusted to them, and their future destiny.

(a) Special selection of the Twelve

(i) Appointment -- The vocation of individuals, viz, of Peter, Andrew, James and John. They are to be fishers of men (Mark, i, 16-20; Matthew, iv, 18-22). According to Luke, v, 10, Jesus, after the miraculous draught of fishes, says to Simon that henceforth he shall catch men. The calling of Matthew (Mark, ii, 13, 14; Matt., ix, 9; Luke, v, 27, 28). Appointment of the Twelve (Mark, iii, 13-19; Matthew, x, 2-4; Luke, vi, 12-16). Christ "also named them apostles" (Luke, vi, 13).
(ii) The Office of the Twelve and their Future Destiny -- They are to be with Him and to be sent to preach (Mark, iii, 14). They are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt., v, 13-16). They also must protect the world against corruption and elevate it by their holy example. What Christ has told them in the dark, they shall speak in the light (Matt., x, 26-27).
(iii) Mission of the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to heal the sick (Mark, vi, 7 sq.; Matt., x, 5 sq.; Luke, ix, 1 sq.). To the Gentiles they are not to go. Mission of the Seventy (Luke x, 1-16). All are obliged to receive the Twelve and the Seventy, and to hear them; otherwise a severe judgment awaits them (l. c.).
(iv) The power to bind and to loose given to the Twelve (Matt., xviii, 15 sq.); they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke, xxii, 30).
(v) The Mission to the world (Mark, xvi, 14-18; Matt., xxxii, 18-20; Luke, xxiv, 44-49).
(vi) The Apostles will survive their Master and pass through days of sadness (Mark, ii, 19, 20; Matt., ix, 15; Luke, v, 34-35; similarly Mark, viii, 35 sq.; Matt., xvi 24 sq.; Luke, ix, 22 sq.; Luke, xvii, 20 sq.). They will be dragged before tribunals (Luke, xii, 11, 12; xxi, 12 sq.; Mark, xiii, 9 sq.; Matt., x, 17 sq.).

(b) Special Appointment and Position of Simon Peter

Peter is the foundation of the Church and the keeper of the keys; he has full power to bind and to loose (Matt., xvi, 18 sq.). Peter is to be like a wise and faithful steward, whom the master setteth over his family (Luke, xii, 41 sq.; cf. Matt., xxiv, 45 sq.). Christ prays for Peter; Peter is to confirm his brethren in the Faith (Luke, xxii, 31-34). No passage in early Christian literature permits our explaining the primitive and marked position of importance enjoyed by the Church of Jerusalem by the importance of this city itself. Only the Twelve are the bearers of this authority, and later James, the "brother of the Lord", and his circle. Nowhere do we hear that brethren gifted with the charismata had any influence in matters of government. The Apostolic authority is represented as the result of the Divine ordinance. This authority included jurisdiction. The Twelve regarded their prerogatives as a moral power conferred by God and Christ, as a right which exacted from others the correlative service of obedience.

(2) The Seven Apostolic Helpers (Acts, vi) and the Presbyters of Palestine

(a) The Seven Administrators of the Table

Owing to the complaint of Hellenistic Jewish Christians that their widows were less cared for than those of the "Hebrews", the Twelve provide that seven men, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom be "looked out" and chosen (cf. to plethos ton matheton, Acts, vi, 2, and enopion pantos tou plethous, vi, 5) by the whole community (cf. episkepsasthe of vi, 3, and exelexanto of vi, 5). The Apostles themselves intend to install the persons chosen in their office (vi, 3). This enables the Twelve to devote themselves (henceforth exclusively) to prayer and preaching. The Seven Elect are presented to the Apostles who "praying impose hands upon them" (vi, 5 and 6). No critical doubt can be cast upon any part of the narrative. An official name for the Seven has not come down to us. Their office is described as a ministering to the tables (diakonein trapeizas, vi, 2), the care of the temporal support of the poor. In reality, however, one of those elected, Stephen, soon devotes himself with ardent zeal to the preaching of the Word of God. Another, Philip, becomes a missionary (viii, 5 sq.) He is called evangelist (xxi, 8).

The sources thus show that these seven men, elected by the people in obedience to the Apostles, were invested by the Apostles in the almoner's office with prayer and imposition of hands. In addition they could act as preachers. Whether this institution existed for any length of time, we do not know. There is no dogmatic tradition strictly speaking, nor any decisive historical reason to suppose that these seven men were deacons in the later sense of the word. The question of their position is usually looked at from a wrong point of view. For from the difference between the original and the later sphere of activity we cannot infer a lack of continuity between the office of the Seven and that of the deacons of the second century. The office of the Seven was no more completely independent than that of the later deacons. One and the same office may in course of time shift the limits of its competence to a very considerable extent; so much so that only a minimum may remain of what it was originally. Yet nobody speaks in this case of an essentially different office. To be convinced of this, we have only to consider the Roman offices of prætor and quæstor. In later times too the care of the poor and sick was one of the duties of deacons proper. The distribution of the Eucharist was likewise part of their duty. It is not impossible that the last mentioned duty is already included in the expression "ministering to the tables", used in our text; for comparison see chap. ii, 46, "Breaking bread from house to house (klontes te kat okon arton) they took their meat (metelambanon trophes)". The most important point however is this: the Seven were appointed to their office by the Apostles with imposition of hands and prayer. This prayer must have contained, implicitly at least the petition that the Holy Ghost might empower and strengthen the chosen ones to fulfil their office (of ministering to the tables), thus conferring all that was essentially necessary to make their office the same as the later diaconate. Nor has the Church ever placed the essence of the diaconate in anything else.

(b) The Presbyters of Palestine

We do not know whether or not there is an historical basis for the legendary tradition that the first twelve Apostles, following the command of their Master, remained twelve years in Jerusalem. At all events only Simon Peter, (James), and John and James the "Brother of the Lord" are met with in Jerusalem between the years 45 and 50. About this time presbyters appeared in addition to the Apostles. We find mention of them for the first time in Acts, xi, 30. They are to be found in several Christian communities of Palestine. In Jerusalem the presbyters hold a middle rank between the Apostles and the rest of the community. Together with the Apostles they write the letter which conveys the decision reached by the Church of Jerusalem as to the proper mode of observing the law (xv, 1-30; cf. xvi, 4). The Acts mention the presbyters in connexion with James only on one other occasion (xxi, 18). It is contrary to the principles of historical research to associate the first appearance of the Palestinian presbyters with the monarchical position held by James of the house of David. It is only at a later time, probably after Peter had left Jerusalem for a long time or for ever that James appears as the monarchic bishop of the holy city. The presbyters were at first simply assistants of the Twelve outside the capital. Then a substitute for the Apostles was needed in Jerusalem as well, when most of them had left that city. This was not a revolution in the system of church government; it was merely the natural course of events. No one who clearly understands the practice and the ideas of the earliest times will doubt that the installation of these presbyters was effected by means of imposition of hands and prayer. Very probably the presbyterate of the earliest time was only a dignity.

(3) The Origin of the Apostolic Authority

(a) Paul proves that he is an Apostle sent directly by God and Christ and endowed with full power (Gal., i, 1, 12, 15; ii, 8-9; I Cor., i, 1; iii, 9-11; iv, 1; ix, 1; II Cor., i, 1; iii, 6; x, 4-8; xi, 4-5; the whole of chapters xi and xii; I Thess., i, 4-5; ii, 4, 13; Rom., i, 1-16; xi, 13 sq.; xii, 3; xv, 15-22; xvi, 25-27).

(b) Supplementary texts: Gal., i, 8-9 (Paul preaches the absolute truth); Gal., ii, 2 (comparison between his Gospel and that of the original Apostles); Gal., ii, 6 (he did not receive power from other Apostles, whether the word Apostles be taken in the narrower or the wider sense). The thought underlying all these texts is this: Paul conceived his own authority as analogous to the power conferred by God and Christ upon the Twelve, a power which Paul himself acknowledged.

(c) These utterances of Paul agree with the following from the Acts of the Apostles: ii, 32; iv, 33; v, 32; viii, 25 (the Apostles are authoritative witnesses of the Resurrection and the deeds of Jesus Christ): ix, 3 sq.; xxii, 14 sq.; xxvi, 15 sq. (vocation of St. Paul); iv, 19, 20; v, 29; x, 42 (the Apostles are bound to make known what they have seen and heard); ix, 27 (Paul is presented to the Apostles by Barnabas at Jerusalem); xiii, 47 [Paul (and Barnabas?) appointed by Christ to be the light of the Gentiles]; xx, 24, teleioto [teleiosai] . . . ten diakonian en elabon para tou kyriou Iesou, diamartyrasthai to euaggellion . . . This text is equivalent to those given above under (a).

(4) Relations of the Apostle to the Communities Founded by him

(a) Galatians

The Galatians were obliged to believe and obey the preaching of Paul (Gal., i, 6-12; iii, 1-2; iv, 14-19; v, 2, 7-10). Their relations are based upon the following three facts strongly emphasized by Paul:

(i) They have received the Holy Ghost ex akons pisteos ("by the hearing of faith", iii, 2).
(ii) Paul preaches the absolute truth, therefore let him be anathema who preaches a Gospel besides that which he has preached (i, 8-9).
(iii) To resist the truth when preached, is to disobey (v, 7).

(b) Corinthians

Paul introduces himself as an authoritative teacher: (I Cor., i, 11 sq.; cf. iii, 4-7; ii, 4-5; iv, 3-5, 15, 16, 17, Paul threatens to use severe measures (iv, 19-21); he commands them to expel the incestuous adulterers (v, 1-13); to appoint arbitrators (vi, 1-7); he distinguishes between his permission (syggnome) and his command (epitage) (vii, 6); cf. vii, 7, "I would"; 8, "I say"; 10, "I command, not I, but the Lord"; 12, "1 speak, not the Lord"; 25, "I give counsel"; 40, he wishes them to follow his counsel. Paul has the right to be maintained by those to whom he preaches, but he has not made use of this right (ix, 1-2; 7-16). He praises them that keep his ordinances (xi, 2); "now this I ordain", 17; "the rest I will set in order, when I come", xi, 33 and 34; cf. also the orders, xiv, 28 sq. and xv, i sq.; xvi, i sq.: ordinance concerning the collection, which according to the will of the Apostles, was always to be looked upon as a free act of kindness. Cf. II Cor., ix and Rom., xv, 26 sq. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle does not attribute to the community any authority whatsoever over himself; he refuses to be the object of any arrogant judgment (iv, 3). In three instances he admits that the community has certain rights which, however, have their origin in his command or his directions (v, 1-13; vi, 1-7; xvi, 1 sq.). II Cor., i, 23 sq.: Paul assures them that he avoided coming to Corinth in order to spare them, and he adds: "Not because we exercise dominion over your faith, but we are helpers of your joy." This is the only passage of this kind found in the writings of St. Paul. II Cor., ii, 9: "For this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things;" iii, 2-3; vii, 8-12; viii, 10 sq. (mild requests); x, 1-18; up to this chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul lays little stress upon his authority; he does not so much utter injunctions as counsels and requests, without, however, acknowledging any power of the community over himself. Now he speaks of the spiritual weapons given by God "unto the pulling down of fortifications", (4) "bringing into captivity every understanding (noema) unto the obedience of Christ", (5) "having in readiness to revenge all disobedience", (6) the Lord has given him power "unto edification" (8; cf. xiii, 10; xi, 4); there is no other Christ, no other Gospel, but that which he has brought (anechesthe, not aneichesthe) (xiii, 2); if he comes again, he will not spare the sinners. From chap. x on Paul again forcibly emphasizes his full authority over the community.

(c) Romans

We must take into account that the Apostle speaks to a community which he himself has not founded (cf. especially chap. xv); consequently he does not give commands; nevertheless he teaches with full authority, as one who has power. He refers (xiii, 3) to the grace granted him in order that he might be enabled to give earnest admonitions; hence it is that the Gentiles owe him obedience (xv, 15-19). The same idea is expressed in chap. xvi, 17-19. The text (x,14-17) is one of those most helpful in giving us an insight into the beginnings of Christianity. Belief is impossible if one has not heard a preacher of the Faith, and preaching requires the sending of the preacher.

(d) Thessalonians

In I Thess., ii, 7 (I Cor., ix, 7-16 and II Thess., iii, 7-9); I Thess., iv, 1; II Thess., ii, 12-14 (cf. 2-4), Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to hold the traditions which they have learned, whether by word or by his epistle; cf. also iii, 6. If one of the faithful does not obey Paul's epistle, they shall not keep company with him and shall admonish him (iii, 14 and 15).

(e) Supplementary notes from the Acts of the Apostles

Acts, ii, 42 (The community perseveres in the doctrine of the Apostles). Acts, xv, 6-31 (The Apostles and the presbyters of Jerusalem issue an authoritative encyclical concerning the observance of the law). Acts, xvi, 4 extends it to Asia Minor.

(5) The rights of the Communities

The first group of our documents contains fifteen texts from which may be drawn conclusions with regard to certain community rights. These texts may be divided into eight classes. The first contains information on elections of an official character held by the communities; the second, on elections of a private character; the third, on judicial proceedings; the fourth, on private courts of arbitration; the fifth, on the opinions of the faithful with regard to the Apostles; the sixth, on collections taken up in the communities; the seventh, on credentials granted in the name of the community; the eighth, on the acknowledgment of superiors by the community. In order to view the matter in the proper critical light, one must keep in mind that from the very beginning the concept Ecclesia expressed not only the local particular Church, but also the universal Church as a whole, in as much as it is superior to the individual communities and operates in them as their vital principle. This is now admitted by Protestant scholars of the first rank. Even when Ecclesia was used in the sense of local Church it did not, in the earliest Christian literature, designate the community as opposed to the Apostles or any other superiors, but it meant the organized community Such is the obvious meaning of the term in all the writings of the New Testament. In only two passages which, moreover, belong to the quite exceptional fifteenth chapter of the Acts, the Ecclesia is placed side by side with the Apostles and presbyters: The Apostles of the Gentiles are received by the Church (of Jerusalem) and by the Twelve and the presbyters (xv, 4); the Apostles and presbyters together with the entire Church of Jerusalem elect the envoys for Antioch. Acts, xiv, 22 says Paul appointed presbyters in every Church (kat ekklesian) of Asia Minor.

Elsewhere, however, St. Paul's conception of the Church prevails; the Church, both in its ideal form and in its concrete realization, is always the body of Christ and consequently an organic, articulated whole. It is in the Epistle to the Ephesians that we find for the first time the notion of this ideal Church, i.e., of the universal Church taken as an individual unit (Ephes., i, 22; iii, 10, 21; v, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; so too Col., i, 18, 24; Hebr., xii, 23 sq.). This is the meaning of Matt., xvi, 18: "I will build my church". Something like a transition to this meaning is found in I Cor., xii, 28: "God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, etc." One plainly feels however that behind these words there still lurks the idea that in every individual Church (i. e. community) the various charismata are operative. Something similar may be observed in I Cor., x, 32 with the difference, however, that here the actual particular Church is still more clearly to be seen. On the other hand in the three passages where Paul speaks of himself as the former persecutor of the Church, he may possibly have in mind the community of Jerusalem (Gal. i, 13; I Cor., xv, 9; Phil., iii, 10). In Acts, xi, 26 the word Ekklesia seems also to have a signification intermediate between that of the particular concrete Church and that of the ideal universal Church. There remain eighty-four texts in which the word Ecclesia occurs. In no single one of them does the expression signify the community or the congregation taken in a distinctly democratic sense, by which emphasis would be laid on the self-government of the faithful. It is therefore not admissible to consider the actions of the Ecclesia as a mere outcome of democratic rights, thus arbitrarily excluding both the unitary operation of the organism as a whole and the graded activity of the individual members and different organs of administration. St. Paul certainly ascribes all rights and powers to the Ecclesia as the ideal whole, through whose vivifying action they are imparted to the local Churches, the proximate sources whence the individual administrative organs derive their vital prerogatives. But all this is possible only because the Church is the body of Christ and thus in vital union with the giver of life, Jesus Christ.

This early Christian view of the Church has nothing in common with the idea of a purely human, democratic authority and supremacy of the community. In our own days as well, it is of course the only correct conception of the Christian Church; it is the Catholic idea of the Church. Even towards the end of the second century the use of terms had already begun to undergo a change. This is perhaps to be regretted. Instead of speaking of the activity, the efficiency, and the sacrificial office of the Church of God, it gradually became customary to lay stress on the acting organs, i.e., to ascribe these functions to the bishop or presbyter. This brought out more clearly the element of jurisdiction and defined more sharply the grades of authority. As long as the Church in general was conceived as the subject of all activity, the functions of the individual organs remained undefined nor could any clear distinction be drawn between their respective attributions. While these were more plainly marked off in the later development, the depth and unity of thought was impaired by the obscuring of the idea that the Church is the mystical body of Christ. St. Paul never derived all the rights and powers of the Churches founded by him from the plenitude of his Apostolic power. He never forgot that the Church of God was primarily a creation of God, and therefore the subject of rights founded in her very nature. But these rights and powers which come from God have nothing in common with community rights. By community rights we understand, of course, only those rights which were proper to actually existing, complete communities. In most of the Protestant works on this subject we find these latter rights confounded with those that belong to the Church as an organism, as the body of Christ. Harnack, in his latest treatise on the inner constitution of the Church (Realencyklop. für Protest. Theol. und Kirche, ed. 3, XX, 1908, 508-546; cf. especially 519 sq.) has attempted to remove this confusion, but only with partial success.

In the next series of texts we cannot, of course, insert those in which St. Paul, as for instance in Gal., iv, 17, exhorts the Christians to admonish one another, to warn, to correct the sinners. This is a duty imposed by the Lord's command; and the right to fulfil that duty is included in the right to administer fraternal correction; it is not a community right. The first group of texts deals with electoral proceedings of an official character.

(a) The entire assembly of the faithful takes part in the election of Matthias (Acts, i, 23-26), after two candidates had been proposed. Peter opens the proceedings; but no information is given about the right of presentation and the manner of casting the lot.
(b) The seven assistants of the Apostles are chosen by the whole community in accordance with the injunction of the Twelve (pan to plethos . . . exelexanto); and from the Apostles they receive the imposition of hands with prayer (Acts, vi, 2-6).
(c) In Acts, xi, 22 sq., we are told that the "Church that was at Jerusalem" sends Barnabas as an official envoy to Antioch.

After the council of the Apostles, envoys are sent out by the Apostles, presbyters, and the whole Church (syn ole te ekklesia, Acts xv, 22). A semi-official election is spoken of in only one text (second group of texts). St. Paul is given a companion "by the churches" (II Cor., viii, 19) to accompany him in collecting alms. It is easy to read between the lines that St. Paul desired to have them appointed in order to protect himself against evil tongues. In these electoral acts one must bear in mind all that has been said about the Church as an organism and also take into account the dependence of the voters upon the Apostles, which the texts themselves suggest. Finally the following important methodological rule should constantly be kept in view: if a document simply reports the fact that a community chose its officials or that it had a share in their appointment, this does not warrant the conclusion that the government is based on democratic principles.

A third group of texts contains information about 'the judicial prerogatives of the community. They include the sentence condemning the incestuous man, which was passed in a plenary session of the community at Corinth (I Cor., v, 3 sqq.) and an allusion to a similar event that took place later in the same Church (II Cor., ii, 6-9, and vii, 12). In both cases one finds an ordinance of the Apostle, and this means that the competency of the community depends on St. Paul. The fourth group consists of only one text. It deals with private courts of arbitration to be introduced at Corinth by order of St. Paul (I Cor., vi, 1 sq.). In the fifth group we have three texts which tell of the harsh judgment passed by the faithful on St. Paul (Gal., vi, 1; I Cor., iv, 3) and St. Peter (Acts, xi, 1-4). With regard to their manner of acting, only the text in the Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of a "day" (hemera) of the community. The points at issue are party differences that had sprung up between the followers of Paul, Cephas, and Apollo. However only a superficial exegesis would draw from the discussions conclusions as to the fundamental elements of the ecclesiastical organization. Indeed St. Paul himself declares his complete indifference to all these judgments. He was, of course, extremely cautious with regard to the collection of alms (II Cor., viii, 18 sq) -- sixth group. He left it to the Christians themselves to keep or to give their mite. It would be absurd to speak here of definable rights. The credentials and letters of recommendation (II Cor., iii, l) -- seventh group -- were not a matter of compulsion. No community rights can he inferred from them.

There remains in consequence only the eighth group, consisting of two texts. The question here is, what rights can be deduced from the acknowledgment of superiors by the community (I Cor., xvi, 16; I Thess., v, 12)? No proof has been found hitherto for Weizsacker's assertion (Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, 3rd ed., 1902, p. 601) that this acknowledgement was "at all times" dependent upon the free choice of the community. The altogether unwarranted conclusions drawn from our texts by Weizsacker (op. cit., 599 sq.) and many scholars after him have been refuted by me in detail in "Zeitschrift für katholische Theol.", XXVII, 1903, pp. 64-74. This article with the help of other documents shows also the further point, that the circumstance of the Epistles being directed to the entire community does not in the least prove the autonomy of the community and the absence of superiors. This serves also as a refutation of Knopf's statements (Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1905, p. 148 sq.). Even if the community rights as described in the whole first group of documents were much more extensive than the texts actually show them to be, we could not yet speak in any way of a democratic reform of the constitution (cf. Dunin Borkowski, "Methodologische Vorfragen zur urchristlichen Verfassungsgeschichte" in "Zeitschr. für Kath. Theol.", XXVIII, 1904, pp. 218-249, and XXIX, 1905, pp. 28-52 and 212-257). Even though the critical analysis of all the texts reduces to their true value the alleged rights of the first Christian communities, we of course do not deny that St. Paul allowed the communities which he founded a larger autonomy on many points, thus making the local Church in various matters independent of himself. We must, however, always understand the Church in the sense in which Paul understands it, namely as an organic body whose several members enjoy distinct activities proportionate to the functional power, with which each of them is endowed by God.

(6) Position of Charismatic Individuals

The longer Epistles of St. Paul contain information about certain wonderful, mystic manifestations of the religious life in the earliest communities. These are : prophecy, working of miracles in general (energemata or energemata dynameon or dynameis), healing of the sick (charismata iamaton), discerning of spirits (diakriseis pneumaton, diakrinein), the gift of tongues (geneglosson, ai glossai, ho [pneumati] lalon glosse or glossais), the interpretation of these tongues (ermeneia glosson, diermeneuesthai, eusemon logon dounai, dynamin tes phones eidenai, hermeneia), revelation (lalein en apokalypsei, apokalypsin echein). In I Cor., xiv, 6, the gift of revelation is distinguished from that of prophecy, while in verses 26 and 29 it is declared to be prophecy. Prophecy reveals not only the future but also, and especially, the secrets of hearts (I Cor., xiv, 23-25). The gift of the discerning of spirits distinguishes between several (probably conflicting) prophetic speeches (I Cor., xiv, 29 sq.). These gifts of the Holy Ghost and only these are to be counted among the mystic, extraordinary manifestations. The Apostle calls them charismata, pneumata, charismata pneumatika, ta pneumatika. The individuals so endowed are oi pneumatikoi. According to the Apostle's mode of speaking, charisma is used to mean every activity that in any way originates from the ordinance of God or Christ, and is granted chiefly for the good of the Church. It need not be given to the individual immediately by God; it may have been established by God as an ordinary supernatural function. In other words, every religious activity exercised within the Church as the body of Christ, and in the service of the Church, is considered by the Apostle as a gift of God and in certain cases as a Divinely appointed office.

In the first group of texts the word charisma (charismata) occurs fourteen times: Rom., i, 11; v, 15, 16; vi, 23; xi, 29; xii, 6; I Cor., i, 7; vii, 7; xii, 4, 9, 28, 30, 31 (chapters xiii and xiv speak throughout of charismata without, however, mentioning the word); II Cor., i, 11. There are only three other passages in which the expression occurs, but in these it is used in the exact meaning in which St. Paul uses it: I Tim., iv, 14; II Tim., i, 6; I Pet., iv, 10. With the exception, perhaps, of Rom., v and vi, the meaning given above is quite evident. In the fifth and sixth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans the meaning is even more general. Charity, faiths, and hope, exercised in any manner for the service of the Church, are charismata. They are even more perfect than the gift of miracles (I Cor., xii, 31, and xiii). As the spreading of the Kingdom of God and the preaching of the Gospel are charismata of the Spirit (Rom., xv, 27: tois pneumatikois [i.e. charismasin] . . . ekoinoesan -- cf. I Cor., ix, 11), so also is that mutual consolation which the common Faith affords. Those Christians are "spiritual" who are governed by the Spirit of Divine meekness (Gal., vi, 1). The word of wisdom (logos sophias), the word of knowledge (logos gnoseos), ordinary teaching (didache, didaskalia) are not, therefore, necessarily mystic and miraculous manifestations. The contrary opinion, although widely spread, cannot be proved from the sources. Whether all these charismata are mystic or miraculous (see above) or not depends on their object and their character. The opposition of the "spiritual" individual to the prophet in I Cor., xiv, 37, is only apparent. The he in the sentence ei tis dokei prophetes einai he pneumatikos is to be translated by "or in general". Every charismatic individual is spiritual, but not vice versa. It shows lack of exact criticism to suppose extraordinary charismata, or miraculous endowments, in all those cases where there is mention of charismata.

We now proceed to a more detailed examination of these texts. In Rom., xii, 3-8, the diverse charismata are enumerated which determine the dignity of the members of the mystical body of Christ. Among these charismata Paul mentions (v. 6) prophecy "according to the rule of faith" (kata ten analogian tes pisteos), the ministry and the gift of teaching (v. 7). With regard to the two latter, it cannot be shown that they were charismata in a different sense than any other Christian virtue, or any work undertaken out of love or under the ordinary influence of grace. This is confirmed by the circumstance that immediately afterwards there are mentioned: (v. 8) he that exhorteth (parakalon), he that giveth (metadidous), he that ruleth (proistamenos), and he that sheweth mercy (eleon). In I Cor., xii, 4-31, Paul distinguishes (v. 4, 5, 6), charismata, probably healing of the sick, ministries (diakoniai), and operations (energemata). In the Epistle to the Romans he counts ministries among the charismata. However, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he does not adhere strictly to this threefold division. For in verses 8 and 9 he evidently enumerates as charismata the (obscure) word of wisdom (logos sophia), the (interpreting) word of knowledge (logos gnoseos), faith (pistis), and the grace of healing (charismata iamaton). In v. 10 miracles are mentioned in the first place, probably expulsions of demons (energemata dynameon), and then follow prophecy, discerning of spirits, the gift of tongues, and the interpretation of speeches. Verse 28 gives another list: apostles, prophets, doctors, miracles (dynameis), the graces of healings, helps (antilepseis), governments (kyberneseis), kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. The Apostles, prophets, and doctors are introduced by "first", "secondly", and "thirdly". For the Apostles are the first heralds of the Faith; in the prophets the marvellous power of the Holy Ghost is displayed in the first and most necessary manifestations; the doctors explain the new doctrine to the newly converted. In chapters xiii, 1-3, and xiv, 1-5 and 19, Paul again refers incidentally to some of the charismata, in order to warn against overvaluation and misuse. In xiv, 27-33 and 37-38, it is stated that the prophets do not possess the privilege of absolute truth; they have to control one another. Furthermore they, as well as all charismatic members, must be in conformity with the teaching of the Apostle (cf. Rom., xii, 6), and acknowledge that his teaching is the command of God [Ei tis dokei prophetes einai he pneumatikos, epiginosketo, ha grapho hymin, oti kyriou estin entole. Ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitai (I Cor., xiv, 37-38 -- the reading agnoeito gives no sense)].

The comforter of the Epistle to the Romans who admonishes and teaches is charismatic in the same sense as Tychicus, whose office it is to console the Ephesians and Colossians (Eph., vi, 21 and 22; Col., iv, 7 and 8), as Timothy in Thessalonica (I Thess., iii, 2). Paul regards every admonition and consolation proceeding from the Faith as a form of activity included in charismata, and Paul, Timothy, and Titus act as parakalountes when they admonish and instruct (I Thess., ii, 11; I Tim., v, 1; vi, 2; II Tim., iv, 2; Tit., ii, 6, 15). The word paraklesis in the New Testament has always the meaning of an explanatory admonition and consolation, or an instruction; so Acts, xiii, 15; xv, 31; II Cor., viii, 17; I Thess., ii, 3; cf. Heb., xiii, 22. Frequently it denotes consolation in the passive sense; so II Cor., i, 3, 4, 5, 6 (bis), 7; vii, 4, 7, 13; viii, 4(?); Phil., ii, 1; II Thess., ii, 16; Philem., 7 (cf. Heb., vi, 18; xii, 5; Acts, ix, 31). As denoting a prophetic admonition and consolation we find paraklesis in I Cor., xiv, 3, and I Tim., iv, 13, where it is found in combination with didaskalia. It signifies, therefore, consoling exhortation as distinguished from instruction. Nor does metadidonai imply a charisma in the sense of an extraordinary command of the Spirit. It is used not only of material alms (Eph., iv, 28 -- cf. Luke, iii, 11), but also of a spiritual gift (Rom., i, 11), and of the Gospel (I Thess., ii, 8 -- metadounai). Hilarotes occurs only in the above-mentioned passage in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom., xii, 8). The heleon is simply every one who from motives of Faith exercises mercy in the service of the Church. Neither do we know anything of a mystic or miraculous charisma relating to spiritual or material help (antilepseis) and government (kyberneseis), words which do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; they were simply voluntary or official services. The ruler (proistamenos) of the Epistle to the Romans is endowed with just such a spiritual gift. These gifts are charismata in St. Paul's sense (see above). On account of the local colour of the "Didache" we cannot draw from it any general conclusions concerning the Apostles, prophets, and doctors of the oldest times. This triad -- Apostles, prophets, doctors -- occurs in the New Testament only in I Cor., xii, 28 and 29. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv, 11) Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors are enumerated. In the Acts we find (xiii, 1) only prophets and doctors. Apart from the Gospels, we find doctors (didaskaloi) mentioned alone in the following texts: Rom., ii, 20 (some Christians believe themselves to be teachers of infants); Heb., v, 12 (those addressed ought to be masters); I Tim., ii, 7, and II Tim., iv, 3 (in the last the reference is to false teachers); James, iii, 1 (there should not be many masters). In none of these places does the word doctor or its equivalent imply a mystic or miraculous charisma; at least such cannot be shown from the sources themselves. The same is true of the expressions didache and didaskalia, which denote simply the doctrine itself and its actual communication. They were charismata just as every gift granted by God for the service of the Church was a charisma. The same is found to be true from a study of the Pastoral Epistles. Neither does the expression teach (didasko, I teach) signify anything more.

More difficult is the correct valuation of the term apostle. Beginning with Lightfoot (St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 1887 and 1902, 92 sqq.) this question has been discussed again and again. The present writer takes the view that in the Acts the word is always used of the Twelve, with the exception however of xiv, 4 and 13. There Barnabas and Paul are called "the apostles" (oi apostoloi). From this we cannot at once conclude that Barnabas was an Apostle in the same sense as Paul. For, as it was everywhere known that Paul enjoyed the title of Apostle, it may well be that Barnabas as his companion shared this name. Neither he nor Sylvanus is ever called Apostle by Paul himself, not even in I Cor., ix, 6. Paul does, however, allow Barnabas (and Sylvanus) to share in his Apostolic privileges when they are in his company; so, for instance, in Gal., ii, 9. Paul commonly gives the title of Apostle to none but the Twelve besides himself. In II Cor., xi, 5, and xii, 11, it is plain that those who are "above measure" apostles are ironically so called and are to be looked upon as pseudo-apostles. In II Cor., viii, 23, the apostoloi ekklesion are envoys. The word is used here in its original meaning, not unknown, perhaps, to the Hellenistic Jews. In II Cor., xi, 13, it is stated that the pseudo-apostles claimed the position of real Apostles (probably, therefore, in the strict sense); they certainly assumed the name of "apostles". From this it does not of course follow that they had a right to that name. The three well known passages, I Cor., xii, 28 and 29; Eph., ii, 20 (iii, 5); and Eph., iv, 11, which speak of the "apostles" together with the prophets as members of Christ and as the foundation of the Church, do not permit us to decide with certainty whether Paul speaks here of apostles in the wider sense or, as in all the other texts, of himself and the Twelve. The latter is the more probable. There remains, therefore, only the remarkable passage in Rom., xvi, 7; here Andronicus and Junias are mentioned as episemoi en tois apostolois. These words evidently intended to designate these two as especially distinguished apostles. This, therefore, would be the only passage in the New Testament where "apostle" occurs in a wider sense, unless it should have to be translated thus: "they did excellent service as messengers of the community", and the word would mean the same as in II Cor., viii, 23. Apostole (office of an apostle) occurs four times in the New Testament. Twice Paul uses it to denote his own vocation (Rom., i, 5; I Cor., ix, 2); once to denote that of Peter (Gal., ii, 8). In the Acts, i, 25, this word (apostleship) together with ministry designates the office of the Twelve. The thirty-six passages in the New Testament, apart from the Gospels, which contain the word send (apostellein) do not permit of any conclusions being reached on this point.

According to the earliest Christian sources the office of Apostle is a charisma, but not a mystic charisma. The Eleven are Apostles in so far as they are witnesses of the life of Christ and recipients of His Divine injunctions. Paul is an Apostle because he has actually seen the heavenly Christ and received his mission from Him. Matthias is an Apostle because he has known Christ and because at his election the Lord Himself determined on whom the lot was to fall. Nothing certain can be said about the source of the " Apostolate" of Barnabas. At all events he was an Apostle only in the sense that he preached in places where nobody had as yet announced the Gospel, for this was essential in order to merit the title of Apostle. It is certain that the Apostles were frequently moved by a special Divine inspiration to direct their course to some particular locality, but it cannot be proved that this was always the case nor is that at all probable. Other missionaries were most probably called evangelists (cf. Acts, xxi, 8; Eph., iv, 11; II Tim., iv, 5). But the corresponding verb evaggelizesthai is also used for the first Apostolic preaching. Even if towards the end of the so-called Apostolic age there existed Apostles in the wider sense of the word, as we rightly conclude from the "Didache", our first group of sources contains nothing definite as to their authority and unquestionably excludes their being placed on the same level with the Twelve and with Paul (and Barnabas?). The rest of Paul's Epistles belonging to the first group contain the following additional data with regard to the charismata. Paul bids the Thessalonians not to despise prophecy (I Thess., v, 20). The admonition in the preceding verse (19) to extinguish not the spirit hardly refers to a mystic charisma. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (ii, 2) contains too the noteworthy warning to the Christians not to be easily terrified, nor drawn away from the teachings of the Apostles by any "spirit".

The Acts often speak in general terms of an influence of the Spirit of God and mention in particular the gift of tongues (ii, 4; x, 46; xix, 6) and the charisma of prophecy. The word prophecy (propheteia) does not occur. The newly converted Christians at Ephesus, on the occasion of Paul's third journey (Acts, xix, 6), prophesied and at the same time spoke with tongues. Chapter xxi, v. 9, speaks of the daughters of Philip "who did prophesy." The remaining texts to be considered are the following: xi, 27 sq.; xiii, 1 sq.; xv, 32; xxi, 10 and 11 (cf. xxi, 4, and xx, 23; xix, 21; xvii, 16; xvi, 6, 7). In chapter xv, 32, Judas and Silas are called prophets; in ch. xiii, 1, Barnabas and Saul are mentioned among the "prophets and doctors" of Antioch. These two latter are designated by the Holy Ghost as instruments of God for the spread of the Gospel; the others while praying impose their hands upon them. But there is no trace of any ecclesiastical organization based on the distribution of charismata, of any control exercised over the Churches by the recipients of these gifts, nor of any infallible teaching authority enjoyed by these ecstatic members. While these charismatics were numerous and continued to occupy their position of marked prominence, the local authorities, if not similarly gifted, remained as a matter of course in the background. But this does not prove that there was an institution and an organization of charismatic individuals. When elections were to be held, prophetic doctors frequently pointed out the most suitable candidates. Again some communities were governed by prophets and doctors before the appointment of regular administrators. History, however, forbids us to assert that a regular organization did not come into existence until the ecstatic and miraculous charismata had decreased. But it is true that after the disappearance of this species of charismata the normal administrative functions became more prominent and consequently a stronger organization was needed. The other hypothesis which would represent the subjects of these supernatural gifts as thrust aside by the ordinary governing power of the Church is also wholly untenable. The truth of the matter is that certain officious individuals of that class were put in their proper place by the authorities, and that later on some of them, whose "gifts" had been artificially developed by suggestion, were shown up as charlatans.

(7) Origin of Ecclesiastical Authority in General

The doctrine of St. Paul about the Church as the body of Christ, which finds expression in the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Ephesians, is a central feature of his theology. The operation of Christ in the Church and the activity of the various organs of this corporate body, whose members are at the same time members of the mystical body of Christ, find in these epistles their clearest expression. In the Epistle to the Romans (xii, 8) and the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xii, 28) the governing body and the office of governing are depicted as part of the body of Christ and as constituted therein by God and Christ Himself. These two most important and classical passages together with a text of the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv, 11 -- second group) show us the origin of the primitive Christian governing body in general; it is an institution of God and Christ. They show us furthermore the necessity of those administrative organs, for by their very nature they belong to the body of Christ, the Church. Consequently it is the will of God that besides the Apostolate there should be governing superiors in the local churches as well. For this reason Ignatius speaks of an entole theou, and his teaching is nothing but the purest doctrine of St. Paul. We can therefore speak in a certain sense of a charismatic organization of the Church, for the administrative function is itself a charisma; only we must take charisma in that correct and broader sense in which Paul uses it. Since therefore some form of governing body is, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, inseparable from the very notion of the Church, there can be nothing more opposed to Paul's ideas than the thought of rights being conferred on superiors by a democratic community. The governing body is in Paul's mind something religious and Divine. Nevertheless the administration need not at once and everywhere appear in its specific form; for the Apostolate is able to supply all that is wanting. The Divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot of course be derived from our texts; in fact it cannot in any way be proved directly from the New Testament; it is Catholic dogma by virtue of dogmatic tradition, i.e. in a later period of ecclesiastical history the general belief in the Divine institution of the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate can be verified and thence be followed on through the later centuries. But this dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strictly historical testimony.

(8) Position of the Superiors

When a person of his own free choice offers himself for an office, it does not immediately follow that his acknowledgment by the community is entirely free; this latter point has to be positively proved. For the offer may simply be the occasion or a necessary condition that enables some one exercising authority over the community to accept this proposal, to appoint the applicant and to communicate to him the necessary faculties. The approbation by the community may be a further condition, or a privilege to be respected or disregarded, or finally it may be altogether wanting. Nor is it true that every "ethical" office based on a free offer and free approbation lacks by its very nature all juridical validity; on the contrary, the offer and the acknowledgment produce of themselves a peculiar legal status. If one wants to assert the contrary -- of course, a purely personal authority unsupported by any legal power is possible -- he has to prove this theory just as he must prove each of the above-mentioned juridical elements, by a positive argumentation from the sources. After these introductory remarks, we proceed to the examination of all the texts. Acts, xiv, 22, mentions the appointment of presbyters in Lycaonia by Paul and Barnabas. The truth of this statement cannot, of course, be shaken by simply remarking that Paul did not appoint superiors in other places. It is likely that, on his very first Apostolic journey, Paul placed superiors at the head of his newly-founded Churches, who assumed the title then in use among the Jews; to this measure he was probably led by the example of the Jewish communities of the Diaspora or perhaps of the Christian circles in Palestine.

It was looked upon as a natural and obvious step by the inhabitants of Asia Minor who, Jews and Gentiles alike, were accustomed to a religious authority. In some cases unfortunate experiences may have moved St. Paul to desist from this measure. However, the fourteenth chapter of the Acts does not allow any further conclusion than this: Paul at his departure from southern Asia Minor left there for special reasons a governing body of some kind or other, endowed with certain administrative rights over the communities. The two facts that in the early Christian literature the elders (presbyteroi) are frequently contrasted with the younger members (neoteroi) and that, as late as the third century, Christians who have suffered for the Faith are given the honorary title of presbyter (cf. Duchesne, "Bulletin crit.", 1891, 43 sq.), make it probable that in the earliest times the presbyterate was frequently, though not perhaps exclusively, an honorary title and not the name of an office. The name may have been borrowed from the Jewish presbyters, or perhaps from the Gentile presbyters -- officials of Asia Minor. It is of course understood that from this we cannot conclude that their sphere of activity was the same. Such an analogy if made would only suggest new riddles. For the Jewish presbyters in Palestine had a position quite different from those of the Diaspora. Now which of the two was the model for the Christians? Since therefore the name elder (presbyter) is altogether of a general nature, since our sources remain silent, since furthermore conclusions based on what we know of later times are unreliable in this particular case and the analogies drawn from the environment furnish no definite result, we may say that the Christian presbyters of the earliest period cannot be accurately defined. In some places they were certainly the forerunners of the later presbyters; in others, of the bishops, or of the bishops and deacons; in others still, they formed but a provisional government for the regulation and administration of affairs, or they were the representatives of the community in its external relations. Those who pretend to know more cannot appeal to the sources. Nor is it admissible simply to generalize from the institution in Asia Minor and make it a type, as Ramsay has done ("St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," 7th ed., London, 1903, 121 sq.). If, therefore, we take this governing body of the presbyters in the wider sense mentioned above, then there is not the slightest reason to doubt that this appointment of presbyters by Paul about A. D. 50 did actually take place. We do not deny that all these "elders" were presbyters or bishops in the later sense of these words; but from the sources nothing certain can be derived.

The Texts of the Epistles of St. Paul. -- I Cor., xvi, 15,16. Stephanas and his household being the "first-fruits of Achaia" have dedicated themselves (etaxan heautous) to the ministry of the community. Paul bids the Corinthians to subject themselves to them (hypotassesthe), as also to everyone who offers his service and co-operation. The whole character of the text depicts mutual relations that are an outcome more of free-will and kindness than of strictly juridical conditions. The Epistle to the Romans (xii, 8) mentions among the prominent members of the body of Christ him that ruleth (ho proistamenos) and adds furthermore that he ought to rule with carefulness. Of course, the singular is here no criterion; it has the same force as in the two phrases "he that giveth" and "he that sheweth mercy ". The text has a meaning only if Paul supposes the existence of one or more rulers in Rome. In chap. v of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (12, 13), the faithful are asked to know (eidenai, acknowledge), to love and to have peace with those who labour among them (kopiontas en hymin), who are over them in the Lord (proistamenous), and who admonish them (nouthetountas). Here we see that acknowledgment does not create the prerogatives of superiors.

There were therefore at Corinth heads of families who, partly because they had been the first to accept the Gospel, offered themselves for the service of the community. How they were appointed to office we are not told. The proïstamenoi at Thessalonica and Rome possess, according to all appearances, a more official character. One must not forget that some of these results are merely negative. They do not justify us in denying that there were other institutions of which nothing is said. The name proïstamenos is not an official title : Paul speaks of them as we speak of heads, directors, or superiors. Whether they had an official name from the beginning we do not know. The name presbyter is certainly more definite. As to the question whether all these superiors were inducted into office by imposition of hands with prayer, see the remark made by us concerning the presbyters of Palestine. The prayer accompanying the imposition of hands expressed of course in only the most general terms the kind of activity they were to exercise. The persons thus "consecrated" were according to the Catholic idea ipso facto presbyters or bishops in the later sense of the words.

(9) Position of the Apostolic Fellow-Labourers

In the first group of texts the following persons are mentioned: Andronicus and Junias (the latter is probably also a man, not a woman): Rom., xvi, 7. Apollo coadjutor: I Cor., iii, 4, 9, cf. v. 6 and i, 12 etc. together with Paul, Apollo is minister of Christ and dispenser of the mysteries of God, I Cor., iv, i (cf. Acts, xviii, 24 sq.; xix, 1). Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla): the Church which is in their house is mentioned, Rom., xvi, 5, and I Cor., xvi, 19 (cf. Acts, xviii, 1-3; 18, 19, 26). Barnabas: Acts, xi, 22; prophet and (?) doctor, Acts, xiii, 1; he preaches together with Paul, Acts, xiii, xiv, xv; I Cor., ix, 6 (cf. Gal., ii, 1), Gal., ii, 9; by the Apostles and presbyters of Jerusalem he (Barnabas) with Judas and Silas is sent to Antioch, Acts, xv, 22 sq. Epenetus: the first fruits of Asia, Rom., xvi, 5. Erastus: Acts, xix, 22 (Rom. xvi, 23?). John Mark: Acts, xii, 25; xiii, 5. Judas and Silas: prophets, Acts, xv, 32; Silas is with Paul, Acts, xv, 40 (cf. xvi, 19 sq.; xvii, 4 sq.; xviii, 5 sq.); II Cor., i, 19; I Thess., i, 1: II Thess., i, 1. Stephanas: with Fortunatus and Achaicus he is counted among the first-fruits of Achaia (I Cor., xvi, 15). Timothy: fellow-labourer of Paul, Acts, xvi, 1 sq. (cf. Acts, xvii, xviii, xix, xx); Rom., xvi, 21; as Paul's envoy he teaches the doctrine of Paul, I Cor., iv, 17; xvi, 10 (cf. II Cor., i, 1; I and II Thess., i, 1); a very important text is I Thess., iii, i sq. Titus: fellow-labourer of Paul, II Cor., ii, 12; vii, 5; he teaches Paul's doctrine, II Cor., vii, 13 sq.; sent by Paul he takes charge of the collection of alms, II Cor., viii, 6 sq., 16-24; he walks in the same steps with Paul, II Cor., xii, 17 sq. Trophimus and Tychicus: companions of Paul, Acts, xx, 4 sq.; Trophimus alone, Acts, xxi, 29. Urbanus: helper of Paul, Rom., xvi, 9 (concerning these labourers see H. Brunders, S. J., "Die Verfassung der Kirche", Mainz, 1904, 215-315). The superiors and the numerous Apostolic helpers are considered by Paul as fellow-labourers because, and in so far as, they work in his spirit and agree with his doctrine. If for a time they preach independently, as Barnabas and Mark, Paul always supposes that they preach his Gospel. The activity of the women is described by Paul in two places as "labouring in the Lord" (kopian) Rom., xvi, 12 (bis). Instead of this word, the Epistle to the Philippians uses synathlein. If we use the word organization in a very general sense, we may say, that the women belonged to the organization of the primitive Church. In the Epistle to the Romans (xvi, 1) a woman is given the title of deacon.

B. The Texts of the Second Group

The texts from St. Paul will be classified similarly to those of the first group above.

(1) The Epistles of Paul and Acts, xx

(a) The authority of the Apostle over the communities: Eph., iii, 7-12; vi, 19, 20; Phil., iii, 17; Col., i, 23-29; ii, 4-8 (cf. 16 sq.). Also to be compared is Eph., i, 13 (cf. iv, 21): the preaching of Paul is "truth". The authority of the Apostle appears here in the same light as in his earliest letters; there is no question of autonomous communities.

(b) Charismatic prophets together with Apostles are mentioned as the foundation of the Church (Eph., ii, 20): in union with Apostles, evangelists, pastors and doctors, they co-operate in building up the body of Christ; by the grace of God (which here, Eph., iv, 7, is called charis, not charisma) they have been sent for the work of the ministry (eis ergon diakonias) (Eph., iv, 11-20). The Apostle wishes the Ephesians the spirit of wisdom and of revelation (Eph., i, 17; cf. Col., iii, 16). The mystico-miraculous charismata remain altogether in the background.

(c) Superiors

In the address of the Epistle to the Philippians (i, 1), bishops and deacons are mentioned. There is no reason why we should consider their position and activity to have been different from that of the proïstamenoi of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, v, 12, and of the Epistle to the Romans, xii, 8. In the present text, it is true, the names are somewhat more definite. These rulers are the chief workers (tous kopiontas en hymin) (I Thess., v, 12). According to this we have not to consider as distinct from the said superiors those presbyter-bishops of Ephesus (Acts, xx, 17-32) who are appointed by the Holy Ghost (again St. Paul's idea as above, no. 7), and who rule as pastors. Their work is to instruct, to exhort, to warn against deception and false doctrine. Since, as we have seen, the designation proïstamenoi had a very general meaning, it would be uncritical to assert that they constituted a governing body of only one grade which was not divided into the grades of bishop and deacon until later times. It is quite possible that the proïstamenoi already contained several grades within their own class. Whence did the Christians take the title bishop (used at first only in the plural) to designate their rulers? The hypothesis (Heinrici, Hatch, etc.) of their having borrowed it from pagan religious societies has long since been given up. Most scholars agree to-day with the results obtained by Ziebarth: "A special characteristic of the terminology describing Greek associations is its lack of definiteness. Episkopoi as well as epimeletai designate in a very general way overseers or administrators. It is today an established fact that the title episkopoi, which now and then occurs as an official title in Greek associations, does not furnish an argument for the derivation of the Christian office from pagan religions associations" (Das griechische Vereinswesen, 1896, 131). Nor does the present writer attach any great importance to the circumstance that even before the time of Christ there is mentioned at Phodos an episkopos as being in charge of certain matters of worship (cf. Deissmann, "Neue Bibelstudien", 57 sq.). The title episkopos is also applied here and there to municipal officers. In the Septuagint Eleazar appears as episkopos (Num., iv, 16); generals of the armies are episkopoi (Num., xxx, 14; IV Kings, xi, 15, 18); higher officials together with archons (II Esd., xi, 9, 14, 22; Is., lx, 17; I Mach., i, 51; cf. Judges, ix, 28). In Job, xx, 29, God is called episkopos. In connection with work of a religious character the word is used II Par., xxxiv, 12, 17. We must recall that in the First Epistle of Peter (ii, 25), Christ is called the shepherd and bishop of our souls. Clement calls God the creator and bishop of all spirits (I Clem., lix, 3). In Christian circles the word seems from the very beginning to have denoted an activity of high rank and excellence. Originally it was not a title or the name of an office. The attempts of recent Protestant scholars (Hatch, Harnack, Dobschütz, etc.) to separate even in the earliest times the functions of the bishops from those of the presbyters are to be considered as unsuccessful. In the New Testament and even with Clement the two expressions are synonymous. It is indeed possible that the presbyters or the proïstamenoi were called bishops after their sphere of action had been more accurately circumscribed. There remains only one text. At Colossa, Archippus has to fulfil a ministry (diakonia) (Col., iv, 17). In the Epistle to Philemon, 2, he is called fellow-soldier (systratiotes). Here we perhaps find the trace of a monarchical bishop.

(d) Fellow-labourers of Paul

Epaphras (Col., iv, 12), servant of Jesus Christ (cf. Philem., 23); Luke (Col., iv, 14); Mark (Col., iv, 10, 11), "touching whom you have received commandments" (entolas). He is a fellow-labourer, as are also Aristarchus (cf. Acts, xx, 4; xxvii, 2; Philem., 24), and Jesus Justus. Clement (Phil., iv, 3) and other unknown fellow-labourers, also women: one of these fellow-labourers is addressed as gnesie syzyge (or Synzyge). Tychicus, a faithful minister (diakonos) and fellow-servant in the Lord (syndoulos); Eph., vi, 21, he is called faithful minister. Epaphroditus, Phil., ii, 25-30, and iv, 18: brother, and fellow-labourer, and fellow-soldier, your apostle. Philemon also (Philem., 2) is a fellow-labourer.

(2) The First Epistle of Peter

The evangelical preaching is absolute truth; it is the word of the Lord which endureth forever (i, 25), the fulfilment of the prophecies, and the work of the Holy Ghost (i, 11, 12); consequently it is simply to be obeyed (i, 14; cf. i, 2). Endowed with such authority the writer teaches and exhorts; Peter is the Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1), the sympresbyteros and witness of the sufferings of Christ (v, 1). Two charismata are mentioned, the preaching of the Word of God and the ministry of the community (iv, 11). Whosoever has received a charisma should, as a good steward, use it in the service of his neighbour (iv, 10). The phrase "if any man speak" (ei tis lalei) certainly does not mean the gift of tongues, but, as is shown by the additional clause hos logia theou, the preaching of the Word of God. Lalein ton logou tou theou soon becomes a standing expression for the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. The preacher has to adhere to the Word of God, i.e. to the common doctrine which is to be considered as the Word of God Himself. The ministry for the community is also looked upon by the writer, as a power granted by God; ei tis diakonei, os ex ischyos es choregei ho theos (iv, 11); cf. ischys used to denote the power of God (Eph., i, 19; vi, 10; II Thess., i, 9; Apoc., vii, 12). In these texts we see again Paul's idea of government and superiors; they are in his eyes institutions of God. For the rest superiors occur only in chap. v, 1-5; they are called presbyters; their duty is to feed the flock of Christ, to take care of it, without constraint however and without lording it over them (episkopountes -- the reading is doubtful); the young men shall be subject to them. This text presents difficulties. On the one hand it would seem that the exhortation is addressed to presbyter-bishops as a governing body, while on the other hand the opposition between the presbyters and the younger men (neoteroi) points to merely patriarchal relations. It is however most probable that the two expressions -- presbyteroi -- neoteroi -- passed through a parallel development. After the "ancients" had become superiors in the strict sense, the "younger men" were considered as subjects.

(3) The Didache

The author of the Didache considers the teachings of the Faith as truths received from Jesus and announced by his Apostles, which men are obliged to accept (cf. the title and the first eleven chapters). He who teaches otherwise is not to be listened to (xi, 2). If he teaches the truth he is to be received as the Lord himself (loc. cit.) . He who announces the Word of God is to be honoured as the Lord Himself (iv, 1). The travelling Apostles, the prophets, and doctors are to be duly respected. Neither prophets nor Apostles nor doctors possess an absolute authority; nay more, the Christians are taught certain signs to enable them to distinguish the true missionaries from the false (xi-xii). The Apostles (travelling missionaries) are described as of rare occurrence. Somewhat exceptional is the position of the prophets who have settled in a community. The Didache calls them high-priests (xiii, 3); as such they can lay claim to the first-fruits (xiii, 3-7). And since in addition to this they have the privilege of reciting eucharistic prayers at their own discretion (x, 7), we look upon them as presiding over the celebration of the breaking of bread. Important information about the constitution of the Church at that time is contained in chap. xv, 1 and 2: "choose bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord, men of meekness, who are not lovers of money, who are true and well tried. For they fulfil for you the ministry of the prophets and doctors. Do not therefore slight them; for it is they among you that enjoy high esteem with the prophets and doctors". From this text we derive the following items: First: Since the electoral proceedings are not given in detail, we cannot make a definite statement about the authority vested in the community. Second: As substitutes in performing the duties of prophets and doctors we find bishops and deacons; they are therefore shepherds who preach and explain the word of God.

The qualities required of them show that they possessed certain powers of government (praeis), and were entrusted with the administration of alms and other positions of responsibility (aphilargyrous kai aletheis kai dedokimasmenous). The text in question does not show us how these various occupations were divided between the two classes of officials. During a period of transition from a comparatively incoherent state to a more settled form of government, the several communities would evidently enjoy certain powers and prerogatives; but no sober critic would read between the lines of the artless catechetical instruction the description of a generally-adopted system of democratic government. Those measures which every one of the faithful may and should employ as protection against doubtful prophets and false teachers are not juridically-determined prerogatives vested in the community. Nothing is left but a rather undefined participation in the election of superiors. It is just as though the duty of holding these elections was imposed upon the community by some external authority. The literary form of the document shows that in the author's conviction the community is not independent of authority in the principal points of doctrine, discipline, and corporate existence, but is obliged to observe those regulations which the writer authoritatively details. He prescribes even the prayers that are to be recited By the community in the celebration of the Eucharist. The regulations governing prayer, fasting, Eucharistic celebrations, and elections of superiors do not emanate from the local Church. On the contrary, certain local Churches are earnestly enjoined by the author to observe exactly the usages which he regards as of Apostolic origin. But from what source does the author, apparently a teacher (didaskalos) or prophet, derive his authority? It is evidently an Apostolic tradition known to him in its main outlines. In this sense, Durell's words are true ("The Historic Church", Cambridge, 1906), "The authority of discipline resides in the Church as a whole" (p. 76). But Durell does not distinguish with sufficient clearness between the local community and the one universal Church, which the Didache itself represents as a unitary organization.

C. The Texts of the Third Group

(1) Epistle to the Hebrews

It is important to note how the author (ii, 3, 4,) traces the genesis of the authoritative preaching of doctrine. It originates with Christ (archen labousa laleisthai dia tou kyriou). Those who have heard the Lord declare His words to others with authority (hypo ton akousanton eis hemas ebebaiothe), and God bears witness to them by miracles and various manifestations of the Spirit. Faith therefore is a duty. The same doctrine is indicated in iv, 2. In xiii, 7, the faithful are reminded of those superiors (hegoumenoi) no longer living, who announced the Word of God to them in the past. Contemporary superiors are also called hegumenoi (xiii, 17, 24). Nowhere else in the New Testament are Christian superiors called simply hegumenoi. In one passage of the Acts (xiv, 12), Paul is called "chief speaker" (en ho hegoumenos tou logou); in xv, 22, Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas are designated as "chief men", leading personages pempsai . . . andras hegoumenous en tois adelphois). The expression may have been modelled on the words of our Lord; "He that is the leader, let him become as he that serveth" (ho hegoumenos hos ho diakonon, Luke, xxii, 26). The hypothesis that the hegumenoi of the Epistle to the Hebrews were prophets or even recipients of charismata in the strict sense of the word, is devoid of any historic foundation.

(2) The Epistle of St. James

The warning that there should not be too many doctors (me polloi didaskaloi ginesthe) is explained by the great responsibility attached to this position. It is not clear whether the members of the third class of the threefold division "apostles, prophets, doctors", are here in question; probably they are. But the subjects of charismata in the strict sense are certainly not meant, since, in their own opinion, they do not set themselves up as teachers, but are entrusted with that office by the Spirit of God. But the labouring and patient prophets mentioned in v, 10, who spoke in the name of the Lord, are most probably Old Testament seers.

(3) The Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude

The Christians are exhorted to remember the words of the holy prophets (probably of the Old Testament), and the precepts of their Lord and Saviour made known to them by their Apostles (iii, 2). Most likely, Apostles in the strict sense of the word are meant. These are certainly in the mind of Jude, when in his Epistle (5, 17) he addresses similar words to the recipients of his letter.

(4) The Three Epistles of St. John

The "ancient" (ho Presbyteros) of the Second and Third Epistle shows his authority by forbidding all intercourse with Christians who will not receive the doctrine of Christ (II John, 9-11). In the Third Epistle Diotrephes is blamed for misuse of the position of pre-eminence which he enjoyed in the community. The presbyter will reprimand him on his arrival (III John, 9, 10). But the expression, "who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them" (ho philoproteuon, not used elsewhere), does not warrant the conclusion that Diotrephes had usurped his position of authority. Nor can any solid grounds be found for the conjecture that the brethren, who went out "for his name" and were kindly received by Gaius (III John, 3, 8) were travelling apostles or even charismatical teachers, and were therefore dismissed as suspicious "pneumatikoi" by the "monarchical bishop" Diotrephes.

(5) The Pastoral Epistles

In these Timothy and Titus appear as delegates and representatives of the Apostle Paul (I Tim., i, 3; cf. II Tim., iv, 11; Tit., i, 5; cf. iii, 12); their authority is derived from the imposition of hands and from the prayer of the Apostle and the presbyterate (I Tim., iv, 14; II Tim., i, 6). Previously to this consecration an approval appears to have been given to the choice of candidates by prophecy (referred to in I Tim., iv, 14, and probably also in i, 18). One may certainly apply all this to Titus as well as to Timothy. Timothy and Titus each bear the title episkopos (I Tim., iii, 2; Tit., i, 7); their office is called episkope (I Tim., iii, 1), and once diakonia (II Tim., iv, 5); Timothy is termed diakonos (I Tim., iv, 6). They hold a position of monarchical authority, impose hands on those whom they judge to be fit candidates for the priesthood (I Tim., v, 2; Tit., i, 5); they choose their successors in the office of teaching (II Tim., ii, 2); they keep order in the community by their energetic exhortations (I Tim., v, 1-22; II Tim., ii, 25, 26; iv, 2; Tit., i, 5, 11; ii, 1 sqq.; ii, 15); they judge even the presbyters (I Tim., v, 19, 20; cf. Tit., . i, 9 sq.); they teach (I Tim., iv, 1-13, 16; vi, 2; II Tim., iii, 16, 17; iv, 2). As teacher Timothy is called "evangelist" (ergon poieson euaggelistou, ten diakonian sou plerophoreson, II Tim., iv, 5). The description of the model episkopos (I Tim., iii, 1 sq.; Tit., ii, 7 sq.) represents him also as administering money and practising hospitality. Perhaps a presbyter is meant by the episkopos in Tit., i, 7; verses 5 and 6 immediately preceding speak of presbyters, and verse 7 continues: "For (gar) a bishop (episkopos) must be without crime." But it is also possible that there is a sudden transition in the author's thought and a freer use of gar. A greater probability is given to this by the exact correspondence between the qualifications of the bishop given here, and those set down in the First Epistle to Timothy (iii). The presbyters are probably united in a college (presbyterion, I Tim., iv, 14); and they are subordinate to the bishops (I Tim., v, 17-20; Tit., i, 5). They rule over the community. Some of them are to declare and teach the Word of God (I Tim., v, 17: oi kopiontes en logo kai didaskalia). The presbyteros in I Tim., v, 1, is probably an older member of the community (cf. Tit., ii, 2). Deacons are mentioned in I Tim., iii, 8 and 12 (cf. 13). Timothy and Titus are subordinate to Paul, and must follow his teaching and precepts (I Tim., i, 8-12; cf. 19, 20; ii, 7; iii, 15; and in general ii, iv, v, vi; II Tim., i, 11-14; iii, 10; iv, 13 sq., 21; Tit. i, 5; all ii; iii, 9). No information is given about community rights.

(6) Epistle of the Roman Church (Clement) to the Corinthians

The position of superiors of the Christian community is attributed only twice at the utmost to the hegumenoi (hegoumenoi and proegoumenoi in i, 3, and xxi, 6). The first citation speaks approval of the obedience shown to them by the faithful; and in the second due respect and reverence are enjoined. But since the term in all other parts of the Epistle -- where it is used, either seven or eight times, according as one reads archegois or hegoumenois in lxiii, 1 -- signifies the secular civil or military rulers, it seems more probable that the same meaning should be attached to it in the two passages mentioned. Now if the word stands for the ecclesiastical authorities in the two passages mentioned, how are they to be discriminated from the presbyters, who in both instances are spoken of in company with them: "the faithful in times past have shown due reverence to their presbyters" (i, 3); "the faithful should honour the elders" (xxi, 6)? There are only two probable solutions: either the term hegoumenoi (or proegoumenoi) is used for persons of authority in a broad sense, including deacons and other people of importance; or the word "presbyter" in both cases has the simple meaning of "elder", the reference being to the older and more esteemed members of the community -- an explanation which is all the more probable because of the mention in both passages of the "younger members" (neoi) along with the "elders". Presbyters are expressly mentioned many times in the Epistle -- in the two places discussed, and in xliv, 5; xlvii, 6; liv, 2; lvii, 1. Reference is also made to them in lxiii, 1, and in other texts to be cited presently. Jewish presbyters are spoken of in lv, 4. Their office is termed episkope (xliv, 4) -- a word which Clement uses once (1, 3) for Christ's office as judge at His second advent. The word episkopos appears in only one other place (lix, 3), where it is applied to God. Except in chapter lii, nothing is said of deacons. In chapter xl, 5, the services of the levites are called diakonia. It is clear from xlii and xliv that Clement identifies bishops and presbyters, unless perhaps in the two texts already referred to, since he speaks here of the rebellion against the presbyters (stasis, xlvii, 6; xlvi, 7, 9; cf. iii, 2, 3; li, 1; liv, 2; lvii, 1; xliv, 4: hamastia) as "no small misdeed", for it shows disregard for the express wishes of the Apostles, who instituted bishops (episkopoi) in obedience to the ordinance of Christ Himself. It is a mistake to say that the presbyter-bishops are mentioned in the Epistle of St. Clement only as officers of administration and public worship (cf. xliv, 4: amemptos kai hosios prosenegkontas ta dopa). Their position as spiritual guides (lxiii, 1) and successors of the Apostles manifests clearly their authoritative office of administering the Word of God.

No indication can be found that Clement supposed the office of declaring the Word of God in Corinth to be entrusted to ecstatic "spiritual" preachers; nor is there any satisfactory basis for the theory that the rebellion against legitimate authority was started by the recipients of charismata. Miraculous charismata are perhaps spoken of in chapter xlviii, 5, but the reference is uncertain, for those Divine gifts which are mentioned in addition to faith and holiness of life, the word of knowledge and the skilful interpretation of others' words are not manifestly mystical or miraculous in their nature. The presbyter-bishops are to be obeyed (lvii, 1); their authority as spiritual guides (lxiii, 1) is to be heeded. The institution of the presbyter-bishops dates from Christ. After examining the first-fruits of the Faith in the light of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles established them as bishops and deacons (xlii, 4). The commission to do this came from Christ (xliii, 1). Christ foretold them that a conflict would arise with regard to the episcopal office (epi tou honomatos tes episkopes); for which reason they instituted the bishops and deacons just mentioned and enjoined (epinomen edokan -- a doubtful reading; Lightfoot has epimonen) that after their death other tried men should succeed to their office. This provision had the approval of the entire Church (xliv, 1, 3).

Some points in Clement's argumentation are undoubtedly pure theory (e.g. the revelation of a future contest regarding the episcopal office), but the central facts cannot be critically controverted. The thought that the governing body in general was an institution of God and of Christ is an inheritance from St. Paul. The whole argumentation used by the Roman community would be completely absurd, if the story of Apostolic institution were a mere fable. It may be observed that Clement looks upon the hierarchy of the Old Testament with its high priest, priests, levites as a type of the Christian hierarchy (xi, 5; xli). He seems to regard the high-priest as a type of Christ, and sees a typical significance in the contest under Moses regarding the priesthood (xliii, 2). The local Church is also called the flock of Christ (poimnion, xvi, 1; xliv, 3; liv, 2; lvii, 2), but nowhere is autonomy or even complete authority attributed to it. It is obvious that amid the general disorder and revolt it was not the presbyters threatened with deposition who were able to judge the disturbers of the peace, but only the people as a whole in a kind of plenary council. Hence the remark that the more noble-minded among the party of opposition give in and say, "I do whatever is enjoined unto me by the people" (ta prostassomena hypo tou plethous, liv, 2). To construct a general law out of this particular concrete case without further investigation would argue a strange lack of critical sense.

(7) The Ascension of Isaias

If the section, iii, 13-iv, 1, really belongs to the second or even the first century (Fleming, Tisserant), then attention should be called, as very remarkable, to the prophecies of the elders (presbyters) at the end of the world; these love their office although they have no wisdom, and are unjust and violent shepherds of their sheep. Somewhat further on in the same section reference is made to the dissension which shall arise in the last days between the elders and the shepherds. Here the presbyters seem to be old, highly respected members of the Christian community.

D. The Texts of the Fourth Group

(1) The Apocalypse

Our motive for including in the fourth group of texts the data given in i, 4 and iii, 22, is the possibility that the "Angels" of the Seven Churches are the "monarchical bishops" of these communities. This supposition offers undoubtedly many difficulties, yet it cannot be simply rejected. Toward the communities addressed the author takes the position, and claims the jurisdiction, of an Apostolic and monarchical superior. The only other texts to be touched upon are the following: the twelve foundations of the wall of the holy city bear the names of the "twelve apostles of the Lamb" (xxi, 14); "apostles and prophets" rejoice at the destruction of the city of sin (xviii, 20); and the prophets slain in the city (verse 24) are undoubtedly also Prophets of the New Testament. The existence of any relation between the four-and-twenty ancients (iv, 20) and the constitution of the early Church cannot be ascertained.

(2) The Gospel of St. John

We need mention only the choice of the Twelve (vi, 71); their vocation, life-course, and union with Christ as portrayed in His, final discourse (xiii, 33-xvii incl.), the unique position and special election of Simon Peter (i, 24; vi, 69, 70; xiii, 6 sq.; xx, 2 sq.; xxi, 3 sq., 15 sq.).

(3) The seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (about A. D. 115)

(a) The general topic is the exhortation to obedience towards the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons, and to intimate union with the bishop. The position of the bishop is throughout monarchical.

(i) General admonition to reverence the bishop and remain in agreement with him (ad Eph., i, 3); to love and imitate him (ad Magn., xiii, 12); to be subordinate to him (ad Trall., xii, 2); to comfort him (ad Polyc., vi. 1); to keep to him (ad Philad., ii, 1); to follow him as sheep follow the shepherd (ad Magn., iii, 1); to honour him, even though he be young (ad Eph., vi, 1), all the more if he keeps silence.
(ii) Exhortation to be subject to bishops, presbyters, and deacons (ad Philad., vii 1; ad Magn., xiii, 1; ad Polyc., vi. 1; cf. ad Trall., iii, 1).
(iii) Unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons, especially in things which concern Divine service (ad Eph., iv, 1; ad Trall., ii, 2; vii; ad Magn., vi, 2); unity with the bishop and superiors (tois prokathemenois) (ad Eph., v, 1 sq.); unity in prayer, in the Sacrifice of the altar, and (xx, 1 and 2) in the breaking of bread. Unity in the Eucharistic celebration is also emphasized in ad. Smyrn., viii, 2 and ad Philad., iii, 3, and iv, 1; cf. v, 1. Nothing at all is to be done without the bishop (ad Philad., vii, 2; cf. ad Polyc., iv, 1), especially no ecclesiastical functions, such as baptism and agape (ad Smyrn., viii, 1 and 2); marriages are to be contracted subject to the approval of the bishop (Polyc., v, 2) .
(iv) This obedience is necessary for sanctification and is the commandment of God (ad Eph., ii, 2; v.3; ad Magn., iv, 1; ad Trall., ii, 1. Cf. vii, 2 and xiii, 2; ad Philad., iii, 2; ad Smyrn., ix, 1). He who submits to the bishop subjects himself to the Father of Jesus, who is the Bishop of all men (ad Magn., iii, 1 and 2).

(b) Origin and Basis of the Hierarchy

(i) The institution of the single bishop, of the priests and the deacons originates from God, i.e. from Christ (ad Eph., iii, 2). As Christ is the thought (he gnome) of the Father, so the bishops established unto the ends of the earth are according to the intention of Christ (en gnome) (ibid., vi, 1). He whom the master sends in His stead should be received even as the Sender Himself; in like manner you should look on the bishop as upon the Lord Himself (ad Magn., ii, 1); the deacon Zotion gives joy to St. Ignatius, because he is obediently devoted to the bishop as to a gift of God's grace, and to the presbyters as to a law of Jesus Christ. Bishops and priests are also spoken of as a "commandment of God" in ad Trall., iii, 2; ad Philad. (title); the bishops and the priests are instituted pursuant to the ordinance of Jesus Christ, and, in accordance with His will, they are protected and confirmed by the Holy Ghost (cf. i, 1; ad Smyrn., viii, 1). The deacons also are to be regarded as the commandment of God.
(ii) The bishop, priests, and deacons compared with God, with Christ, or with the Apostles. The bishop presides in place of God (ad Magn., vi, 1). The deacons are to be respected as Christ; the bishop as an image of the Father; the presbyters are compared to the Apostles (ad Trall., iii, 1). Other comparisons between the presbyterate and the Apostolic college (ad Magn., vi. 1; ad Trall., ii, 2; ad Philad., vi, 1; ad Smyrn., viii, 1).
(iii) The bishops (presbyter and deacons) belong to the essence, the idea of the Church (ad Trall., iii, 1). Separated from the bishops and presbyters no Church can exist, Cf. also ad Smyrn., viii, 2.

(c) Field of activity of the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons

(i) The bishop

Principal texts are in the Epistle to Polycarp. The bishop's duties include: admonition of the whole body and of individuals as well (i, 2, 3, and v, 1), convocation of frequent assemblies (iv, 2), preservation of unity (i, 2), healing of spiritual ailments (i, 2, and ii, 1), firm resistance to teachers of false doctrine (iii, 1), care of widows (iv, 1). Nothing shall be done without his co-operation (iv, 1). The texts quoted above show he same field of activity; in particular, the bishop appears also as the centre of the liturgical celebration and supreme guardian of the Faith. The position of the bishop is moderately monarchical, i.e., not tyrannical or autocratic. This is to be inferred also from the position of the presbyters.

(ii) Presbyters

According to all texts previously quoted the presbyterate is the bishop's advisory council and his support, and constitutes with him a governing body which has a claim to due reverence and obedience while itself subordinate to him (ad Trall., xii, 2; ad Eph., iv, 1; cf. Polyc., v, 2).

(iii) Deacons

(Texts already cited). They are subordinate to the bishop and the presbyters, and have a right to honour and esteem (ad Magn., ii, 1). In ad Trall., ii, 3, is the most important passage: "But those, too, who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ should in every wise be acceptable to all. For they are not deacons of meat and drink, but servants (hyperetai) of the Church of God. Therefore they should protect themselves against accusation as they would against fire." The sense is, evidently, that in the Eucharistic celebration they handle as deacons no ordinary food and common drink, but a mystical food.

(d) Rights of the Community

A community as chief seat of authority not only receives no mention from Ignatius, but such a conception is in direct contradiction to all the principal texts of his Epistles. The community is to be consulted on the question of sending envoys to other Churches (ad Philad., x, 2; ad Smyrn., xi, 2; Polyc., vii, 2). The first passage shows that the bishop or the presbyters could also fill the office of envoys. As the choice was naturally made by the organized community -- i.e., with bishop and priests presiding -- we can say nothing definite about the part taken by the community, since the sources make no mention of it.

(e) Divine Origin of the Hierarchy

In spite of the clearly worded passages given above under (b) (i), even Catholics have denied that St. Ignatius was aware of a Divine origin for the hierarchy: "St. Ignatius does not teach the Divine origin of this hierarchy in the sense of its institution by God, or by Christ, in the form of three degrees -- and it is intelligible why he does not." (Genouillac, "L'Eglise chrét. au temps de S. Ignaced' Antioche", p. 132.) This is a question of words. Genouillac grants that Ignatius taught very clearly the Divine institution of the spiritual governing power in general: "It would be difficult to express the Divine origin and right of the ecclesiastical powers with greater insistence and clearness than does St. Ignatius in these texts." (Ibid., 135.) If anyone had asked St. Ignatius whether bishops, priests, and deacons, constituted in such a threefold dignity and endowed with such authority over the community, were a commandment of God (entole tou theou), he would have answered "Yes", as anyone who has eyes to read must see from our texts. He does not seem, however, to have entered into further speculations on the matter. But the hierarchy as a "commandment of God" is the very essence of Catholic teaching on this point. Many other additions made by later times to this concept of a Divinely originated hierarchy are to be ascribed to the development of the Church, her discipline, and her canon law. No serious historian would expect to find all that in the writings of Ignatius.

However much he may insist on the Divinely appointed hierarchical gradation, on episcopal authority, and on the obedience that the faithful owe to their ecclesiastical superiors, Ignatius shows throughout that he does not regard this organization as an end in itself, but as a means to the end, to the attainment of perfect unity in faith and religious life. He shows himself in this point an intelligent disciple of the Apostle of the Gentiles, a Christian to the core, an aner pneumatikos in the best sense of the word. It is also evident that the ideal of unity between bishop, priests, deacons, and community was not found everywhere. Ignatius is convinced that the threefold governing power, decreed and established by God and Christ, belongs to the idea of the Church.

(4) The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the "Passio Polycarpi"

Polycarp also exhorts the faithful to be subject to the priests and deacons as to God and Christ (v, 3). The particular functions of each of these two classes of the governing body cannot be inferred from the qualities in which Polycarp desires they should both be conspicuous (v and vi). The letter seems to indicate that at that time there was no bishop in Philippi. In the "Passio Polycarpi" we are interested only in the one passage where there is mention of an Apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church of Smyrna (xvi, 2). It gave great satisfaction when the bishop possessed miraculous charismata and when he, the teacher of the faithful, was a disciple of the Apostles.

(5) The Epistle of St. Barnabas

The Epistle of St. Barnabas mentions the twelve Apostles as chosen by Christ to preach his Gospel (v; ix; viii, 3). Once (xix, 9) he admonishes us to love the preacher of the Word of the Lord as the apple of our eye. Besides this, there are allusions to a sort of secret doctrine of the Lord, which is understood by the initiated (ix, 9, and x, 12). The writer of the Epistle evidently looks on this higher form of knowledge as an extraordinary gift imparted by the Spirit of God (cf. xvi, 8-10, and xvii). He considers his own exposition of the Scriptures as the effect of the Spirit working within him, even if he twice insists modestly on the point that he is not writing as a teacher (hos didaskalos) (i, 8, and iv, 9).

(6) Another kind of mysticism

Another kind of mysticism is revealed to us in the homily which has come down to us as the Second Epistle of St. Clement. St. Paul's image of the Church as the Body of Christ is developed, not very successfully, in an obscure speculation about a Church which pre-existed with Jesus and was created before sun and moon (xiv, 1-4). The presbyters mentioned in xvii (3, 5) must exhort and declare the Word of God in the presence of those assembled for Divine worship.

(7) The "Pastor" of Hermas

We must exclude from our positive exposition a number of rather widespread but incorrect views about the hierarchy of the "Pastor" of Hermas.

(a) It cannot be ascertained with certainty whether the Apostles mentioned in five places (Vis., iii, 5, 1; Sim., ix, 15, 4; 16, 5; 17, 1; 25, 2) are apostles in the broader sense (Harnack, Zahn), or only the Twelve (Dorsch); the latter is more probable.
(b) In either case Hermas regards the Apostolate as a thing of the past.
(c) The prophets, to whom Hermas himself belongs, are never spoken of in connexion with the Apostles and teachers; Hermas's silence, however, is not due to modesty, as his display of self-importance in Vis., iii, 1, plainly demonstrates, but to his concept of the prophet's office; for though he looks upon it as a social charisma, he accords it only a private authority, that allows each of the faithful to pass his own judgment on its validity (cf. Dorsch in "Zeitschrift fur Kath. Theol.", xxviii, 19O4, pp. 276 sq.).
(d) Consequently one cannot prove from Hermas that the triad of "Apostles, prophets, and teachers", held the highest place in the community as preachers of the Word of God.
(e) There is absolutely no truth in Harnack's assertion ("Analecta zu Hatch ", 230 sq., and "Prolegomena zur Lehre der 12 Apostel", pp. 150 sq.) that Hermas never mentions bishops and deacons, where there is question of the community as a system composed of rulers and subjects (cf. Zeitschrift fur Kath. Theologie, xxvii, 1903, pp. 198 sq.).

The following certain conclusions can be derived from Hermas:

(a) The superiors are called presbyters (Vis., ii, 4, 2; Vis., iii, 1, 7, 8; Vis., iii, 11, 3); bishops and deacons (Vis., iii, 5, 1; Sim., ix, 27, 2, bishops alone; Sim., 26, 2, deacons alone), proegoumenoi tes ekklesias Vis., ii, 2, 6); together with protokathedritai (Vis., iii, 9, 7); pastors (pastores; no Greek text; Sim., ix, 31, 5 and 6).
(b) Since Hermas has no exact and fixed terminology, no clear distinction can be discovered in his writings between bishops and presbyters.
(c) It is certain that the presbyters are identical with the proegoumenoi and the pastors.
(d) They are primarily pastors of souls, whose duty it is to preserve the proper spirit in the community.
(e) Hermas says nothing about bishops of the Roman community; they are spoken of in company with the Apostles, teachers, and deacons as stones that go to build up the edifice of the Ecclesia; in a subordinate measure their office is to be one of devotion to works of charity and the cares of the poor. Since in Hermas's time the name episkopos was extensively used for the monarchical bishop, Hermas seems to have had one in mind. The Clement spoken of by him in Vis., ii, 4, 3 is evidently such an episkopos in Rome; Hermas gives him no official title; his duty it is to send to the other Churches the book given to Hermas by the ecclesia. The teachers (didaskaloi, Vis., iii, 5, 1; Sim., ix, 15, 4; 16, 5; 25, 2; Man., iv, 3, 1, didaskaloi ponerias Sim., ix, 19, 2) are preachers of the Word of God.
(f) A certain strife for precedence between the rulers of the community and prominent Christians, which Hermas seems to refer to, is of course no proof of a contest about the ecclesiastical constitution itself. It is probable that not only the holders of office were entitled to the first places of honour in the common assemblies but the teachers as well, who thus were numbered among the protokathedritai. The assertion is constantly made, but cannot be proved, that Hermas included them among those endowed with mystical or miraculous "spiritual" gifts.

(8) Justin Martyr

In his first "Apology" Justin Martyr represents the presiding officer (proestos) at the Divine service as a liturgical agent, by whose prayer in the Eucharistic celebration, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ (lxv, 3-5; lxvii, 5). After a lector has read, the same presiding officer addresses words of counsel and encouragement to the assembled brethren (lxvii, 4). He also receives the voluntary offerings of those present, and distributes them to the widows and orphans, to the sick, the prisoners, and strangers, in short to all who need help (lxvii, 6 and 7). We find therefore in Rome about the year 150 a monarchical presiding officer who acts as liturgical celebrant, teacher, and declarer of the Word of God and as administrator of the sacred funds: an interesting testimony. Justin does not speak of presbyters, but mentions deacons; they distribute the Eucharist to those present and bring it to the homes of those who are absent (lxv, 5; lxvii, 5).

(9) Hegesippus

In his "Memorabilia" (the book was probably called hypomnemata), he describes the inerrant tradition of the Apostolic teaching. He regards the unbroken succession of bishops as the guarantee of truth (cf. Euseb. "Hist. Eccl.", iv, 22, 1 sq.). On his journey to Rome he found the true doctrine in Corinth, and mentions Bishop Primus in this connexion. In Rome he "examined the series of the bishops of that place" as far as Anicetus (epoiesamen ten diadochen) the translation; "I made for myself a list of them in their succession" is hardly credible; Rufinus's conjecture "'mansi', I abode there" (diatriben epoiesamen) is arbitrary; the Syriac reads literally: "I made there in the derivation of the bishops" (Nestle). I read: diadochen ereunesamen or eponesamen.

(10) Abercius

It seems to me as good as proved that Abercius was Bishop of Hierapolis (not Hieropolis) in Phrygia (Salutaris) in the second half of the second century. The attempt of some scholars, notably Dieterichs (Die Grabschrift des Aberkios, 1896), to deny the Christian character of the epitaph appears to have found a final refutation in Fr. Cumont ["L'inscription d'Abercius et son dernier exégète" in the "Revue de l'instr. publique en Belgique" (1897), 91; cf. also Ramsay, "Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia", II (Oxford, 1897), 722 sq. and 788 sq. and the excellent article of H. Leclercq in Dom Cabrol's "Dictionnaire d'Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie", I, 1903, 66 sq.]. Here we can only mention his witness to the primacy of the Roman Church (11-18).

(11) Gnosticism and Montanism

The fantastic speculations of the Gnostics of the second and third centuries, which apotheosized the Apostles as demigods and æons, supply, of course, no more material to the historian than those other Gnostic teachings which minimized the authority of the first Apostles in order to raise to prominence the secret doctrine and the personality of the Gnostic teachers. The same is to be said of the Gnostic metaphysical doctrine of the Church. The Epistle of the Gnostic Ptolemæus to Flora deserves special notice (Epiphanius, "Hæres.", XXXIII, c. iii, ed. Oehler II, 1, 401 seq.). At the close of c. vii (ib., 413) Flora's attention is called to the Apostolic doctrine, "which we also have received through a line of succession" (en ek diadoches kai hemeis pareilepsamen). The "also" is worthy of remark. Ptolemæus means that not merely the universal Church, but they also had an Apostolic tradition. The progress of historical investigation disproves more and more the assumption of certain Protestant scholars that the Gnostics were the first to elaborate the theories of Tradition and Apostolic succession, and that afterward the Catholic Church gradually and unconsciously assimilated them. Catholic scholarship has recently established the following two points:

(a) The polemical writings of Irenæus and Tertullian offer clear proof that the ideas of Tradition and Apostolic succession, with which these ecclesiastical writers repeatedly assail the Gnostics, were inherited from ancient times, at any rate in their essential character.
(b) The most rigidly critical analysis of the Gnostic system has demonstrated that their theories of Tradition and Apostolic succession show unmistakable signs of being the copy and replica of a system already existing.

Marcion and his Church should be mentioned in this connexion, although Marcionism cannot be directly classified as Gnosticism. The same remarks, however, apply to him. His Church is precisely lacking in those elements, which constitute the chief strength of the Catholic Church: unity of Faith, unity and permanence of government. The legend of a well-established organization of the Marcionite communities about the year 160, far surpassing in firmness that of the Roman Church, originated in a misunderstanding. The true statement is this: At the time of the first appearance of Marcion and his doctrines, speculative minds of many Christians were inclined, in consequence of Gnostic theorizing, to reject as a deceiver the God of the Old Testament and to accept instead a God the Father who was superior to Him, and unknown to Him as well. This God enters into relation with the world through a series of intermediary beings. One of these æons unites himself with the man Jesus and operates apparently as a mere human being. These assertions disgusted and repelled many minds, not merely because of the grotesque theory of intermediary existences, but also because of the impossibility of reconciling the Christian Scriptures with this new doctrine and would-be secret tradition. The contradictions were palpable and unavoidable; and the assertions altogether arbitrary and devoid of proof. For this reason Marcion abandoned first his fantastic theory of æons, then his mystical dream of ecstatic and prophetic inspirations, and finally his fraudulent fiction of a secret tradition. Thereupon he tried to solve the contradictions of his system by rejecting the Old Testament, taking as a basis St. Paul, to the exclusion, however, of everything Jewish in the Epistles, retaining only the Gospel of St. Luke, and assuming a more convenient position. Jesus was merely the good God manifesting himself under an apparently human form. Everything centred around the doctrine of the Redemption; he rejected all dogma and speculation. In that way he hit upon a convenient creed for those Gnostic adepts who had departed from Catholic Christianity and classical Gnosticism. His negations alone formed their bond of fellowship. His scriptural canon and his rule of Faith served to unite his followers, not through any positive belief but by the denial of Catholic (and Gnostic) principles. He seems indeed to have had a talent for organization; the historian, however, has to look on his work not as a new creation, but as a mutilation of that which had long been in existence. Our remarks on Gnosticism apply, mutatis mutandis, in a far greater degree to Montanism. The organization of Montanism was not a remnant of early Christianity, but an artificial revival of primitive customs. (cf. D'Alès, "La théologie de Tertullien", 201 sq., and Batiffol, "L'église naissante et le catholicisme", 317 sq.).

IV. DETAILED EVIDENCE FROM PAGAN INSCRIPTIONS, PAPYRI, AND OSTRAKA

We intend here merely to point out certain contemporary expressions for profane and sacred offices which may shed some light on the constitution of primitive Christianity.

A. The Negative sense

In the negative sense it is interesting to note that certain expressions, which were then in very general use for different kinds of governing officials were not adopted by the Christians, such as epistates and epimeletes. For servants, in the religious sense, hyperetes was used more frequently than diakonos [cf. Thieme, "Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander und das neue Test." (Borna-Leipzig, 1905), 33]

B. Positive parallelisms

(1) Antilepsis (= assistance), with a religious implication, is found, besides in I Cor., xii, 28, in the Septuagint and on papyri [cf. Deissmann, "Bibelstudien" (Marburg, 1895), 87; and "Neue Bibelstudien" (1897), 51].

(2) Archipoimen (=chief shepherd) of I Peter, v, 4, is found on a mummy label [cf. Deissmann, "Licht vom Osten" (Tubingen, 1908), p. 64].

(3) Diakonos in a religious sense is found in an inscription, from Magnesia on the Meander, of about 100 B. C. (O. Kern, "Die Inschriften am Mäander", p. 109). The same is found frequently in other places (cf. Thieme, op. cit., 17 sq.), for instance mention is made of a college of deacons with a priest (hiereus) at their head for the worship of Serapis and Isis (cf. Corpus Inscr. Græc. II, 1800 and 3037).

(4) Episkopos in a religious sense: cf. remarks above and Daremberg-Saglio, "Dictionnaire des Antiquités" under episkopos. This article is unfortunately not satisfactory, whereas the articles epimeletes and epistates are excellent.

(5) Liturgy (leiyrgos, letyrgeo, etc.) in a religious sense is found at Magnesia (Kern, ib 98, 17 and 98, 58; Thieme, ibid., 16; Deissmann, "Bibelstudien", 137 sq.).

(6) Logeia, that is, collections of a religious character (cf. I Cor., xvi, 1 and 2) on papyri and ostraka (Wilcken, "Griechische Ostraka", I, 253; Deissmann," Lichtvom Osten", 69 sq.; Kern, l. c., 105, 72; Thieme, l. c., 16 sq.).

(7) Presbyter, also in a religious sense; for instance the members of a sacerdotal college in Egypt were called thus, in the middle of the second century (cf. the papyri in Deissmann, "Neue Bibelstudien", 60 sq.).

(8) Prophets. They formed a class of the superior priesthood in Egypt (cf. Krebs, "Zeitschrift fur ægypt Sprache und Altermskunde", xxxi, 36). Prophet-priests are also found in Miletus [cf. Thieme, I. c., 19; cf. also R. Cagnat, "Inscriptiones Græcæ", III (Paris, 1906), n. 680 and n. 1105].

V. HISTORICAL ON QUASI-HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES

Since an exhaustive treatment is impossible, I have tried to collect at least all the typical texts.

A. Mention of Bishops by Polycrates

In a synodal letter written by Polycrates of Ephesus about the year 190 this bishop, sixty-five years of age, speaks of seven of his relatives who had been bishops before him. Besides these he mentions Polycarp and Papirius of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenea, Sagaris of Laodicea and Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.", v, 24, 2 sq.).

B. Iren us's View of the Connexion with Apostolic Times

The famous texts of Irenæus on Apostolic succession are a testimony to the faith of the second century, rather than an example of ancient historical narrative. Exceptions are;

(1) the list of the Roman bishops (Hær., iii, 3 sq.);

(2) the account of Polycarp's instalment by the Apostles (op. cit., iii, 3, 4, and Euseb., "Hist. eccles.", iv, 14); and especially

(3) the passage (Hær., v. 20, 1) pointing out the fact that the Apostles entrusted the Churches to the bishops. On the contrary, historical value cannot be attached to the statement (Hær., iii, 14, 2) that St. Paul summoned to Miletus the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus and the vicinity.

C. Eusebius's Account of the Earliest Times

(l) The accounts that we have of St. James the First as Bishop of Jerusalem, based on the "Hypotyposes" of Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl", ii, 1) cannot be used as historical data. This applies still more to the story (op. cit., iii, 11) of the choice of Simeon as a successor to James. The bare fact, however, that both filled the highest office in Jerusalem, is well attested (cf . Eusebius, ibid., iv, 5, and iv, 12; and especially Hegesippus, iv, 22).

(2) Euseb., iii, 37, has a good historical basis. Eusebius tells us here that the disciples of the Apostle, after distributing their goods, spread the Christian religion in the character of "evangelists".

D. Colleges of Presbyters

The mere fact that the ancient sources speak of colleges of presbyters, without any mention of a monarchical bishop at their head, does not warrant the immediate conclusion that there was no such bishop. This is clearly shown by the following texts. The anonymous Antimontanist in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., v, 16, 1 sq.) speaks of such governing presbyters in Ancyra. Tertullian mentions elders as presidents of the assemblies (Apologet., xxxix).

E. Charismata

(1) Eusebius's anonymous Antimontanist and Miltiades (Hist. eccl., v, 17) testify that the true prophets (of the Old and the New Testament) did not speak in ecstasy (i.e. in unconscious ravings). This looks more like a theological inference than a piece of evidence from first-hand historical sources.

(2) In the "Testament of Jesus Christ" (edit. Ephræm Rahmani, I, xlvii) an ordinance is found prohibiting the imposition of hands on those who possess the gift of healing, of knowledge, or of tongues, since the work of God is already made manifest in them.

(3) In view of the passages which speak of prophets, it does not seem improbable that the word "prophet", even in early times, signified not merely the possessor of an ecstatic charisma, but was also a substitute for "priest", at a time when men were still afraid to use this expression. Prophet appears here as a synonym for hypophetes. This recalls a remarkable passage of the Ambrosiast (in Ep. ad Ephes., iv, 11, 12), where the observation is made that "now" the interpreters of Scripture are called prophets. The "now" may however be due to a hurriedly copied quotation.

(4) If Tertullian defines the teachers (doctores) as brethren "endowed with the gift of knowledge" (gratia scienti donati -- De Præscript., xiv), a miraculous charisma cannot be immediately inferred, since the idea of grace or endowment (gratia) was of very wide application.

F. Different Orders of the Hierarchy

Besides patriarchs, prophets, levites, priests, and archons, Tertullian mentions also Apostles, evangelists, and bishops (De Corona, ix, 2). Only the last three have reference to the New Testament, according to the context. The list given in another passage (Præscr., III), bishop, deacon, widow, virgin, doctor, martyr, is evidently arbitrary and accidental. The same may be said of the seven orders of Hippolytus (Fragm. in Prov., ix, 1) prophets, martyrs, hierarchs, ascetics, saints, just.

G. Deacons

The hypothesis that the deacons were originally on a higher footing than the priests, almost equal to that of the bishops, is supported by a few of the vaguest indications taken from the earliest sources. That such naive texts prove nothing is best shown by the later texts, which allow the deacon remarkable privileges, although his rank was definitively established as no higher than the third order of the hierarchy.

(1) At the Council of Elvira (Eliberis) a discussion took place regarding deacons who govern churches (diaconus regens plebem, can. lxxvii); that is to say, where there is no bishop and no priest.

(2) In the Apostolic Constitutions (lib. II, c. xxvi) the deacons come directly after the bishop, although it was then established that their order held third place.

H. The Hierarchy as an Ecclesiastical Institution

(1) The utterance of Tertullian (De exhort. cast. vii), declaring that the difference between the priests and the laity was due to ecclesiastical institution, and that therefore any layman in the absence of a priest could offer sacrifice, baptize, and act as priest, is based on Montanistic theories and contradicts earlier teachings of Tertullian (e.g., De baptismo, xvii).

(2) Nor is there any better historical foundation for the statement of Cyprian (Epist., III, 3) that Christ spoke only of bishops and priests, whereas the deacons are of Apostolic institutions. The latter is simply a conclusion drawn from the sixth chapter of Acts; while the preceding expresses a dogmatic judgment and the belief at the time of St. Cyprian.

I. Supposed Original Equality of Bishops and Priests

(1) Epiphanius (Panar., III, c. iv, hær. lxxv)

Epiphanius's arguments against Arius, who held this original equality, form an excellent dogmatic thesis; but the description of primitive conditions is an artificial construction, not a real historical account.

(2) Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Ambrosiast

Jerome holds that bishops and priests were identical in the earliest times. According to him the monarchical episcopate is an ecclesiastical institution, although it is for the good of the Church and based on Apostolic tradition ("Epist. ad Evangelum", 146 [85], 1; "Epist. ad Oceanum", 69 [83], 3; "Comment. in Tit.": Migne, P. L., XXVI, 562, 563, 694, 695 and 696 -- "Dialog. advers. Lucifer", 9; Migne, P. L., XXIII, 164 sq.). But since on the other hand Jerome regards the power of ordination as peculiar to the bishop, his theory labours under an insoluble contradiction (cf. Epist. 146 [85) and "In Ep ad Tit.", ib.). Jerome's accounts do not offer any historical testimony, but an artificial and hypothetical construction. He infers far too much from the fact that the titles presbyter and bishop are synonymous in the New Testament, relying chiefly on an ordinance concerning the election of bishops of the Alexandrian Church, which prescribed that, in accordance with an ancient tradition the college of presbyters should always choose and consecrate one of its own number. The texts of St. Jerome are thoroughly discussed by Michiels, "L'origine de l'épiscopat" (Louvain, 1900), 420 sq., and by Dom Léon Sanders, "Etudes sur saint Jerôme" (Brussels and Paris, 1903), 298 sq. We shall speak presently about the election of the Alexandrian bishops. From the time of Isidore of Seville until late in the Middle Ages these accounts of St. Jerome were transcribed over and over without any attempt at criticism. For the history of these texts of St. Jerome, cf. Dunin Borkowski in "Histor. Jahrbuch.", XXI (1900), 221 sq.

Jerome and the Ambrosiast deny the original equality of bishops and priests; both maintain that the Churches even in Apostolic times were governed by single superiors, who all possessed the power of ordination and bore the name of Apostle [cf. Ambros., in Eph., iv, 11 and 12; in I Cor., xii, 18; in Philipp., i, 1; in I Tim., iii, etc.; "Opera Ambrosii", ed. Ballerini, III (Milan, 1877), 809 sq., 631, 830, 916; "Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epist. B. Pauli commentarii", ed. H. B. Swete, 1882; in I ep. ad Tim., iii, 8; l. c., II, 114 sq.; in ep. ad Tit., i, 7, 239]. The statements of Theodore and of the Ambrosiast have much more value than those of St. Jerome. We find similar utterances in Theodoret's Commentary on Philippians, i, 1 (Migne, P. G., LXXXII, 559 [445]) and on I Tim., iii (ib., 803 [652]) and also in John of Dara (in Abrah. Echellensis, "Eutychius Patriarcha Alexandrinus vindicatus" [Rome, 1668], 190 sq.). A similar notion is found in Origen (Hom. in Num., xi, 4, Migne, P. G., XII [Orig. II], 308 col. 649); except that he seems to speak of his own time. He speaks of the possibility of a man coming to a place where there are as yet no Christians, of his teaching the people the Faith and inducing them to accept it, and finally becoming bishop himself. In the places mentioned, Theodore of Mopsuestia has another peculiar statement. He declares that in the most ancient times those supreme ecclesiastical superiors, who were instituted by the original Twelve and called likewise apostles, ruled over entire provinces, whereas the towns were subject to presbyters. Even in later times not more than three bishops, usually only two were to be found in a province; this condition, he adds, had lasted in the Occident almost up to his own time. Duchesne attached some historical value to these utterances of Theodore [Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, I (1894), 36 sq.]. Harnack has refuted him very thoroughly in a valuable excursus in the second volume of his work, "Die Mission und die Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten", 2nd ed. (1906), 373 sq. Harnack assigns its true value to Theodore's testimony, though in some places he lets himself be influenced by his own extremely hypothetical concept of the primitive Christian constitution. Theodore is correct in saying that originally whole provinces were under one chief ruler known as an "apostle". One cannot, however, accept his conclusion that for a long time the single local communities were without any bishops of their own (cf. Harnack, l. c., 378-395).

(3) The Alexandrian bishops are said to have been placed in office and consecrated by the local priests. History offers widely different accounts of this singular occurrence. Heretical monks complained to the holy monk Poimen about the Alexandrian archbishop, and claimed that he had been consecrated by priests. The event can have taken place between 370 and 460 (P. G., LXV, 341). Jerome mentions the fact (Presbyteri . . . unum ex se electum . . . episcopum nominabant) (Epist. 146 ad Evangelum, Migne, P. L., XXII, 1194). Severus of Antioch also speaks of it in a letter written between 518 and 538 [E. W. Brooks, "The ordination of the early Bishops of Alexandria" in "Journal of Theol. Studies", II (1901), 612 sq.]. Finally in the tenth century the story is told at great length by Eutychius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria (P. G., CXI, 903-06 and 982). It seems doubtful whether the Ambrosiast (l. c., in Eph., iv, 11, 12) refers to these conditions in Alexandria. Abraham Echellensis, notwithstanding his serious errors in chronology, has shown that Eutychius and his first editor, Selden, caused an irremediable confusion ["Eutychius, Patriarcha Alexandrinus vindicatus" (Rome, 1661), 39 sq., 47 sq., 53 sq., 63 sq., 103 sq. On page 227 an important text of George Homaidius is given as a parallel to Eutychius. Cf. also A. von Gutschmid, "Kleine Schriften", II 399 sq.; 379 sq., 486, and Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Oriental. Collectio", I, 365 sq.; 379 sq.]. The remaining three texts, when compared with one another, present serious difficulties. Moreover, they can hardly be reconciled with statements made by Clement of Alexandria and Origen [cf. Ch. Gore, "On the Ordination of the Early Bishops of Alexandria", in "Journal of Theol. Studies" (1902), III, 279 sq.; and Cabrol in "Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie", s. v. "Alexandrie"]. The outcome of it all is, as Cabrol states, that in the fourth century and later a tradition existed that the Bishops of Alexandria were chosen, or perhaps even consecrated, by the presbyterate.

VI. SHORT SYNOPSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL RESULTS GAINED BY EXAMINATION OF ALL THE TEXTS

In the earliest times those who first preached the Gospel in a place, usually retained the supreme direction of the communities which they had themselves founded. We say usually; for the message of Christianity could be carried to some places by men who were not missionaries by their calling, and thus could claim no personal authority (Rome); or by men who felt sure of their vocation as preachers of the Word of God, but did not wish to organize or govern (Ephesus?). Accordingly, there were cases in which the foundation proper did not coincide with the first preaching of the Gospel; and in such cases the Apostle who was founder became the chief ruler. This position, in which the Apostle Paul and the first Apostles were established was charismatical in the sense given above, i.e., it originated in a personal commission from Jesus. We know nothing definite about the calling of the apostles in the wider sense. The idea that they always followed a direct intimation of the Spirit is not impossible, but it cannot be proved. The apostolate was not a mystical or miraculous charisma, like the gift of tongues and of prophecy. The founding of the Church included its organization as well. The individual Churches could not have evolved their organization out of their own inner power of jurisdiction, for it was as an organism that each existed from the start, and only as an organism that it put forth its activity. That is the most ancient Christian concept of the body ecclesiastic that we know of. But the conclusion is also established that the Church's power of action was not bestowed on her by the founding Apostles. As a second Christ, as the Body of Christ, both the universal Church and the local Churches possessed certain rights and powers which could not have been conferred by men. The Church was essentially the creation of God and Christ. But these rights and privileges can no more be referred to the autonomous communities than to the founding and governing Apostles; they are the work of God and Christ. Communal autonomy, in the modern sense, which makes the community not merely the subject, but also the creator and ultimate reason of its own juridical powers, it a concept directly opposed to the deepest convictions of the early Christians. Since the Churches were regarded as organisms, these Divinely given powers and privileges did not pertain to the community as distinguished from the governing officials, but to the organized community. Primitive Christian faith represented the organs of the mystical body of Christ, including the local governing powers in general, as a law, an ordinance of God and Christ. It has been mistakenly asserted that the governing organs did not stand above the community. This is true only in the sense that the community, as the organized body of Christ, includes within itself all its organs; but, as soon as the idea is introduced that the superiors received their power from the autonomous community of the faithful, the view is contrary to that of primitive Christianity.

Neither the power of the Apostles nor of the other superiors was tyrannical and autocratic in its nature. All were equally bound by the Word of God. The importance which was attached to charity and humility gave a patriarchal tone to Christian society. But true juridical relations were there none the less. The foremost Protestant scholars reject the paradox proposed by Rudolf Sohm in the first volume of his "Kirchenrecht", that legal right is alien to the concept of the Ecclesia. But a great deal of confusion and obscurity is still brought into a naturally clear and simple matter by an improper use of modern legal concepts and certain one-sided peculiarities of the Roman law. The investigator should bear in mind the juridical conditions of the early Church and the manner of expression peculiar to those times. Did the first Christians accept ecclesiastical authority as a manifestation of the Divine will in the abstract, and quite independently of the question whether the superior offered himself spontaneously, was elected, or was otherwise placed in office? Did they understand their subjection to superiors as an obligation imposed upon subjects of God, and, consequently, the superior's right of government as a moral possession allotted by God? Our texts oblige us to answer both these questions in the affirmative. But this is the very essence of Divine jurisdiction. In other words, the organic disposition of the Church is the will and commandment of God and Christ. A second question is: Did the Apostles and ecclesiastical superiors, in view of their Divinely given mission, ascribe to themselves certain rights of government which, though not determined as to their subject-matter by a direct mandate of Christ, were none the less obligatory on the faithful? To this question, also, the sources give the same distinctly affirmative answer.

Since, likewise, local authority was regularly accepted as an ordinance of Christ, different members and organs, with strictly regulated functions, must have gradually been evolved everywhere. These include also the governing communal organs together with the universal apostolate and the travelling helpers of the Apostles. In many places, of course, men of power, endowed with miraculous gifts, such as prophets, could for a time take the place of the regular governing officials. An organization of the Church based solely on mystical or miraculous charismatical gifts is as fabulous as the alleged democratic organization. The Apostle, who had some sense of order and ability for organizing, took care to establish resident helpers in the newly-founded communities. St. Paul was pleased when the first-fruits of the Faith in any city offered themselves for the service of the community. If they were men of proved character, and were recognized by the Apostle, it became the duty of the Christian to respect and obey them. But in some cities peculiar offices existed from the earliest times. In the midst of the Jewish and heathen society of Asia Minor and Palestine, such personages were given the name of presbyter; but in other regions no special title seems to have been attached to them at the beginning; only superiors and servants (deacons) were spoken of. But the name of episkopos (overseer) soon came into use; and the title of deacon was restricted more and more to the assistants of the chief local officials. These presbyters, or bishops, formed a sort of college. There is no proof that in the Apostolic times there existed, besides the deacons, two separate corporations, each provided with special powers: a college of presbyters and a college of bishops, who were drawn from the ranks of the presbyters or added to their number.

To explain the Epistles of St. Ignatius, one must assume that the separation of the titles bishop and presbyter took place in many localities as early as 70-80, and that, even at this time, the monarchical head of the community was frequently called episkopos. At an early period these superiors were given the favourite title of shepherd. The name hegoumenoi (leaders) was of somewhat later appearance, and probably later still (Clement and Hermas) the compound word proegoumenoi (Clement and Hermas); the terms prokathemenoi (presiding officials) and protokathedritai (holders of seats of honour) are undoubtedly of later origin. It seems probable that, side by side with proistamenoi, the form proestotes was used, but this cannot be proved with certainty. In I Tim., v. 17, the word is an adjective (oi kalos proestotes presbyteroi). The preaching and interpretation of the Word of God was undertaken in the earliest times by the Apostles and their travelling helpers, among whom the "evangelists" were included. These were missionaries, prophets, and "doctors", some of whom, had a direct Divine calling and a gift of infused knowledge. Other teachers were distinguished from evangelists by permanent residence in some community. This abundance of preachers of the Word of God (lalountes ton logou tou theou) mentioned only by St. Paul, I Tim., ii, 7; II Tim. i, 11; and I Clem., v, 6) frequently relieved the local superiors of their obligation to preach in person.

With the growth of the communities, the Apostle-founders entrusted part of their office to men worthy of their confidence, who were thus invested with a monarchical authority over several communities, without, however, succeeding to all Apostolic prerogatives. These men soon received the title of episkopos; and, as a result, this term became obsolete as a mere synonym for presbyter. Such are the historical beginnings of the monarchical episcopate. For a long time, however, the bishops were also called by the simple title of presbyter. The greater the number of distinct communities, the more numerous were the monarchical bishops; and in some districts every town soon had a bishop of its own. Those early recipients of the Apostolic confidence were not as yet local superiors in the strict sense, although of course they usually resided in some particular town. The presbyters of their province were subject to them. In this we find the beginning of the system of metropolitan bishops. In some places the presbyterate remained for a considerable time the highest local authority. About the same time, the order of deacons became fully organized. They were the right hand of the bishop.

All the germs of later development were present at the very beginning. The constitution of the Church in its essential structural features is an original product of Christianity. In the light of the laws of history and of Divine Providence, it is easy to understand how from the earliest times the social environment of Christian institutions, the varieties of religious activity and organization, the local and provincial forms of government, were important factors in developing a great multitude of unessential details.

Valuable bibliography is to be found in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique (Louvain, 1900-); bibliography and references in Theol. Jahresbericht (Leipzig and New York) and in Jahresberichten für Geschichtswissenshaft (Berlin). The literature up to 1900 has been treated in full by BORKOWSKI, Die neueren Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episcopats (Freiburg, 1900). Still useful are PETAVIUS, De ecclesiasticâ hierarchiâ libri 5 (Paris, 1643); MAMACHI, Originum et Antiquitatum christian. libri 5 (Rome, 1749-55); BINGHAM, Antiquities of the Christian Church (new ed., Oxford, 1855). Among the numerous works written in the earlier nineteenth century the following may still be read with profit: MÖHLER, Die Einheit in der Kirche (1825 and 1843); ROTHE, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, I (1837); above all, DÖLLINGER, Christentum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung (Ratisbon, 1869); also LIGHTFOOT, The Christian Ministry, in his work St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (2nd ed., 1869), 179-267; reprint in Dissertations of the Apostolic Age (1892), 137-246). In order to understand the last specimens of the older Tübingen School, see LÜDERMANN in Theol. Jahresbericht; SEUFERT, Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Apostolats (Leyden, 1887); and Ueber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Zwölfapostolats (Karlsruhe, 1903); SEYERLEN in Zeitschrift für prakt. Theolog., IX (1887), 97-143; 201-245; 297-333). At least two of BAUR'S numerous writings must be read: Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1853) and Ueber den Ursprung des Episkopats (Tübingen, 1838). Another tendency in Protestant scholarship dates from RITSCHL, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed., Bonn, 1857). The germs of many of the latest hypotheses relating to our subject can be discovered in the following works: LECHLER, Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeitalter (1851); JAKOBY, Die konstitutiven Faktoren des apostolischen Gottesdienstes in Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol., XVIII (1873), 539-583; HACKENSCHMIDT, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, I (1874); HOLSTEN, Das Evangelium des Paulus, I and II (1880 and 1898); HEINRICI, Aufsätze über die paulinischen Gemeinden in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie (1876), 465-516, and (1877), 89-130. Little notice is taken of the influence of these works. The following two works have exercised a great and lasting influence on Protestant scholarship: WEIZSÄCKER, Das apostolische Zeitalter (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1886; 2nd ed., 1896; 3rd ed., 1902) and HOLTZMANN, Die Pastoralbriefe (Leipzig, 1880). The following works had a considerable, but only passing, influence: HATCH, The Organization of the Early Christian Church (Oxford, 1881; 2nd ed., 1882), translated into German and amplified by HARNACK (1883); WEINGARTEN, Die Umwandlung der ursprünglichen christlichen Gemeindeorganisation zur kathol. Kirche, in Sybels Histor. Zeitschrift, XLV (1881), 441-67). All writings on the subject by HARNACK, besides his Dogmengeschichte, his large edition of the Didache and his Analekten zu Hatch, an article on the origin of the Christian ministry, in Expositor, V, XXIX (1887), 321-43. More recently his work, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, I (Leipzig, 1906), 267-418; SOHM, Kirchenrecht, I (1892), 16-180; RÉVILLE, Les origines de l'épiscopat, I (1894).

Among the works, the value of which lies in their criticism of the various hypotheses, without their offering any conclusions of lasting value, are to be numbered: KÜHL, Die Gemeindeordnung in den Pastoralbriefen (1885); LÖNING, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristentums (1888); LOOFS, Die urchristliche Gemeindeverfassung in Studien und Kritiken, LXIII (1890), II, 619-58. Many other works aroused considerable attention at the time of their appearance, but afterwards lost their value: those, for instance, by SCHWEGLER, BUNSEN, SCHAFF, HAVET, RENAN, HAUSRATH, the entire Dutch radical school, PRESSENSÉ, etc. Eight articles in the Expositor for 1887 show an extraordinary confusion in the line of historical research. HORT, The Christian Ecclesia (1897) is very unsatisfactory.

Useful collections of material are found in: the notes and excursus in LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers; the liturgical works of PROBST; works by RAMSAY, e.g., The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893, 7th ed., 1903); St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (7th ed., London, 1903): The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1897-97); CABROL AND LECLERCQ, Monumenta Ecclesi Liturgica (Paris, 1900); works of HILGENFELD, as Die apostolischen Väter (1853), Das Urchristentum in den Hauptwendepunkten seines Entwicklungsganges (1855), and articles in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie (1874-97) (1874, 103, Sq.; 1886, 1 sq.; l80 sq.; 385sq.; 456sq.; 1890, 223 sq.; 303 sq.; 1897, 1 sq.). Few, however, of the positive results can be accepted. Very many of the remaining works are based wholly on the labours of others. MCGIFFERT, Hist. of Christianity in the Apost. Age (Edinburgh, 1897) is in close relation with German Protestant historical investigation.

Catholic scholarship has been influenced by the following works among others: DE SMEDT, L'organisation des égliseschrétiennes in Revue des questions historiques, XLIV (1888), 329-84; JACQUIER, La doctrine des douze apôtres (1891), 216-257; also the corresponding Sections in SCHANZ, Apologie. The subject has also been well treated by LESQUOY, De regimine ecclesiastico juxta patrum apostolicorum doctrinam (Louvain, 1881); BRÜLL, Der Hirt des Hermes (1882) and Der erste Brief des Clemens von Rom (1883); GOBET, De l'origine divine de l'épiscopat (Fribourg, 1898); SOBKOWSKI, Episkopatat und Presbyterat in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten (Würzburg, 1893); DOUAIS, Les origines de l'épiscopat, in Mélanges publ. à l'occasion du jubilé de Mgr de Cabrières, I (Paris, 1899), 1-48. The Journal of Theological Studies; American Eccl. Review; American Journal of Theology; Revue Biblique; Revue Bénédictine; Revue Thomiste; Revue de l'Orient Chrétien; Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Christentums; Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche; Civiltà Cattol. (e.g., May, 1906, 257-274). Also the important articles in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible; in Dictionnaire de théologie, and the recent new edition of the Dictionnaire d'Apologétique.

More important works by Protestant authors that have recently appeared (since 1900): ROPES, The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism (New York, 1906); MONNIER, La notion de l'apostolat des origines à Irénée (Paris, 1903); DURELL, The Historic Church (Cambridge, 1906), well worth reading; HEINRICI, Das Urchristentum (1902); WERNLE, Die Anfänge unserer Religion (1903); DOBSCHÜTZ, Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters (1904); Die urchristlichen Gemeinden (1902); KNOFF, Das nachapostolischer Zeitalter (1905). Many monographs on St. Paul -- Harnack in Realencyclopadie für protest Theologie und Kirche, XX (3rd Gd., 1908, 508-546), s. v. Verfassung, is important and interesting.

Some of the more important Catholic works since 1900: MICHIELS, Les origines de l'épiscopat (Louvain, 1900); BATIFFOL, L'hiérarchie primitive in Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive (2nd ed., Paris, 1902); and especially L'Eglise naissante et le Catholicisme (Paris, 1909); BRUDERS, Die Verfassung der Kirche (Mainz, 1904); DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, I (Paris, 1906), 89 sq.; LE CAMUS, L' uvre des apôtres, II, III (Paris, 1905); MATHEW, Ecclesia, the Church of Christ (London, 1906); CABROL, Les origines liturgiques (Paris, 1906); GENOUILLAC, L'Eglise chrétienne au temps de Saint Ignace d'Antioche (Paris, 1907); PEAT, La théologie de St. Paul, I (Paris, 1908), Note J, 488-511. Finally the notable work by MERTENS, De hierarchie in de eerste eeuw des christendoms (Amsterdam, 1908).

STANISLAUS DE DUNIN BORKOWSKI

Hierocæsarea

A titular see of Lydia, suffragan of Sardis. This town is mentioned by Ptolemy (VI, ii, 16). Judging from its Coins it worshipped Artemis Persica. The site of Hierocæsarea must have been between the villages of Beyova and Sasova, seven or eight miles south-east of Thyatira, on the left bank of the Koum-Chai, a tributary of the Hermus, and in the vilayet of Smyrna. It is mentioned as an episcopal see in all the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" until the twelfth or thirteenth century, but we know only three of its bishops: Cosinius, at Chalcedon, 451; Zacharias, at Nicæa, 782; Theodore, at constantinople, 879.

RAMSAY, Asia Minor, 128; LEQUIEN, Or. Christ., I, 891; FOUCART in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, XI (1887), 93 sqq.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Hieronymites

In the fourth century, certain Roman ladies, following St. Paula, embraced the religious life in Bethlehem, putting themselves under the direction of St. Jerome, who had founded a monastery in that city. It is not to be inferred from this that he composed any monastic rule or founded an order. Some Hieronymites of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, indeed, asserted as much, but their claims rest upon no substantial basis, so that no historical link is to be looked for between St. Jer ome and this religious family. The congregation was formed in Spain and Italy in the fourteenth century, by the amalgamation of several groups of hermits, and the sovereign pontiffs, while granting it their approval, imposed upon it the rule of St. Augustine, though the name of St. Jerome, whom the religious had chosen as their model and patron, was retained.

In Spain the cradle and centre of this congregation was the monastery of San Bartolome de Lupiana. Its first prior, Fernando Pecha, in conjunction with Peter of Rome, obtained from Pope Gregory XI Bulls confirming their order, 8 October, 1373. The pope received their solemn vows and gave them their habit, which consisted of a white tunic, a brown scapular and mantle. Their constitutions resembled those of the Augustinians of St. Mary of the Sepulchre at Florence. Fernando Pecha received the profession of the other hermits in 1374. Their numbers rapidly increased; in the reigns of Philip II and his successors and their prosperity was extraordinary. Charles V held them in high esteem. In 1389 they received the monastery of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Estramadura, in which is preserved the image of the Blessed Virgin most venerated throughout Spain. In 1415 their houses numbered twenty-five. They were then removed from the jurisdiction of the ordinary and made an exempt order. They were established in Portugal, and the religious of these two countries formed one congregation (1595). Philip II built on a grand scale the monastery of St. Lawrence of the Escorial, in which the kings of Spain are buried. Its library is one of the richest in Spain, and it possesses many works of art. The kings of Portugal are buried in the monastery of Belem, founded by King Manuel in 1497, which was the largest and finest in the kingdom. Emperor Charles V, on his abdication (1555), withdrew to the monastery of St. Jerome of Yuste, where he died. The monasteries of Madrid and Seville must also be mentioned. The hieronymite nuns founded by Maria Garcias, who died 10 February, 1426, occupied the monasteries of St. Paula of Toledo, of La Concepcion Jeronima of Madrid (1504), of St. Paula of Seville (1473), of St. Martha of Cordova, and St. Paula of Granada. The Hieronymites became celebrated for their generous almsgiving. The authority which they gained from so holy a manner of living allowed of their being employed efficaciously in the reformation of other religious orders, among which were the Premonstratensians, the Trinitarians, the Canons Regular of Coimbra, of St. John the Evangelist, the Knights of the Order of Christ and of St. James of the sword. It was by their help that St. John of God was enabled to found his first hospital. They cooperated in the evangelization of the New World. The government of the island of San Domingo was at first confided to them. Many of them have been raised to the episcopal dignity.

Lupo de Olmedo introduced into this order a reform which issued in the establishment of the Congregation of the Monk-Hermits of St. Jerome of the Observance (1424). Their manner of life resembled that of the Carthusians. Their constitutions were drawn up with extracts made from the writings of St. Jerome. The monastery of St. Jerome of l'Acella and others which existed in Spain were incorporated with the Spanish Congregation of the Hieronymites (1595); those which Lupo de Olmedo had founded in Italy retained their independence, and were known as the Hermits of St. Jerome of Lombardy, their general residing at San Pietro del Ospitaletto, in the Diocese of Lodi. They had seventeen houses, notably that of St. Alexis on the Aventine, at Rome.

There were two other congregations at Rome under the patronage of the same Doctor of the Church: the Hermits of St. Jerome [of the Congregation] of Blessed Peter of Pisa, and the hermits of St. Jerome of Fiesole. The former came into existence at Montebello, in Umbria, about the year 1375; Blessed Peter of Pisa, its founder, died in 1435. Its constitutions were not drawn up until 1444, and St. Pius V gave the congregation its definitive form in 1568. It was augmented by the incorporation of several ermitical groups: that of Blessed Nicola di Furca-Palena, under the generalship of Blessed Bartolommeo Malerba, after 1446; that of the Hermits of Monte Legastro, near Genoa (1579), founded by Blessed Lawrence; lastly the Tyrolese and Bavarian hermits (1695). The forty houses of Italy formed the two Provinces of Ancona and Treviso. At Rome these religious occupied the monastery of Sant' Onoforio on the Janiculum. Their habit was brown and consisted of a tunic, a hood, and a mozzeta, with a leathern girdle. Many of the congregation have been beatified- Pietro Qualcerano, Nicola di Furca-Palena, Bartolommeo of Cesna, Filippo of Sant' Agata, and others.

The Hermits of St. Jerome of Fiesole were founded by the Blessed Charles of Montegraneli. Cosimo de' Medici defrayed the cost of their first monastery. Innocent VII approved the congregation in 1406, and in 1441 Eugene IV gave it its definitive constituti ons. They had as many as forty houses, all in Italy. The church of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius at Rome was served by them. But in time their numbers diminished, and Clement IX suppressed them in 1668. The other Italian Hieronymites disappeared during the troubles which followed the Revolution; those of Spain were suppressed in 1835, and those of Portugal shortly afterwards. The literary activity of this order has been confined to Spain and Portugal. Antonio Nicolás in his "Bibliotheca Hispana nova", vol. II, p. 314, enumerates the works of these religious, of whom some of the best-known names are: Diego de Carceros, moralist and theologian (1638); Diego de Yepes, author of a life of St. Teresa (1643) and a history of the persecution in England (1599); Diego de Zuniga, philosopher and exegete (about 1600); Fernando de Talavera, Bishop of Granada (1507), ascetical writer; Francisco de todos Santos, author of a history of the Escorial (1657); Garcias de Toledo, canonist (about 1560); Hemengildo de San-Pablo, the historian of his congregation (1670); Jerónimo Gazia, moralist (1652); Jeronimo of Guadalupe, a commentator on several books of the Bible (about 1600); Juan of Toledo, theologian (1662).

J.M. BESSE

Hierotheus

All attempts to establish as historical a personality corresponding to the Hierotheus who appears in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are rendered abortive by the fact, now definitely proven, that those writings, with intent to mislead, weave into their narrative various fictitious personalities of the Apostolic Era, such as Peter, James, John, Timothy, Carpus, and others. Indeed the author would have betrayed himself had he named and depicted in such sharp outlines a real Hierotheus who lived in his own time (the end of the fifth century), and with whom he was on intimate terms. As a matter of fact, no trace of any Hierotheus resembling the portrait drawn by Dionysius can be found outside the writings of Dionysius. For want of extraneous resources, therefore, we must turn to three important passages in the work "De divinis nominibus", wherein Dionysius speaks of Hierotheus as his teacher and guide, with expressions of deepest veneration, adding that after St. Paul it is to him he is most indebted. One passage in the "De div. nom." (iii, 2-3) taken in connexion with ii, 9-10, and iv, 15-17, gives the following descriptive details. Hierotheus is a gifted teacher for people of mature and high intelligence; he possesses a sublime knowledge of Divine things, the result, not merely of his natural keenness and zealous study, but, for the most part, of mystical insight and contemplation. Hence his method of teaching is full of profound meaning, terse, and concise. His hearers hardly dare to meet with their gaze the beams of this intellectual sun. The writings of Hierotheus are almost as authoritative as the inspired books of the Bible. Two of his works bear the title (quite foreign to the Apostolic Era) "Outlines of Theology" (Theologikai stoicheioseis) and "Hymns of Love" (erotikoi hymnoi). An excerpt of twenty-seven lines from the former work, given in Migne, P.G., III, 648, describes the saving and guiding power of the Logos (Theotes Iesou), in strong sympathy with the doctrines of Clement of Alexandria and Origen concerning the Logos. As though to "crown" his own disquisitions on love (eros), Dionysius appends three brief quotations from the second work of Hierotheus. They treat of the definitions of love and the gradations of the powers of love (erotes) and their reduction to the one supreme principle of love. Neo-Platonic ideas, taken for instance from Proclus (ed. Cousin, 1864; cf. "Instit. theol.", passim; I Alcib.", p. 325; "theol. Plat.", p. 132) and others, appear throughout and merge with other thoughts developed by Dionysius himself. There is, therefore, a strong presumption that the aforesaid two works did not exist at all, and that their alleged author, Hierotheus, is identical with Dionysius.

A remarkable episode from the life of Hierotheus, which is related in "De div. nom.", iii, 2, shows us Hierotheus, with the Apostles Peter and James and "many blessed brethren", gathered around the sacred body of the Mother of God, on which occasion he, kindled with supernatural inspiration, delivered a discourse whose ecstatic glow filled all with wonder. Dionysius also pretends to have been present at this "viewing of the God-bearing body" (Thea Theodochou somatos), which is described on the authority of the apocryphal accounts, "De transitu (dormitione) B.V. Mariae". There is not the slightest tangible proof as to whether the author of the Dionysian writings borrowed at least a few characteristics from some member of his circle of friends, nor to what extent he did so; it is not worth while going into the manifold unfounded hypotheses as that, for instance, respecting Stephen Bar-Sudaili. (SEE DIONYSIUS THE PSEUDO-AREOPAGITE.)

JOS. STIGLMAYR

Ranulf Higden

(HYDON, HYGDEN, HIKEDEN.)

Benedictine chronicler; died 1364. He was a west-country man, and was professed a monk at the Abbey of St. Werburg, Chester, in 1299. Beyond this nothing is recorded of his personal life and he is known only by his great work, the "Polychronicon", a universal history down to his own times. As it was the most complete history available during the fourteenth century, it enjoyed great popularity during that and the following age; though even the contemporary portion, in which Higden wrote the history of his own times down to 1342, is of no remarkable value. It was translated into English by John of Trevisa in 1387, and this translation was printed by Caxton in 1482, and by Wynkyn de Worde in 1495. A later translation, made early in the fifteenth century, has been published in the Rolls Series, in nine volumes. The introductions by the editors contain all available information and describe in detail most of the extant manuscripts, of which more than one hundred are known to exist. It was long believed that Higden, in compiling the "Polychronicon", had used an earlier work, the "Polycratica tempora" of one Roger of Chester, ending in the year 1314, though with a supplement down to 1339, but the editors of the "Polychronicon" have almost conclusively proved that "Roger of Chester" was in reality Ranulf Higden himself, who was commonly quoted simply as "Cestrensis". The error of a scribe in substituting Roger for Ranulf easily gave rise to the mistake. The following are works written by or attributed to Higden, still remaining in manuscript: "Speculum curatorum", written in 1340 (Balliol); "Ars Componendi Sermones" (Bodleian); "Paedagogicon" (Sion College); "Distinctiones Theologicae" (Lambeth); "Abbreviationes Chronicorum", attributed to John Rochefort. Other treatises are assigned to Higden by Bale, some, like the "Expositio super Job", "In Cantica Canticorum", "Sermones per annum", "Determinationes super Compendio", and "In litteram calendarii", without much probability; others are merely extracts from the "Polychronicon".

Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden monachi Cestrensis, with the English translations of John of Trevisa and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century in Rolls Series (London, 1865-86), vols. I-II, ed. BABINGTON, III-IX, ed. LUMBY; HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1862-71); GAIRDNER, Early Chroniclers of England (London, 1879); KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. For a fuller bibliography see CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age (Paris, 1905).

EDWIN BURTON

High Altar

(ALTARE SUMMUM or MAJUS.)

The high altar is so called from the fact that it is the chief altar in a church, and also because it is raised on an elevated plane in the sanctuary, where it may be seen simultaneously by all the faithful in the body of the church. It symbolizes Christ, and it serves at the same time as the banquet table on which He offers Himself through the hands of the priest to the Eternal Father; for Christ is present in our churches not only in a spiritual manner but really, truly, and substantially as the victim of a sacrifice. A sacrifice necessarily supposes a priest and an altar, and the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 42) plainly indicate that the faithful are to participate in the prayers of the sacrifice and to partake of the victim. Naturally the altar and priest were separated from the faithful, who, as St. Athanasius (Quaest. ad Antioch., 37) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom., vii, 7) inform us, were instructed by the Apostles to pray, according to the traditions of the Mosaic Law, facing the East. Hence in the early days of the Church the altar was usually placed in a chapel at the head of the edifice, the back of which, whatever may have been the character of the building, looked directly towards the East, in such a way that it could be seen from any part by the faithful. When it was impossible to erect a church in such a manner the altar was located opposite the chief doorway.

In olden times there was but one altar in a church. The Christian Fathers speak of one altar only, and St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Philadelph., 5) refers to this practice when he says: "One altar, as there is one bishop" (Unum altare omni Ecclesiae et unus Episcopus). This altar was erected in the middle of the sanctuary between the bishop's throne, which stood in the apse, and the communion-rail, which separated the sanctuary from the body of the church. On it Divine services were celebrated by the bishop only, assisted by the clergy, who received Holy Communion from his hands. Although each church had but one altar, there were oratories erected near or around the church in which Mass was celebrated. This custom is still maintained throughout the East, so that the liturgical or high altar of the solemn sacrifice is isolated from what may be called the altars of devotional sacrifice on which Mass is said privately. Later on, in the time of St. Ambrose (fourth century), we find the custom of having more than one altar in a church; and St. Gregory (sixth century) evidently approves of the same by sending to Palladius, Bishop of Saintes, France, relics for four altars which, of the thirteen erected in his church, had remained unconsecrated for want of relics. After the introduction of private Masses the necessity of several or even many altars in each church arose. They were erected near the principal altar or in side chapels. The altar in the sanctuary or high chapel always remained the principal one of the church, and the pontifical services in cathedrals as well as the solemn functions in other churches invariably took place at the chief altar on Sundays, holidays, and other solemn occasions of the year.

When the custom of erecting the episcopal throne on the gospel side of the sanctuary became prevalent, the high altar was removed nearer to the wall of the apse. The object of this was that sufficient space might be allowed between the lowest step of the altar and the communion-rail (six to twelve feet) for the proper carrying out of the ceremonial, and for the accommodation of the clergy who frequently assisted in large numbers at the solemn celebration of Mass and of the Divine Offices. The high altar was erected on steps, which for symbolical reasons were usually of an uneven number -- three or five, including the upper platform (predella) and the pavement of the sanctuary, thus placing it on a higher level than the body of the church, a practice which is still maintained in our churches. In parish churches the Most Blessed Sacrament is regularly kept on the high altar, which accordingly should have a tabernacle for the reservation of the Sacred Species (S.R.C., 28 Nov., 1594; 21 Aug., 1863). The prescribed ornaments are a crucifix and six high candlesticks. The high altar in a church that is to be consecrated should be a fixed altar (see ALTAR, FORM OF), which according to the prescriptions of the Roman Pontifical (h.l.) is itself to be consecrated simultaneously with the solemn dedication of the church edifice. Hence it must stand free on all sides, allowing ample room for the consecrator to move around it. As its name indicates, the high altar, being the chief place for the enactment of the sacrificial function, is to be prominent not only by its position but also by the richness of its material and ornamentation. Apart from the liturgical part of the Mass, it serves as the repository for the Eucharistic Presence and becomes the centre of all the more solemn parochial functions of the year.

JAKOB, Die Kunst im Dienste der Kirche (Landshut, 1880); ST. CHARLES BORROMEO, Instructions on Ecclesiastical Building (London, 1857); UTTINI, Corso di Scienza Liturgica (Bolgna, 1904); LEE, Glossary of Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Terms (London, 1877).

A.J. SCHULTE

St. Hilarion

Founder of anchoritic life in Palestine; born at Tabatha, south of Gaza, Palestine, about 291; died in the island of Cyprus about 371. The chief source of information regarding him is the biography written by St. Jerome (P.L. XXIII, 29-54). In the introduction Jerome mentions a letter from St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis, in regard to the life of Hilarion whom Epiphanius had known personally during the hermit's later years. The letter is not extant. A newly discovered life has been edited by Papadopulos-Kerameus (Analekta Ierosolymikes Stachyologias, V, 1898). Some special circumstances regarding Hilarion are related by the ecclesiastical historian, Sozomen, from oral traditions handed down by Hilarion's disciples; among others that Sozomen's grandfather and another relative were converted to Christianity by Hilarion (Hist. Eccl., V. xv).

Hilarion was the son of pagan parents. The date of his birth is ascertained from the statement of Jerome (Vita, c. xxv), that Hilarion, at the death of Anthony (356), was 65 years old. As a boy Hilarion's parents sent him to Alexandria to be educated in its schools. Here he became a Christian, and at the age of fifteen, attracted by the renown of the anchorite, St. Anthony, he retired to the desert. After two months of personal intercourse with the great "Father of Anchorites", Hilarion resolved to devote himself to the ascetic life of a hermit. He returned home, divided his fortune among the poor, and then withdrew to a little hut in the desert of Majuma, near Gaza, where he led a life similar to that of St. Anthony. His clothing consisted of a hair shirt, an upper garment of skins, and a short shepherd's cloak; he fasted rigorously, not partaking of his frugal meal until after sunset, and supported himself by weaving baskets. The greater part of his time was devoted to religious exercises. Miraculous cures and exorcisms of demons which he performed spread his fame in the surrounding country, so that in 329 numerous disciples assembled round him. Many heathens were converted, and people came to seek his help and counsel in such great numbers that he could hardly find time to perform his religious duties. This induced him to bid farewell to his disciples and to return to Egypt about the year 360. Here he visited the places where St. Anthony had lived and the spot where he had died. On the journey thither, he met Dracontius and Philor, two bishops banished by the Emperor Constantius. Hilarion then went to dwell at Bruchium, near Alexandria, but hearing that Julian the Apostate had ordered his arrest, he retired to an oasis in the Libyan desert. Later on he journeyed to Sicily and for a long time lived as a hermit near the promontory of Pachinum. His disciple, Hesychius, who had long sought him, discovered him here and soon Hilarion saw himself again surrounded by disciples desirous of following his holy example.

Leaving Sicily, he went to Epidaurus in Dalmatia, where, on the occasion of a great earthquake (366), he rendered valuable assistance to the inhabitants. Finally he went to Cyprus and there, in a lonely cave in the interior of the island, he spent his last years. It was during his sojourn in Cyprus that he became acquainted with St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis. Before his death, which took place at the age of eighty, Hilarion bequeathed his only possession, his poor and scanty clothing, to his faithful disciple, Hesychius. His body was buried near the town of Paphos, but Hesychius secretly took it away and carried it to Majuma where the saint had lived so long. Hilarion was greatly honored as the founder of anchoritic life in Palestine. His feast falls on 21 October. The attempts of Israel and of other historians to relegate Hilarion to the realm of imagination have completely failed; there can be no doubt as to the historical fact of his life and the truth of its chief features.

ST. JEROME, Vita S. Hilarionis in P.L., III, 29-54; Acta SS., October, IX, 43- 59; ISRAEL, Die Vita S. Hilarionis des Hieronymus in Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftl. Theol. (1880), 129 sqq.; ZOCKLER, Hilarion von Gaza, eine Rettung in Neue Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie (1894), 147 sqq.; GRUTZMACHER, Hieronymus, II (Berlin, 1906), 87-91; VAN DEN VEN, S. Jerome et la vie du moine Malchus (Louvain, 1901), appendixes; WINTER, Der literarische Charakter der Vita S. Hilarionis (Zittau, 1904); SERVIERES, Histoire de S. Hilarion (Rodez, 1884); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der kathol. Kirche, I (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1907), 115 sq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Hilarius of Sexten

(In the world, CHRISTIAN GATTERER.)

Moral theologian; born 1839, in the valley of Sexten in the Tyrol; died 20 October, 1900. After a course of studies at Brixen, he entered the Capuchin Franciscan Order in 1858 and was ordained priest in 1862. Having laboured in parochial duties for some years, he was appointed to teach moral theology at Meran in 1872. His fame as a moral theologian soon spread beyond his own convent, and both secular and regular clergy consulted him in difficult cases, for he had a special gift in applying theoretical principles to actual facts. In 1882 he was appointed examiner of confessors for the Diocese of Trent. Even while fulfilling the office of lector, he was ever ready to work in the ministry, preaching and hearing confessions. He used to urge his students to bend all their efforts to win men to religion, since, he said, devout women can always find confessors. At the special command of the general of the order, he published his "Compendium Theologiae Moralis" (Meran, 1889). Later, at the request of the clergy, he published a "Tractatus de Sacramentis", and a "Tractatus de Censuris". His somewhat original treatment of his subjects did not gain universal approval, but his works had a wide sale, especially in Germany and Austria. He also contributed many articles to the "Linzer Quartalschrift". He fulfilled many offices in his order, being at different times lector, guardian, definitor, and minister-provincial. In this last office, which he filled 1889-1892, he accepted for his province of the Tyrol a missionary district in India.

Analecta Ord. F. M. Capucc., XVI (Rome, 1900).

FATHER CUTHBERT

Pope Saint Hilarus

Elected 461; the date of his death is given as 28 Feb., 468. After the death of Leo I, an archdeacon named Hilarus, a native of Sardinia, according to the "Liber Pontificalis", was chosen to succeed him, and in all probability received consecration on 19 November, 461. Together with Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, Hilarus acted as legate of Leo I at the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus in 449. There he fought vigorously for the rights of the Roman See and opposed the condemnation of Flavian of Constantinople (see FLAVIAN, SAINT). He was therefore exposed to the violence of Dioscurus of Alexandria (q.v.), and saved himself by flight. In one of his letters to the Empress Pulcheria, found in a collection of letters of Leo I ("Leonis I Epistolae", num. xlvi., in P.L., LIV, 837 sq.), Hilarus apologizes for not delivering to her the pope's letter after the synod; but owing to Dioscurus, who tried to hinder his going either to Rome or to Constantinople, he had great difficulty in making his escape in order to bring to the pontiff the news of the result of the council. His pontificate was marked by the same vigorous policy as that of his great predecessor. Church affairs in Gaul and Spain claimed his special attention. Owing to political disorganization in both countries, it was important to safeguard the hierarchy by strengthening church government. Hermes, a former archdeacon of Narbonne, had illegally acquired the bishopric of that town. Two Gallican prelates were dispatched to Rome to lay before the pope this and other matters concerning the Church in Gaul. A Roman synod held on 19 November, 462, passed judgment upon these matters, and Hilarus made known the following decisions in an Encyclical sent to the provincial bishops of Vienne, Lyons, Narbonne, and the Alps: Hermes was to remain Titular Bishop of Narbonne, but his episcopal faculties were withheld. A synod was to be convened yearly by the Bishop of Arles, for those of the provincial bishops who were able to attend; but all important matters were to be submitted to the Apostolic See. No bishop could leave his diocese without a written permission from the metropolitan; in case such permission be withheld he could appeal to the Bishop of Arles. Respecting the parishes (paroeciae) claimed by Leontius of Arles as belonging to his jurisdiction, the Gallican bishops could decide, after an investigation. Church property could not be alienated until a synod had examined into the cause of sale.

Shortly after this the pope found himself involved in another diocesan quarrel. In 463 Mamertus of Vienne had consecrated a Bishop of Die, although this Church, by a decree of Leo I, belonged to the metropolitan Diocese of Arles. When Hilarus heard of it he deputed Leontius of Arles to summon a great synod of the bishops of several provinces to investigate the matter. The synod took place and, on the strength of the report given him by Bishop Antonius, he issued an edict dated 25 February, 464, in which Bishop Veranus was commissioned to warn Mamertus that, if in the future he did not refrain from irregular ordinations, his faculties would be withdrawn. Consequently the consecration of the Bishop of Die must be sanctioned by Leontius of Arles. Thus the primatial privileges of the See of Arles were upheld as Leo I had defined them. At the same time the bishops were admonished not to overstep their boundaries, and to assemble in a yearly synod presided over by the Bishop of Arles. The metropolitan rights of the See of Embrun also over the dioceses of the Maritime Alps were protected against the encroachments of a certain Bishop Auxanius, particularly in connection with the two Churches of Nice and Cimiez.

In Spain, Silvanus, Bishop of Calahorra, had, by his episcopal ordinations, violated the church laws. Both the Metropolitan Ascanius and the bishops of the Province of Tarragona made complaint of this to the pope and asked for his decision. Before an answer came to their petition, the same bishops had recourse to the Holy See for an entirely different matter. Before his death Nundinarius, Bishop of Barcelona, expressed a wish that Irenaeus might be chosen his successor, although he had himself made Irenaeus bishop of another see. The request was granted, a Synod of Tarragona confirming the nomination of Irenaeus, after which the bishops sought the pope's approval. The Roman synod of 19 Nov., 465, took the matters up and settled them. This is the oldest Roman synod whose original records have been handed down to us. It was held in the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. After an address of the pope, and the reading of the Spanish letters, the synod decided that the church laws must not be tampered with. In addition to this Hilarus sent a letter to the bishops of Tarragona, declaring that no consecration was valid without the sanction of the Metropolitan Ascanius; and no bishop was permitted to be transferred from one diocese to another, so that some one else must be chosen for Barcelona in place of Irenaeus. The bishops consecrated by Silvanus would be recognized if they had been appointed to vacant sees, and otherwise met the requirements of the Church. The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions an Encyclical that Hilarus sent to the East, to confirm the Oecumenical Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the dogmatic letter of Leo I to Flavian, but the sources at our disposal furnish us no further information. In Rome Hilarus worked zealously for the integrity of the Faith. The Emperor Anthemius had a favourite named Philotheus, who was a believer in the Macedonian heresy and attended meetings in Rome for the promulgation of this doctrine, 476. On one of the emperor's visits to St. Peter's, the pope openly called him to account for his favourite's conduct, exhorting him by the grave of St. Peter to promise that he would do all in his power to check the evil. Hilarus erected several churches and other buildings in Rome. Two oratories in the baptistery of the Lateran, one in honour of St. John the Baptist, the other of St. John the Apostle, are due to him. After his flight from the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus, Hilarus had hidden himself in the crypt of St. John the Apostle, and he attributed his deliverance to the intercession of the Apostle. Over the ancient doors of the oratory this inscription is still to be seen: "To St. John the Evangelist, the liberator of Bishop Hilarus, a Servant of Christ". He also erected a chapel of the Holy Cross in the baptistery, a convent, two public baths, and libraries near the Church of St. Laurence Outside the Walls. He built another convent within the city walls. The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions many votive offerings made by Hilarus in the different churches. He died after a pontificate of six years, three months, and ten days. He was buried in the church of St. Laurence Outside the Walls. His feast day is celebrated on 17 November.

Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, ed. THIEL, I (Braunsberg, 1868), 126-74; JAFFE, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885), 75-77; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 242 sqq.; ed. MOMMSEN, I, 107 sqq.; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd ed., II, passim; GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Papste im Mittelalter, I (Freiburg im Br., 1901), passim; LANGEN, Geschichte der romischen Kirche, II (Bonn, 1885), 113 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Hilary of Arles

Archbishop, b. about 401; d. 5 May, 449. The exact place of his birth is not known. All that may be said is that he belonged to a notable family of Northern Gaul, of which in all probability also came St. Honoratus, his predecessor in the See of Arles. Learned and rich, Hilary had everything calculated to ensure success in the world, but he abandoned honours and riches at the urgent solicitations of Honoratus, accompanied him to the hermitage of Lérins, which the latter had founded, and gave himself up under the saint's direction to the practice of austerities and the study of Holy Scripture. When Honoratus, who had meanwhile become Archbishop of Arles, was at the point of death, Hilary went to his side and assisted at his latest moments. But as he was about to set out on his return to Lérins he was retained by force and proclaimed archbishop in the place of Honoratus. Obliged to yield to this constraint, he resolutely undertook the duties of his heavy charge, and assisted at the various councils held at Riez, Orange, Vaison, and Arles.

Subsequently began between him and Pope St. Leo the famous quarrel which constitutes one of the most curious phases of the history of the Gallican Church. A reunion of bishops, over which he presided in 444 and at which were present St. Eucherius of Lyons and St. Germain of Auxerre, deposed for incapacity provided against by the canons a certain Cheldonius. The latter hastened to Rome, was successful in pleading his cause before the pope, and consequently was reinstated in his see. Hilary then sought St. Leo in order to justify his course of action in the matter, but he was not well received by the sovereign pontiff and was obliged to return precipitately to Gaul. Several priests afterwards sent by him to Rome to explain his conduct met with no better success. Moreover, several persons who were hostile towards him profited by this juncture to bring various accusations against him at the Court of Rome, whereupon the pope excommunicated Hilary, transferred the prerogatives of his see to that of Fréjus, and caused the proclamation by the Emperor Valentinian III of that famous decree which freed the Church of Vienne from all dependence on that of Arles. Nevertheless there is every reason to believe that, the storm once passed, peace was rapidly restored between Hilary and Leo. We are too far removed from the epoch in which this memorable quarrel occurred, and the documents which might throw any light on it are too few to allow us to form a definitive judgment on its causes and consequences. It evidently arose from the fact that the respective rights of the Court of Rome and of the metropolitan were not sufficiently clearly established at that time, and that the right of appeal to the pope, among others, was not explicitly enough recognized. There exist a number of writings which are ascribed to St. Hilary, but they are far from being all authentic. Père Quesnel collected them all in an appendix to the work in which he has published the writings of St. Leo.

Albanez and Chevalier, Gallia Christ. noviss. (Arles, 1900), 29-36; Sevestre, Dict. patr. (Paris, 1854), II, 192-201; Ceillier, hist. des auteurs eccl. (Paris, 1747), XIII, 523-538; Baronius, Ann. (1595), 445, 9-18.

LEON CLUGNET

St. Hilary of Poitiers

Bishop, born in that city at the beginning of the fourth century; died there 1 November, according to the most accredited opinion, or according to the Roman Breviary, on 13 January, 368. Belonging to a noble and very probably pagan family, he was instructed in all the branches of profane learning, but, having also taken up the study of Holy Scripture and finding there the truth which he sought so ardently, he renounced idolatry and was baptized. Thenceforth his wide learning and his zeal for the Faith attracted such attention that he was chosen about 350 to govern the body of the faithful which the city had possessed since the third century. We know nothing of the bishops who governed this society in the beginning. Hilary is the first concerning whom we have authentic information, and this is due to the important part he played in opposing heresy. The Church was then greatly disturbed by internal discords, the authority of the popes not being so powerful in practice as either to prevent or to stop them. Arianism had made frightful ravages in various regions and threatened to invade Gaul, where it already had numerous partisans more or less secretly affiliated with it. Saturninus, Bishop of Arles, the most active of the latter, being exposed by Hilary, convened and presided over a council at Béziers in 356 with the intention of justifying himself, or rather of establishing his false doctrine. Here the Bishop of Poitiers courageously presented himself to defend orthodoxy, but the council, composed for the most part of Arians, refused to hear him, and being shortly afterwards denounced to the Emperor Constantius, the protector of Arianism, he was at his command transported to the distant coasts of Phrygia.

But persecution could not subdue the valiant champion. Instead of remaining inactive during his exile he gave himself up to study, completed certain of his works which he had begun, and wrote his treatise on the synods. In this work he analysed the professions of faith uttered by the Oriental bishops in the Councils of Ancyra, Antioch, and Sirmium, and while condemning them, since they were in substance Arian, he sought to show that sometimes the difference between the doctrines of certain heretics and orthodox beliefs was rather in the words than in the ideas, which led to his counselling the bishops of the West to be reserved in their condemnation. He was sharply reproached for his indulgence by certain ardent Catholics, the leader of whom was Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari. However, in 359, the city of Seleucia witnessed the assembly in synod of a large number of Oriental bishops, nearly all of whom were either Anomoeans or Semi-Arians. Hilary, whom everyone wished to see and hear, so great was his reputation for learning and virtue, was invited to be present at this assembly. The governor of the province even furnished him with post horses for the journey. In presence of the Greek fathers he set forth the doctrines of the Gallic bishops, and easily proved that, contrary to the opinion current in the East, these latter were not Sabellians. Then he took part in the violent discussions which took place between the Semi-Arians, who inclined toward reconciliation with the Catholics, and the Anomoeans, who formed as it were the extreme left of Arianism.

After the council, which had no result beyond the wider separation of these brothers in enmity, he left for Constantinople, the stronghold of heresy, to continue his battle against error. But while the Semi-Arians, who were less numerous and less powerful, besought him to become the intermediary in a reconciliation between themselves and the bishops of the West, the Anomoeans, who had the immense advantage of being upheld by the emperor, besought the latter to send back to his own country this Gallic bishop, who, they said, sowed discord and troubled the Orient. Constantius acceded to their desire, and the exile was thus enabled to set out on his journey home. In 361 Hilary re-entered Poitiers in triumph and resumed possession of his see. He was welcomed with the liveliest joy by his flock and his brothers in the episcopate, and was visited by Martin, his former disciple and subsequently Bishop of Tours. The success he had achieved in his combat against error was rendered more brilliant shortly afterwards by the deposition of Saturninus, the Arian Bishop of Arles by whom he had been persecuted. However, as in Italy the memory still rankled of the efforts he had made to bring about a reconciliation between the nearly converted Semi-Arians and the Catholics, he went in 364 to the Bishop of Vercelli to endeavour to overcome the intolerance of the partisans of the Bishop Lucifer mentioned above. Almost immediately afterwards, that it might be seen that, if he was full of indulgence for those whom gentleness might finally win from error, he was intractable towards those who were obstinate in their adherence to it, he went to Milan, there to assail openly Auxentius, the bishop of that city, who was a firm defender of the Arian doctrines. But the Emperor Valentinian, who protected the heretic, ordered Hilary to depart immediately from Milan.

He then returned to his city of Poitiers, from which he was not again to absent himself and where he was to die. This learned and energetic bishop had fought against error with the pen as well as in words. The best edition of his numerous and remarkable writings is that published by Dom Constant under the title: "Sancti Hilarii, Pictavorum episcopi opera, ad manuscriptos codices gallicanos, romanos, belgicos, necnon ad veteres editiones castigata" (Paris, 1693). The Latin Church celebrates his feast on 14 January, and Pius IX raised him to the rank of Doctor of the Universal Church. The Church of Puy glories in the supposed possession of his relics, but according to one tradition his body was borne to the church of St-Denys near Paris, while according to another it was taken from the church of St-Hilaire at Poitiers and burned by the Protestants in 1572.

BARONIUS, Ann. (1590), 355, 69-83; 358, 11-19; 360, 1-17; 362, 228-238; 369, 6-27; TILLEMONT, Mem. pour servir a l`hist. eccles. (1700), VII, 432-469; CEILLIER, Hist. gen. des aut. sacr. et eccles. (Paris, 1735), VI, 1-150; DUTEMS, Clerge de France (Paris, 1774), II, 396-402; Ad. VIEHAUSER, Hilarius Pictaviensis geschild. in seinem Kampfe gegen den Arianismus (Klagenfurt, 1860); BARBIER, Vie de S. Hilaire, eveque de Poitiers, docteur et pere de l`Eglise (Tours and Paris, 1882).

LEON CLUGNET

St. Hilda

Abbess, born 614; died 680. Practically speaking, all our knowledge of St. Hilda is derived from the pages of Bede. She was the daughter of Hereric, the nephew of King Edwin of Northumbria, and she seems like her great-uncle to have become a Christian through the preaching of St. Paulinus about the year 627, when she was thirteen years old.

Moved by the example of her sister Hereswith, who, after marrying Ethelhere of East Anglia, became a nun at Chelles in Gaul, Hilda also journeyed to East Anglia, intending to follow her sister abroad. But St. Aidan recalled her to her own country, and after leading a monastic life for a while on the north bank of the Wear and afterwards at Hartlepool, where she ruled a double monastery of monks and nuns with great success, Hilda eventually undertook to set in order a monastery at Streaneshalch, a place to which the Danes a century or two later gave the name of Whitby.

Under the rule of St. Hilda the monastery at Whitby became very famous. The Sacred Scriptures were specially studied there, and no less than five of the inmates became bishops, St. John, Bishop of Hexham, and still more St. Wilfrid, Bishop of York, rendering untold service to the Anglo-Saxon Church at this critical period of the struggle with paganism. Here, in 664, was held the important synod at which King Oswy, convinced by the arguments of St. Wilfrid, decided the observance of Easter and other moot points. St. Hilda herself later on seems to have sided with Theodore against Wilfrid. The fame of St. Hilda's wisdom was so great that from far and near monks and even royal personages came to consult her. Seven years before her death the saint was stricken down with a grievous fever which never left her till she breathed her last, but, in spite of this, she neglected none of her duties to God or to her subjects. She passed away most peacefully after receiving the Holy Viaticum, and the tolling of the monastery bell was heard miraculously at Hackness thirteen miles away, where also a devout nun named Begu saw the soul of St. Hilda borne to heaven by angels.

With St. Hilda is intimately connected the story of Caedmon (q. v.), the sacred bard. When he was brought before St. Hilda she admitted him to take monastic vows in her monastery, where he most piously died.

The cultus of St. Hilda from an early period is attested by the inclusion of her name in the calendar of St. Willibrord, written at the beginning of the eighth century. It was alleged at a later date the remains of St. Hilda were translated to Glastonbury by King Edmund, but this is only part of the "great Glastonbury myth." Another story states that St. Edmund brought her relics to Gloucester. St. Hilda's feast seems to have been kept on 17 November. There are a dozen or more old Egnlish churches dedicated to St. Hilda on the northeast coast and South Shields is probably a corruption of St. Hilda.

HERBERT THURSTON

Hildebert of Lavardin

Bishop of Le Mans, Archbishop of Tours, and celebrated medieval poet; b. about 1056, at the Castle of Lavardin near Montoir on the Loire; d. 8 December, 1133 or 1134. Nothing is known of him until the year 1085, when Hoel, Bishop of Le Mans, made him scholasticus at his cathedral school. Appointed archdeacon in 1091, he became five years later Bishop of Le Mans. Some of his enemies, among them Duke Elias of Le Mans, in their efforts to prevent his election, did not scruple to blacken his character. The relations between Hildebert and the duke became more friendly later. After the taking of Le Mans by William II of England in 1099, Hildebert was summoned to England by the king who suspected him of aiding the Duke of Le Mans in opposing the English rule. In 1100 he was permitted to return to his see. A year later he went to Rome, having authorized Henry of Lausanne to preach in the cathedral of Le Mans. Henry made use of this opportunity to spread heretical and revolutionary doctrines so that Hildebert on his return thought it necessary to banish him from the diocese. When new hostilities broke out between England and France in 1111, Hildebert was made prisoner at Nogent and held in custody, until the end of the war in 1113. He was present at the Synod of Reims in 1119, at the First Lateran Council in 1123, and probably also at the Lateran Synod of 1116. He rebuilt the cathedral of Le Mans which was consecrated in 1120. In 1125 he was appointed Archbishop of Tours. In this capacity he strenuously defended the rights of the Church against the encroachments of Louis VI of France, who arrogated to himself the right to appoint an archdeacon and a dean for the Church of Tours. He also came in conflict with Bishop Balderic of Dol concerning the jurisdiction over some Breton dioceses. In October, 1127, he presided at the provincial Synod of Nantes, the decrees of which were ratified by Pope Honorius II on 20 May, 1128, at the request of Hildebert. At this synod legislation was passed against incestuous marriages, the conferring of Holy orders upon sons of ecclesiastics, and the obtaining of ecclesiastical benefices by inheritance (see Mansi, XXI, 351-4). When the schism occurred after the death of Honorius II, Hildebert temporarily adhered to the antipope, Anacletus II. Through the efforts of St. Bernard he was convinced of his error and became a supporter of Innocent II. Hildebert was learned and pious and always had the well-being of the Church at heart. Some writers call him venerable, and St. Bernard styles him a great pillar of the Church, tanta ecclesiae columna (Mabillon, "S. Bernardi opera omnia", Epistola cxxiv).

Besides being one of the greatest hymnologists of the Middle Ages, Hildebert is the author of numerous works in prose. His writings were edited by the Maurist Beaugendre: "Venerabilis Hildeberti opera tam edita quam inedita", Paris, 1708, and with some additions by Bourassé in Migne, P.L., CLXXI, 1-1453. But both of these editions are uncritical and contain many works that were not written by Hildebert. The following prose works of Hildebert have been proved to be genuine: most of the epistles (P. L., CLXXI, 141-312); the life of Queen Radegundis (ibid., 967-88; and Acta SS., Aug., III, 83-92); the life of St. Hugh of Cluny (P.L., CLIX, 857-94; and Acta SS., April, III, 634-48); the ascetical treatise "De querimonia et conflictu carnis et spiritus" (P.L., CLXXI, 989-1004); and four sermons. Of the poetical works at least the following are genuine: "Versus de mysterio missae" (P.L., CLXXI, 1177-96); "De operibus sex dierum" (ibid., 1213-18); "Inscriptionum christianarum libellus" (ibid., 1281-88); "Vita Beatae Mariae Aegypticae" (ibid., 1321-40); likewise nos. 40, 43, 50-54, 58, 63, 64, 71, 75, 79, 106, 110, 112, 127, 130, 140 of "Carmina miscellanea" (ibid., 1381-1442); and nos. 2, 4, and 14 of "Carmina indefferentia" (ibid., 1442-48); probably also "Historia de Mahomete" (ibid., 1345-66), and numerous other poems and prose writings, the genuinenessof which has not yet been sufficiently established.

DIEUDONNÉ, Hildebert de Lavardin, évêque du Mans, archevêque de Tours. Sa vie, ses lettres (Paris, 1898); BARTH, Hildebert von Lavardin und das kirchliche Stellenbesetzungsrecht (Stuttgart, 1906); DESERVILLIERS, Un évêque du douzieme siecle, Hildebert et son temps (Paris, 1876); HAURÉAU, Mélanges poétiques d'Hildebert de Lavardin (Paris, 1882); HÉBERT-DUPERRON, De venerabilis Hildeberti vita et scriptis (Bayeux, 1855).

MICHAEL OTT

St. Hildegard

Born at Böckelheim on the Nahe, 1098; died on the Rupertsberg near Bingen, 1179; feast 17 September. The family name is unknown of this great seeress and prophetess, called the Sibyl of the Rhine. The early biographers give the first names of her parents as Hildebert and Mechtildis (or Mathilda), speak of their nobility and riches, but give no particulars of their lives. Later writers call the saint Hildegard of Böckelheim, of Rupertsberg, or of Bingen. Legends would make her a Countess of Spanheim. J. May (Katholik. XXXVII, 143) shows from letters and other documents that she probably belonged to the illustrious family of Stein, whose descendants are the present Princes of Salm. Her father was a soldier in the service of Meginhard, Count of Spanheim. Hildegard was a weak and sickly child, and in consequence received but little education at home. Her parents, though much engaged in worldly pursuits, had a religious disposition and had promised the child to the service of God. At the age of eight she was placed under the care of Jutta, sister of Count Meginhard, who lived as a recluse on the Disenberg (or Disibodenberg, Mount of St. Disibod) in the Diocese of Speyer. Here also Hildegard was given but little instruction since she was much afflicted with sickness, being frequently scarcely able to walk and often deprived even of the use of her eyes. She was taught to read and sing the Latin psalms, sufficient for the chanting of the Divine Office, but never learned to write. Eventually she was invested with the habit of St. Benedict and made her religious profession. Jutta died in 1136, and Hildegard was appointed superior. Numbers of aspirants flocked to the community and she decided to go to another locality, impelled also, as she says, by a Divine command. She chose Rupertsberg near Bingen on the left bank of the Rhine, about fifteen miles from Disenberg. After overcoming many difficulties and obtaining the permission of the lord of the place, Count Bernard of Hildesheim, she settled in her new home with eighteen sisters in 1147 or 1148 (1149 or 1150 according to Delehaye). Probably in 1165 she founded another convent at Eibingen on the right side of the Rhine, where a community had already been established in 1148, which, however, had no success.

The life of Hildegard as child, religious, and superioress was an extraordinary one. Left much to herself on account of her ill health, she led an interior life, trying to make use of everything for her own sanctification. From her earliest years she was favoured with visions. She says of herself:

Up to my fifteenth year I saw much, and related some of the things seen to others, who would inquire with astonishment, whence such things might come. I also wondered and during my sickness I asked one of my nurses whether she also saw similar things. When she answered no, a great fear befell me. Frequently, in my conversation, I would relate future things, which I saw as if present, but, noting the amazement of my listeners, I became more reticent.

This condition continued to the end of her life. Jutta had noticed her gifts and made them known to a monk of the neighbouring abbey, but, it seems, nothing was done at the time. When about forty years of age Hildegard received a command to publish to the world what she saw and heard. She hesitated, dreading what people might think or say, though she herself was fully convinced of the Divine character of the revelations. But, continually urged, rebuked, and threatened by the inner voice, she manifested all to her spiritual director, and through him to the abbot under whose jurisdiction her community was placed. Then a monk was ordered to put in writing whatever she related; some of her nuns also frequently assisted her. The writings were submitted to the bishop (Henry, 1145-53) and clergy of Mainz, who pronounced them as coming from God. The matter was also brought to the notice of Eugene II (1145-53) who was at Trier in 1147. Albero of Chiny, Bishop of Verdun, was commissioned to investigate and made a favourable report. Hildegard continued her writings. Crowds of people flocked to her from the neighbourhood and from all parts of Germany and Gaul, to hear words of wisdom from her lips, and to receive advice and help in corporal and spiritual ailments. These were not only from the common people, but men and women of note in Church and State were drawn by tbe report of her wisdom and sanctity. Thus we read that Archbishop Heinrich of Mainz, Archbishop Eberhard of Salzburg and Abbot Ludwig of St. Eucharius at Trier, paid her visits. St. Elizabeth of Schönau was an intimate friend and frequent visitor. Trithemius in his "Chronicle" speaks of a visit of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, but this probably was not correct. Not only at home did she give counsel, but also abroad. Many persons of all stations of life wrote to her and received answers, so that her correspondence is quite extensive. Her great love for the Church and its interests caused her to make many journeys; she visited at intervals the houses of Disenberg and Eibingen; on invitation she came to Ingelheim to see Emperor Frederick; she travelled to Würzburg, Bamberg, and the vicinity of Ulm, Cologne, Werden, Trier, and Metz. It is not true, however, that she saw Paris or the grave of St. Martin at Tours.

In the last year of her life Hildegard had to undergo a very severe trial. In the cemetery adjoining her convent a young man was buried who had once been under excommunication. The ecclesiastical authorities of Mainz demanded that she have the body removed. She did not consider herself bound to obey since the young man had received the last sacraments and was therefore supposed to have been reconciled to the Church. Sentence of interdict was placed on her convent by the chapter of Mainz, and the sentence was confirmed by the bishop, Christian (V) Buch, then in Italy. After much worry and correspondence she succeeded in having the interdict removed. She died a holy death and was buried in the church of Rupertsberg.

Hildegard was greatly venerated in life and after death. Her biographer, Theodoric, calls her saint, and many miracles are said to have been wrought through her intercession. Gregory IX (1227-41) and Innocent IV (1243-54) ordered a process of information which was repeated by Clement V (1305-14) and John XXII (1316-34). No formal canonization has ever taken place, but her name is in the Roman Martyrology and her feast is celebrated in the Dioceses of Speyer, Mainz, Trier, and Limburg, also in the Abbey of Solesmes, where a proper office is said (Brev. Monast. Tornac., 18 Sept.). When the convent on the Rupertsberg was destroyed in 1632 the relics of the saint were brought to Cologne and then to Eibingen. At the secularization of this convent they were placed in the parish church of the place. In 1857 an official recognition was made by the Bishop of Limburg and the relics were placed on an altar specially built. At this occasion the town of Eibingen chose her as patron. On 2 July, 1900, the cornerstone was here laid for a new convent of St. Hildegard. The work was begun and completed through the munificence of Prince Karl of Löwenstein and Benedictine nuns from St. Gabriel's at Prague entered the new home (17 Sept., 1904).

All the manuscripts found in the convent at Eibingen were in 1814 transferred to the state library at Wiesbaden. Of this collection the first and greatest work of St. Hildegard is called "Scivias" (Scire or vias Domini, or vias lucis), parts of which had been shown to the Archbishop of Mainz. She began it in 1141 and worked at it for ten years. It is an extraordinary production and hard to understand, prophetic throughout and admonitory after the manner of Ezechiel and the Apocalypse. In the introduction she speaks of herself and describes the nature of her visions. Then follow three books, the first containing six visions, the second giving seven visions, and about double the size of the first; the third, equal in size to both the others, has thirteen visions. The "Scivias" represents God on His Holy Mountain with mankind at its base; tells of the original condition of man, his fall and redemption, the human soul and its struggles, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the times to come, the son of perdition and the end of the world. The visions are interspersed with salutary admonitions to live in the fear of the Lord. Manuscripts of the "Scivias" are also at Cues and Oxford. It was printed for the first time at Paris (1513) in a book which contains also the writings of several other persons. It was again printed at Cologne in 1628, and reproduced in Migne, PL 197. The "Liber vitae meritorum" written between 1158 and 1163, is a picturesque description of a Christian's life of virtue and its opposite. It was printed for the first time in Pitra, "Analecta Sacra", VIII (Monte Cassino, 1882). The "Liber divinorum operum" (1163-70) is a contemplation of all nature in the light of faith. Sun, moon, and stars, the planets, the winds, animals, and man, are in her visions expressive of something supernatural and spiritual, and as they come from God should lead back to Him (Migne, loc. cit.). Mansi, in "Baluzii Missell." (Lucca, 1761), II, 337, gives it from a manuscript lost since then. Her "Letter to the Prelates of Mainz" in regard to the interdict placed upon her convent is placed here among her works by the Wiesbaden manuscript; in others it is bound among her letters. To it the Wiesbaden manuscript annexes nine small essays: on the Creation and fall of man; God's treatment of the renegade; on the priesthood and the Holy Eucharist; on the covenant between Christ and the Church; on the Creation and Redemption; on the duties of secular judges; on the praises of God with intermingled prayers. "Liber Epistolarum et Orationum"; the Wiesbaden manuscript contains letters to and from Eugene III, Anastasius IV, Adrian IV, and Alexander III, King Conrad III, Emperor Frederick, St. Bernard, ten archbishops, nine bishops, forty-nine abbots and provosts of monasteries or chapters, twenty-three abbesses, many priests, teachers, monks, nuns, and religious communities (P. L., loc. cit.). Pitra has many additions; L. Clarus edited them in a German translation (Ratisbon, 1854). "Vita S. Disibodi" and "Vita S. Ruperti"; these "Vitae", which Hildegard claims also to be revelations, were probably made up from local traditions and, especially for St. Rupert, the sources being very meagre, have only legendary value. "Expositio Evangeliorum" fifty homilies in allegory (Pitra, loc. cit.). "Lingua Ignota"; the manuscript, in eleven folios ves a list of nine hundred words of an unknown language, mostly nouns and only a few adjectives, a Latin, and in a few cases a German, explanation, together with an unknown alphabet of twenty-three letters printed in Pitra. A collection of seventy hymns and their melodies. A manuscript of this is also at Afflighem, printed in Roth (Wiesbaden, 1880) and in Pitra. Not only in this work, but elsewhere Hildegard exhibits high poetical gifts, transfigured by her intimate persuasion of a Divine mission. "Liber Simplicis Medicinae" and "Liber Compositae Medicinae"; the first was edited in 1533 by Schott at Strasburg as "Physica S Hildegardis", Dr. Jessen (1858) found a manuscript of it in the library of Wolfenbuttel. It consists of nine books treating of plants, elements, trees, stones, fishes, birds, quadrupeds, reptiles, metals, printed in Migne as "Subtilitatum Diversarum Naturarum Libri Novem". In I859, Jessen succeeded in obtaining from Copenhagen a manuscript entitled "Hildegardis Curae et Causae", and on examination felt satisfied that it was the second medical work of the saint. It is in five books and treats of the general divisions of created things, of the human body and its ailments, of the causes, symptoms, and treatment of diseases. "38 Solutiones Quaestionum" are answers to questions proposed by the monks of Villars through Gilbert of Gembloux on several texts of Scripture (P. L., loc. cit.). "Explanatio Regulae S. Benedicti", also called a revelation, exhibits the rule as understood and applied in those days by an intelligent and mild superior. "Explanatio Symboli S. Athanasii", an exhortation addressed to her sisters in religion. The "Revelatio Hildegardis de Fratribus Quatuor Ordinum Mendicantium", and the other prophecies against the Mendicants, etc., are forgeries. The "Speculum futurorum temporum" is a free adaptation of texts culled from her writings by Gebeno, prior of Eberbach (Pentachronicon, 1220). Some would impugn the genuineness of her writings, among others Preger in his "Gesch. der deutchen Mystik", 1874, but without sufficient reason. (See Hauck in "Kirchengesch. Deutschl.", IV,398 sqq.). Her correspondence is to be read with caution; three letters from popes have been proved spurious by Von Winterfeld in "Neue Archiv", XXVII, 297.

The first biography of St. Hildegard was written by the contemporary monks Gottfried and Theodoric. Guibert of Gembloux commenced another.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Hildesheim

Diocese of Hildesheim (Hildesheimensis).

An exempt see, comprising the Prussian province of Hanover east of the Weser, besides the Duchy of Brunswick. It owed its foundation to Emperor Louis the Pious. His father had originally selected for an episcopal see the village of Elze (Aulica), but we are told by the legend that Louis was influenced by a miracle to choose the present cathedral site. He erected on this spot the first chapel in Germany dedicated to the Mother of God. The precise year in which this see was founded is not known; the date varies according to different accounts from 814 to 822. The first bishop was Gunthar (about 815-834). The surrounding dioceses were, on the north, Verden, on the east, Halberstadt, on the west, Minden and Paderborn, and, on the south, Mainz, of which it was suffragan. Rich donations were made to Hildesheim, some of them by the German kings themselves. Immunities and the prerogatives of independent jurisdiction, together with feudal sovereignty, soon brought it a large measure of prosperity and power. The period covered by the administrations of Bishops St. Bernward (993-1022), St. Godehard (1022-1038), and Hezilo (1045- 1079) was one of special lustre. To Bernward's artistic tastes are due the famous bronze doors of the cathedral, the Christus- column, the Bernward cross, also the beautiful church of St. Michael, still preserved, the western crypt of which contains the tomb of Bernward. The Abbey of Gandersheim, renowned as the home of Hroswitha, the famous Latin poetess, was the occasion of a dispute between Hildesheim and Mainz which lasted many years, but was finally settled in favour of the former. Hildesheim obtained its political independence by the severe feud with Henry the Lion.

In 1221 Bishop Conrad II, one of the strongest personalities in thirteenth-century Germany, was invested with princely authority, and in 1235 his authority as territorial lord was recognized at Mainz. But he found the exercise of his ecclesiastical and territorial sovereignty restricted by the corporate independence of the town of Hildesheim, which endured until the middle of the thirteenth century (earliest municipal constitution, 1249), and of the cathedral chapter; the latter, thanks to the "Great Privilege" of Bishop Adelog, maintained since 1170 a far-reaching right of participation in the government; the year 1216 saw the first "Wahlkapitulation"; while in 1221 all participation in the selection of a bishop was finally taken away from the great officers, or Ministeriales, of the see. The close combination of spiritual and temporal authority meant for the bishop countless sources of disorder and of violent conflict with domestic and foreign adversaries, chief among whom were the Guelphs. The victory of Gernard over Duke Magnus of Brunswick and his ally at Dinklar in 1367 is well known. These incessant wars and agitations paralysed religious growth. Bishop Magnus (1424-52) having determined to restore domestic concord, entered into various treaties with neighbouring principalities and towns for the safeguarding of peace, and took up energetically the reform of internal religious life, which popes and councils had so long advocated. Johannes Busch, Provost of the Augustinians, laboured efficiently for monastic reforms; and about this time the Benedictines of Bursfeld began their reformatory work in the diocese. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa arrived at Hildesheim in 1451. But the reforms were not lasting. The old troubles of the see, war and internal feuds, broke out anew and with greater violence than before, until at length the once flourishing see fell a victim to what is known as the "great diocesan war" (grosse Stiftsfehde). Of its eleven districts, with twenty-seven counties and twenty-one castles, only the three districts of Peine, Steuerwald, and Marienburg, the so-called "small diocese", were left to the See of Hildesheim by the compact of Quedlinburg, in 1523; the "large diocese" fell into the hands of the victorious Guelphs and the once great power of the Bishops of Hildesheim passed away. Internal conflicts prepared the way for the Reformation.

Bishop Valentine strove to strengthen the ancient Faith among his people by calling a diocesan synod in 1539, at which he promulgated a number of decrees; but in vain. In 1542 the city of Hildesheim adopted the new doctrines, and the Protestant Dukes of Brunswick introduced the Reformation into the "large diocese". Catholicism was vigorously defended by the auxiliary bishop, Balthasar, from the pulpit of the cathedral, but the city government had recourse to measures of violence. Amid these disturbances an old man of ninety was erecting in the cathedral one of the handsomest monuments of the early German Renaissance. This was Canon Arnold Fridag, who put up the magnificent lectern (Lettner) with its rich pictorial ornament. Meanwhile the see entered on the most critical period of its history, when a Lutheran prince, Duke Friedrich of Holstein, ascended the episcopal throne in 1551. His premature death saved the see from total disaster. Thanks to his truly Catholic successor, Burchard, the ancient Faith and the few remaining properties of the Church were preserved. The cathedral chapter, after his death, resorted to the only expedient available for ensuring the stability of the see and of the Catholic religion therein, by entrusting the small diocese to a powerful ecclesiastical prince. From 1573 to 1761, with but a short interruption, the bishops were chosen from the ducal House of Bavaria, which, in order more efficiently to combat the spread of Protestantism, kept other sees constantly under its control, among them Cologne itself. They also brought the Jesuits to Hildesheim at an early date.

By this time the Thirty Years War had brought manifold burdens and afflictions on the see. Even the cathedral was for a short time, in 1634, given over to the Lutheran worship by victorious enemies. The see continued to exist, however, though surrounded by Protestant territory. In 1643 the "large diocese", which had been lost in 1523, was regained, though all attempts to win back the population to the Catholic Faith was frustrated by the "Normal Year" article of the Treaty of Westphalia, i.e. what had been Protestant down to 1624 was in the future to remain so. The "large diocese" remained united to Hildesheim until, in 1803, "secularization" severed the prince's crown from the bishop's mitre, and suppressed the Catholic chapter and numerous monasteries and convents. In 1803 the see was given to Prussia as a secular principality. In 1807 it became part of the Kingdom of Westphalia under Jerome Bonaparte, and in 1813 it was incorporated with the Kingdom of Hanover. In 1824 the Bull "Impensa Romanorum Pontificum" gave its present form to this diocese, henceforth deprived of all temporal power, and brought within its jurisdiction all the scattered Catholics of the Kingdom of Hanover east of the Weser. In 1834 the Duchy of Brunswick was added. The new see has an area of about 540 square miles. The true restorer of the see was Bishop Edward Jacob, who by his apostolic zeal and self-sacrifice accomplished great results. He was aided by the personal goodwill of King George V of Hanover, as well as by the general upward movement of the Catholic Faith in Germany. He introduced the Franciscans and the Augustinians into the diocese, also the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, whom he summoned from Paderborn. The present bishop (since 1906) is Dr. Adolf Bertram. The diocese numbers (1908) 201,914 Catholics (without counting soldiers or the inmates of prisons). It is divided into 15 deaneries and contains 109 parishes, 25 Kuratien, 174 churches and chapels; the clergy numbers 233 secular priests, and 4 Augustinian, and 8 Franciscan monks. There are Ursuline nuns at Duderstadt, with 37 professed and 18 lay nuns, besides 8 novices; also Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul at Hildesheim (mother-house), with 35 establishments, numbering 308 professed nuns and 33 novices.

Bertram, Die Bischöfe von Hildesheim (Hildesheim, 1896); Idem, Geschichte des Bistums Hildesheim, I (Hildesheim, 1899); Idem, Die katholische Kirche unserer Zeit herausgegeben von der österr. Leogesellschaft, II (Munich, 1899-1902), 192 sq.; Neher, in Kirchenlex., s. v.; DÖbner, Studien zur hildesheim'schen Geschichte (1902); Idem, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Hildesheim (Hanover, 1880-1901); Janicke and Hoogeweg, Urkundenbuch des Hochstifts Hildesheim und seiner Bishöfe 4 vols. have already appeared (Hanover, 1896-1905); Maring, Diözesansynoden und Domherrn-General kapitel des Stifts Hildesheim (Hanover, 1905); Idem, Die Kongregation der barmherzigen Schwestern vom hl. Vincenz von Paul in Hildesheim (Hildesheim, 1908); Hilling, Die römische Rota und das Bistum Hildesheim am Ausgange des Mittelalters, supplement VI of the Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte (Münster, 1908).

Joh. Maring.

Hilduin, Abbot of St-Denis

He died 22 November, 840. He was a scion of a prominent Frankish family, hut the time and place of his nativity are unknown. He was educated in the school of Alcuin, acquired much erudition, and corresponded with Rabanus Maurus. Hincmar of Reims, his pupil, speaks of him with great respect. In 815 he obtained the Abbey of St-Denis near Paris; to which were added later the Abbeys of St-Germain des Prés, St-Médard in Soissons, and St-Ouen. Emperor Louis the Pious appointed him his archchaplain in 819, or, more probably, not until 822. He accompanied Louis's son, Lothair, on his expedition to Rome in 824, on which occasion the latter took part in the conflict over the election of Eugene II. Hilduin brought back with him from Rome some relics of St. Sebastian and bestowed them on the Abbey of St-Médard. In the war between Emperor Louis and his sons (830) Hilduin took the side of the latter. Thereby he lost his abbeys and was banished, first to Paderborn and then to the Abbey of Corvey (near Höxter on the Weser). Abbot Warin of that monastery received him kindly, in return for which Hilduin presented him with the relics of St. Vitus, which thereafter were profoundly venerated in Corvey. No later than 831, however, Hilduin regained Louis's favour. He was reinstated in the Abbey of St-Denis, whereupon he successfully undertook a reform of that monastery. A few years later (835) Emperor Louis commissioned him to write a biography of St. Dionysius of Paris, the emperor's particular patron saint. Hilduin executed this commission, with the aid of the pseudo-Dionysius's writings, a copy of which had been sent to the Frankish court by the Byzantine Emperor Michael II, and of other authorities (Galenus, "Areopagitica", Cologne, 1653; P. L., CIV, 1326-28; CVI, 23-50). In his "Vita" Hilduin identified Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite Dionysius, a view not generally accepted at that time, but which Hilduin's biography popularized for several centuries, until Sismondi and others dispelled this error. Hilduin also helped to complete the Carlovingian "Reichsannalen", or imperial annals.

CALMETTE, Les abbés Hilduin au IX ^e siècle (Nogent, 1905); DÜMMLER, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, 2nd ed., I (1887); EBERT, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters, II (1890), 348 sq.; Histoire littéraire de la France, IV, 607-13; MONOD, Hilduin et les Annales Einhardi (Paris, 1895); FOSS, Ueber den Abt Hilduin von St. Denis und Dionysius Areopagita (Berlin, 1886); WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, 7th ed., I (Berlin, 1904); HURTER, Nomenclator.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Ven. Richard Hill

English Martyr, executed at Durham, 27 May, 1590. Very little is known of him and his fellow-martrys, John Hogg and Richard Holiday, except that they were Yorkshiremen who arrived at the English College at Reims, Holiday on 6 September, 1584, Hill on 15 May, 1587, and Hogg on 15 October, 1587; that all three were ordained subdeacons at Soissons, 18 March, 1859, by Monsignor Jerome Hennequin, deacons 27 May and priests 23 September at Laon by Monsignor Valentine Douglas, O.S.B.; that they with their fellow martyr Edmund Duke were sent on the English mission on the following 22 March and were arrested in the north of England soon after landing; that they were arraigned, condemned, and executed at Durham under the statute 27 Eliz c. 2. With them suffered four felons who protested that they died in the same faith.

Divers beholders, when these martyrs were offered their pardons if they would go to church, said boldly that they would rather die themselves than any of them should relent, one saying (he had seven children) "I would to God they might all go the same way in making such confession" . . . When their heads were cut off and holden up, as the manner is, not one would say "God save the Queen" except the catch-polls themselves and a minister or two.

Two Protestant spectators, Robert Maire and his wife Grace, were converted. The place at which they were executed was called Dryburn, and afterwards the legend sprung up that it was so called because the well out of which the water was drawn to boil their quarters suddenly dried up. The place however had this name before their deaths.

Morris, The Troubles of Our Catholic Forefathers (London, 1872-7), III, 40; Mackenzie and Ross, Durham (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1834), II, 400; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II, 142; III, 309, 323; Knox, Records Engl. Cath. (London, 1878), I, passim; Register of St. Oswald's, Durham (Durham, 1891), 34.

J.B. WAINEWRIGHT

Hillel

A famous Jewish rabbi who lived about 70 B.C.-A.D. 10. Our only source of information concerning him is the Talmud, from which the following account of Hillel's career can be gathered. He was born in Babylonia, and was a descendent of the family of David. Although he lived in poor circumstances, his zeal for God's Law prompted him to devote himself to its study while yet in Babylon. Out of the same zeal, he went, at the age of forty it is said, to Jerusalem, where Shemaiah and Abtalion were at the time the leading teachers. In the Holy City he hired himself as a day-labourer to earn his own living and that of his family, and also to meet the expenses of receiving instruction. He thus spent the next forty years of his life, with the result that he understood, we are told, all languages, including those of the inanimate and of the brute creation, and of the demons themselves. Some time after the death of Shemaiah and Abtalion, Hillel was recognized as the best jurist of the day, and was so regarded during the last forty years of his life. He is also represented as the head of the Sanhedrin with the title of Nasi (prince), as the founder of a lenient school, in usual opposition to the stricter school of Shammai, as the author of seven hermeneutic rules, as the framer of certain decrees which happily accommodated some points of the Law to the changed circumstances of his age, as the ancestor of the patriarchs who stood at the head of Palestinian Judaism till about the fifth century of our era. Hillel was surnamed "the Great", and also "the Elder", and over his tomb were uttered the words "Oh the gentle! Oh the pious! Oh the disciple of Esdras!" Several anecdotes illustrating his zeal for the Law and his wonderful patience are embodied in the Talmud. Among the sayings ascribed to him, the following are particularly worthy of notice: "Whatever is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary"; "Be of the disciples of Aaron; loving peace and pursuing peace; loving mankind and bringing them near to the Torah."

It is certain that a good deal of what is contained in the Talmudic account of Hillel's career is unhistorical; for example, the division of his life into three periods of forty years each; his presidency of the Sanhedrin; his understanding of all languages, etc. When all this has been duly deducted, however, one cannot help feeling that he finds himself in presence of a strong personality, of a character stamped with unusual sweetness and elevation. Again, when all Hillel's good deeds and wise sayings are closely examined, one can readily see that he was in truth simply a rabbi, perhaps the cleverest and best of the rabbis of his day: a Jewish casuist rather than a moralist; a man who, for personal character and spiritual insight and permanent influence, cannot in any way compare with, much less equal or surpass, as some have affirmed of late, Christ, the Light, and Saviour of the World. It has been ably argued that the Pollion referred to a few times by Josephus is Hillel under a Greek name.

Catholic authors: VON HIMPEL in Kirchenlex., s.v.; FOUARD, Life of Christ, tr. (New York, 1891); LE CAMUS, Life of Christ, tr. (New York, 1906); DÖLLINGER, The Gentile and the Jew, tr. (London, 1906).–Non-Catholic authors: EWALD, History of Israel, tr., V (London, 1874); FARRAR, Life of Christ, vol. II, Excursus iii (London, 1874); TAYLOR, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Cambridge, 1877); FZ. DELITZSCH, Jesus and Hillel, 3rd ed. (Erlangen, 1879); SCHECHTER, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (Vienna, 1887); SCHÜRER, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, tr., 25 (New York, 1891); GRÆTZ, History of the Jews, tr., III (Philadelphia, 1894).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Walter Hilton

Augustinian mystic, d. 24 March, 1396. Little is known of his life, save that he was the head of a house of Augustinian Canons at Thurgarton, near Newark, in Nottinghamshire. He was closely in touch with the Carthusians, though not a member of that order. A man of great sanctity, his spiritual writings were widely influential during the fifteenth century in England. The most famous of these is the "Scala Perfectionis", or "Ladder of Perfection", in two books, first printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1494. This work may be described as a guide-book for the journey to the spiritual Jerusalem, which is "contemplation in perfect love of God". The soul is reformed to the image and likeness of God, first in faith only, and then in faith and in feeling. Speeded by humility and love, it passes through the mystical dark night, which "is nought else but a forbearing and a withdrawing of the throught and of the soul from earthly things by great desire and yearning for to love and see and feel Jesus and spiritual things". By the gift of love all the vices are destroyed, and the soul at length becomes a perfect lover of Jesus, "fully united to Him with softness of love". His presence is the life of the soul, even as the soul is the life of the body. Purified to know His secret voice, its spiritual eyes are opened to see His workings in all things and to behold His blessed nature. Hilton's mystical system is, in the main, a simplification of that of Richard of St. Victor, and, like Richard, he humbly disclaims any personal experience of the Divine familiarity which he describes, declaring that he has not the grace of contemplation himself "in feeling and in working, as I have it in talking". The book is distinguished by beauty of thought and simplicity of expression; it is illustrated by homely, but effective imagery, and in spite of its high spirituality it is full of practical guidance. "A soul", it concludes "that is pure, stirred up by grace to use this working, may see more of such spiritual matter in an hour than can be writ in a great book." It was translated into Latin, as "Speculum Contemplationis", or "Bacculum Contemplationis", by Thomas Fyslawe, a Carmelite.

Two other treatises by Hilton were printed in 1506 and 1521 by Pynson and Henry Pepwell, respectively: "To a Devout Man in Temporal Estate", and "The song of Angels". The former contains spiritual counsel for the guidance of a religious man of wealth and social position in the world, one of those to whom the mixed life, that is both active and contemplative, pertains; it shows how the external works that such a one has to perform may be made acceptable to God, and a means to inflame the desire to Him and to the sight of spiritual things. The latter is more purely mystical, dealing with the Divine visitations and spiritual consolations vouchsafed to a contemplative soul on earth that is in perfect charity and purified by the fire of love. A number of other works, attributed with more or less probability to Hilton, remain still unpublished. A curious tradition, dating from manuscripts of the fifteenth century, attributes to him a treatise both in Latin and in English, entitled "Musica Ecclesiastica", which is identical with the first three books of the "De Imitatione Christi". For this reason, the latter work, now almost universally assigned to Thomas à Kempis, has been frequently ascribed to Hilton. The probable explanation is that the "De Imitatione" reached England anonymously, and when translated into English was naturally attributed to the one mystical writer whose name was universally known throughout the land.

WYNKYN DE WORDE, The volume of Waltere Hylton namyd in Latin Scala Perfeccionis englisshed the Ladder of Perfection (London, 1494); The Scale or Ladder of Perfection written by Walter Hilton, ed. CRESSY (London, 1659), ed. GUY (London, 1869), ed. DALGAIRNS (London, 1870); HORSTMAN, Richard Rolle of Hampole anad His Followers (London, 1895); MARTIN, in Dict. of Nat. Biog., s.v.; DE MONTMORENCY, Thomas à Kempis, his Age and Book (London, 1906); INGE, Studies of English Mystics (London, 1906); GARDNER, The Cell of Self-Knowledge (London and New York, 1909). The last-named volume includes a reprint of the treatises published by PEPWELL; the Letter to a Devout Man accompanies all later editions of the Scala Perfectionis.

EDMUND G. GARDNER

Himeria

A titular see in the province of Osrhoene, suffragan of Edessa. The "Notitia" of Anastasius, in the sixth century, still mentions this see as being in that province and in the Patriarchate of Antioch ("Echos d'Orient", Paris, 1907, 145). Procopius ("De Ædificiis", II, 9) says that Justinian rebuilt its walls. At least seven bishops are known from the fourth to the sixth century, the first of whom, Eustathius, was in correspondence with St. Basil (Lequien, "Oriens Christ.", II, 983-86). The city, which was destroyed, has not been rediscovered; but it is thought to have been located near the Euphrates and Europos or Djerabis.

GELZER, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani (Leipzig, 1890), 155.

S. VAILHÉ.

Himerius

(called also EUMERIUS and COMERIUS)

An Archbishop of Tarragona in Spain, 385. He is the first archbishop of this province subsequent to St. Fructuosus, who died a martyr, 21 Jan., 259, whose name has come down to us. Nothing is known about the acts of this bishop, not even the beginning or end of his reign. He is not mentioned among those who took an active part in the Priscillian controversy of that time, nor is his name in the list of bishops who assembled (380) at Saragossa in the Province of Tarragona. Because Pope Siricius in his letter uses the phrase pro antiquitate sacerdotii tui, it might be inferred that Himerius was bishop long before 385; still the words may refer to his dignity as archbishop. Himerius had sent several questions to Pope Damasus, who died before their arrival. His successor, Siricius, took up the matter, and sent an answer dated 10 Feb., 385.

This answer, which is the first known papal decretal, gives solutions to the questions proposed, and orders Himerius to make known the enactments to the other churches. It forbids the rebaptizing of converts from Arianism and orders that they be received by the simple imposition of the bishop's hand. It forbids the conferring of solemn baptism except at Easter and Pentecost; demands that petition for baptism be made forty days previous to its reception, and that it be preceded by prayers and fasting; but enjoins the duty of giving baptism as quickly as possible to infants and others in danger of death. No one is allowed to marry a woman betrothed to another; apostates, if repentant, are to be subjected to penance for the rest of their lives, but at the hour of death they are to be reconciled. Rules are laid down for the treatment of all penitents, especially of such as had relapsed. It determines the age of thirty-five for those to be ordained priests, requiring the reception of baptism before the age of puberty and the receiving of minor orders. It permits the acolyte and subdeacon to marry once, and then with a virgin, but requires celibacy of the deacon and priest; inflicts severe penalties on the incontinent and condemns to perpetual incarceration monks and nuns unfaithful to their vows. The pope also expresses his earnest wish that monks known for their prudence and sanctity of life be admitted to the clergy.

WARD in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; KAULEN in Kirchenlexikon, s. v.; GAMS, Kirchengeschichte Spaniens (Ratisbon, 1864), I, 426; P. L., XIII, 1131; LVI, 554.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Hincmar

An archbishop of Reims; born in 806; died at Epernay on 21 December, 882. Descended from a distinguished family of the West Franks, he received an excellent education at the Abbey of St-Denis, under the direction of the Abbot Hilduin. When the latter came to the court of the Emperor Louis the Pious in 822 as court chaplain, Hincmar accompanied him thither, and by actual experience became acquainted with the political as well as the ecclesiastical administration of the empire, in all its ramifications. He also followed Hilduin into banishment at Corvey, and returned with him later to St-Denis. Hincmar used his influence with the emperor on behalf of the banished abbot, and not without success: for he stood in high favour with Louis the Pious, having always been a faithful adherent of his, and his loyal champion through all his vicissitudes. After his return from Corvey, Hincmar resided for a time in St-Denis, where he pursued his studies with great zeal and success, and afterwards at the imperial court, where he was active in political as well as spiritual affairs. In the year 840 King Charles the Bald called Hincmar into his service permanently; and from that time he was the monarch's skilful and efficient counsellor in all matters. A few years later (845) he was raised to the Archiepiscopal See of Reims at the Synod of Beauvais. Ebbo, the occupant of this important see, was deposed at a Synod of Diedenhofen (Thioville) in 835; it is true that he had returned to Reims on the death of Louis the Pious in 840, and had again undertaken the administration of the diocese, performing many ecclesiastical functions; but in May, 841, he was again expelled, and afterwards (844), at the instance of Pope Sergius II, was admitted to lay communion only. Accordingly, on 18 April, 845, Hincmar was chosen as his successor and was consecrated at Reims on 3 May. The Emperor Lothair I, being hostile to Hincmar, induced Pope Sergius II to order a new investigation into the case of Ebbo; however the new archbishop came out of the inquiry triumphantly, and Pope Leo IV conferred the pallium on him.

Henceforward for nearly forty years Hincmar remained at the very centre of government, both ecclesiastical and political, in the West-Frankish Empire; he was a decisive factor in all the more important transactions, and the numerous disputes spoken of in the church history of the Franks in the second half of the ninth century for the most part centre around the person of the Metropolitan of Reims. Although Hincmar was generally recognized as archbishop, owing to his investiture with the pallium by Leo IV, his opponents, especially the Emperor Lothair and his courtiers, still made use of the affair of Ebbo in order to ruin Hincmar. Hincmar looked upon the restoration of Ebbo in 840 as null and void, and on that account even forbade the clergy, who had been ordained by Ebbo at that period, to exercise any spiritual functions. These clerics, however, brought their case before the Synod of Soissons, in 853. Here again the much-vexed question of Ebbo's deposition and Hincmar's consecration was investigated; and the synod declared that the ordinations by Ebbo after his alleged restoration were null; nevertheless, at the request of King Charles, the priests in question were again admitted to communion. Hincmar wished to receive the pope's confirmation of this decision; but Leo IV refused this favour; and it was not until 855 that his successor, Benedict III, confirmed the decree. Nicholas I renewed it in 863, adding the clause: "provided that Hincmar was in no wise disobedient to the mandates of the Apostolic See".

Shortly afterwards, the pope received from various quarters reports of injustice which had been done to the above-mentioned clerics; and Charles the Bald interested himself on behalf of one of them, named Wulfad. At this time Pope Nicholas I wrote to Hincmar and to the other archbishops of France, calling upon them to arrange for a new synod, in order to examine the case once more. Soon afterwards, King Charles conferred the vacant Archiepiscopal See of Bourges upon Wulfad. The new synod was opened at Soissons, 16 August, 866. It was very mild in its treatment of the deposed clerics of Reims, and acting on its advice the pope restored Wulfad and his companions, enjoining them, however, to show deference and obedience to Hincmar. In his letter of 6 December, 866, the pope had spoken his mind pretty forcibly to Hincmar about his whole conduct; the latter replied in a humble letter (867) and informed the pope that he had immediately restored the clerics in question. Another matter in which Hincmar took a leading part was the controversy about the teachings of Gottschalk (see GOTTSCHALK OF ORBAIS) concerning predestination. After being condemned at Mainz in 848, Gottschalk was sent to Hincmar, who kept him in custody, under his own eyes at Reims. In 849 a synod took place at Quierzy, at which Gottschalk was once more condemned. Hincmar wrote a treatise on the question of predestination, and at the new Synod of Quierzy, in 853, he laid before the bishops his celebrated four chapters on the doctrine of predestination, which, however, were attacked by Prudentius of Troyes as well as by Remigius of Lyons. The Synod of Valence in 855 also published canons in opposition to Hincmar's views; whereupon the latter wrote his first book, "De Prædestinatione" (857-8), which, however, has not come down to us.

After the great Synod of Savonières near Toul (859), which was also attended by Hincmar, he wrote his second diffuse and prolix work on predestination. His four theses, which he also advocated before the Synod of Toucy in 860, are as follows:

• (1) God wills the salvation of all men;
• (2) The will remains free after the fall of man, but must be liberated and sanctified by God's grace;
• (3) Divine Predestination foreordains that, out of the massa perditionis, a few shall be brought to eternal life, out of mercy;
• (4) Christ died for us all.

After the Synod of Toucy, the predestination conflict between Hincmar and the other bishops quieted down. Still another controversy arose out of this dispute; Hincmar disapproved of the phrase Trina Deitas, which occurred in a hymn in the office of several martyrs, and forbade these words to be sung in his diocese. Gottschalk attacked him on this account and accused him of Sabellianism. Hincmar answered with his essay, "De una et non trina deitate". Gottschalk did not seek reconciliation with the Church; but it is not clear whether the charge of cruelty which was brought against Hincmar by Pope Nicholas I, referred to his treatment of Gottschalk or not.

On account of the rude assertion of his metropolitan rights, Hincmar got into a quarrel with two of his suffragans, as well as with Pope Nicholas I. The Archbishop of Reims had many reasons for being dissatisfied with his suffragan Rothadius of Soissons; and the latter in return made charges against Hincmar. Rothadius had deposed a priest for grave reasons; whereon Hincmar had reinstated the priest and had his successor excommunicated and imprisoned. The matter came up for discussion at the Synod of Pistres, in the Diocese of Rouen, in 862, and Rothadius was deposed. He appealed to the pope, and at the same time asked his advocates at the synod to defend him. From this Hincmar concluded that the deposed bishop had abandoned his appeal to Rome and the synod (which was continued at Soissons) deposed him again. Thereupon, Nicholas I took energetic action against Hincmar, because he had slighted the appeal to the Holy See, and also because the deposition of a bishop as a causa major was a matter which must be brought before the pope himself. When Rothadius at length reached Rome, after having had every imaginable difficulty placed in his way, he was restored to his episcopal office by the pope in 865. Similarly Hincmar quarrelled with his nephew, Hincmar the Younger, Bishop of Laon. The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals play a large part in the letters and essays, which were written in France in connexion with these disputes.

In politics, Hincmar was a strong supporter of Charles the Bald. His zeal for the defence of the rights of the Church and the furtherance of her influence led him persistently to work for a close alliance between the episcopate and the royal power in order thereby to secure the support of the king against the nobles. In the quarrels between Charles the Bald and Lothair, he used all his influence on behalf of the former. When Louis the German made his victorious march into the West Frankish kingdom in 858, Hincmar boldly opposed Louis, organized and directed the opposition of the bishops and clergy against him, and took a prominent part in the peace negotiations at Coblenz in 860. In this crisis Hincmar saved Charles's crown. When King Lothair II repudiated his wife Theutberga and married Waldrade, Hincmar attacked him in an admirable polemical letter "De divortio Lotharii". After the death of this king in 869 Hincmar took a prominent part in making Charles the Bald the successor of Lothair, and he himself crowned Charles king in Metz, in spite of the objections of Pope Adrian II in favour of Emperor Louis II. Hincmar on this occasion violently opposed the wishes of the pope. Afterwards differences arose between Hincmar and Charles, because the former disapproved of Charles's journey to Rome, and the crowning of Charles the Bald as emperor.

After his coronation in 875 the emperor summoned a great synod at Ponthion, which met in June, 876, and at which the papal Brief was read, appointing Ansegis, Archbishop of Sens, Vicar Apostolic of Gaul and Germany. Hincmar, the recognized chief metropolitan of the West Frankish kingdom, and nearly all the Frankish bishops made an energetic protest against this, and refused to recognize the vicar, so that the latter could not exercise the rights which had been conferred upon him. In defence of his rights as metropolitan, Hincmar wrote his treatise "De jure metropolitanorum". After the death of Charles the Bald, 877, Hincmar still exercised his far-reaching influence under the succeeding Carlovingian monarchs of the West Franks. He sought to prevent the decay of the kingdom. At the Synods of Troyes (878) and Fismes (881) he took a prominent part, and endeavoured to strengthen the political and religious life of the empire by several writings. Owing to an invasion of the Northmen in 882, he was obliged to retire to Epernay, where he died. Though ambitious and stern he was an energetic, learned, and able prelate. His writings (to those already mentioned must be added his "Annales" of the years 861-82) are to be found in Migne, P. L., CXXV-CXXVI.

PRITSCHARD, The Life and Times of Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (Littlemore, 1849); DIEZ, De Hincmari vita et ingenio (Sens, 1859); GESS, Merkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben und den Schriften Hincmars Erzbischofs von Reims (Göttingen, 1806); VON NOORDEN, Hincmar Erzbischof von Reims (Bonn, 1863): LOUPOT, Hincmar archevéque de Reims, sa vie, ses œuvres, son influence (Reims, 1869); VIDIEU, Hincmar de Reims: Etude sur le IX ^e siècle (Paris, 1875); SCHRÖRS, Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims, sein Leben und seine Schriften (Freiburg im Br., 1884); SDRALEK, Hincmars von Reims kanonistisches Gutachten über die Ehescheidung Lothars II. (Freiburg im Br., 1881); GUNDLACH, Zwei Schriften des Erzbischofs Hincmar von Reims in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (X, 1889), 92-145, 258-310; HAMPEL, Zum Streit Hincmars von Reims mit seinem Vorgänger Ebo und dessen Anhängern in Neues Archiv für ätere deutsche Gesch., XXIII (1897), 180-195; HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte, IV (Freiburg im Br., 1879).

J. P. KIRSCH.

Hincmar

A bishop of Laon, died 879. In the beginning of 858 the younger Hincmar, a nephew on the mother's side of the famous Hincmar of Reims, was elevated by his uncle's favour to the See of Laon, a suffragan of Reims. He received in addition an abbey and an office at the Court of Charles the Bald. His ambitious, overbearing, and violent disposition soon brought him into conflict not only with the king, but with his uncle and metropolitan. To free himself from the authority of the latter he invoked the decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore. Charles the Bald took from the younger Hincmar his abbey and his court office, and sequestrated the revenues of the diocese, but the latter measure aroused the protest of the elder Hincmar himself. A reconciliation took place at the Diet of Pistres in 869. A new quarrel broke out at the Synod of Verberie and resulted in the imprisonment of Hincmar. He placed his diocese under interdict, but this was set aside by his uncle. He appealed to Adrian II and laid before that pope severe accusations against his metropolitan and his king, based on a false statement of facts. This appeal, however, was not pursued with vigour. The complete estrangement between the two Hincmars was evident at the Diets of Gondreville and Attigny, in 870. Each of them now appealed to various canons, in order to justify his position. In spite of his renewed appeal to the pope, Hincmar of Laon was deposed at the Synod of Douci, in 871, in punishment of his conduct towards the king and the metropolitan. But Adrian II did not sanction this step, and refrained from appointing a successor. It was only in 875, when Charles the Bald was crowned emperor, that John VIII confirmed the removal of Hincmar, and that Hadenulf was consecrated Bishop of Laon. In the meantime Charles succeeded in preventing Hincmar from going to Rome, and even confined him for a while in prison, where he was deprived of his sight by a brother-in-law of the king.

When, in 878, John VIII presided in person over the Synod of Troyes, the younger Hincmar presented to him in writing a complaint against his uncle of Reims. The pope then mitigated his condition by allowing him to celebrate again the Holy Sacrifice and by granting him a portion of the revenues yielded by the See of Laon. The writings of Hincmar of Laon are in P. L. CXXIV, 101-26, 1027-70.

CELLOT, Vita Hincmari junioris, see MANSI, Coll. conc., XVI, 688 sqq.; HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte, 2nd ed., IV (1879), 380 sqq., 489 sqq., 530, 535; see also the bibliography to HINCMAR, Archbishop of Reims.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Roman Hinderer

(Chinese TE).

A German missionary in China, born at Reiningen, near Mülhausen, in Alsace, 21 Sept., 1668; died 24 Aug., 1744, at Shang-ho, in Kiang-nan. On 6 September, 1688 he joined the Society of Jesus and became a member of the German province, whence he went to China in 1707. Here Emperor K'ang-hi invited him by personal request to collaborate in the great map and chart work in which the Jesuits, acting under imperial instructions, were then engaged. He laboured with de Mailla and Régis on the mapping of the provinces of Ho-nan, Kiang-nan, Che-kiang, and Fu-kien (cf. Du Halde, "Description de la Chine", The Hague, 1736, I, pref., xliii; and Richthofen, "China," Berlin, 1877, I, 682). Hinderer, however, was not only a man of science, but also a missionary who for forty years laboured as an apostle and by his zeal and efficiency achieved substantial results. He was twice placed at the head of the mission as visitor. He deserves special recognition for his introduction and ardent fostering among the neophytes of the devotion to the Sacred Heart (cf. Nilles, "De ratione festorum SS. Cordis", 5th ed., I, 323; Letierze, "Etude sur le Sacré Coeur", Paris, 1891, II, 104).

HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäre (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 188; PLATZWEG, Lebensbilder deutscher Jesuiten in auswärtigen Missionen (Paderborn, 1882), 109-211; DE GUILHERMY, Ménologie de la Compagnie de Jésus (German Assistancy), I, 156; CHANET, Vie du P. Romain Hinderer de la Compagnie de Jésus, l'Apôtre du Sacré-Coeur dans l'Eglise de Chine (Tournay, 1889); Welt-Bott (Vienna, 1758), nos. 669-85; cf. eight published letters of Hinderer in the Welt-Bott, nos. 161, 199, 209, 293, 548, 580; excerpts by FRIEDRICH in his Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte des 18 Jahrhunderts in Abhandl. d. k. Akad. d. Wissenschaften (Vienna), class III, vol. XIII, pt. II, p. 15; manuscript letter in the imperial archives at Vienna, Geistl. Angelegenheiten, no. 419, IV.

A. HUONDER

Hinduism

Hinduism in its narrower sense, is the conglomeration of religious beliefs and practices existing in India that have grown out of ancient Brahminism, and which stand in sharp contrast to orthodox, traditional Brabminism to-day. Hinduism is the popular, distorted, corrupted side of Brahminism. In its broad sense, it comprises those phases of religous, social, and intellectual life that are generally recognized in India to-day as the legitimate outgrowth of ancient Brahmin institutions, and hence are tolerated by the Brahmin priests as compatible with Brahmin traditions. Far from being a uniform system of worship, Hinduism, in this large sense, comprises, besides orthodox Brahminism, the numerous sectarian developments of cult in honour of Vishnu, Siva, and their associates, in which for centuries the great mass of the people have found satisfaction for their religious cravings. In Hinduism, as distinguished from the heretical sects of India, it is of minor importance what sort of worship is adopted, provided one recognizes the supremacy of the Brahmins and the sacredness of Brahmin customs and traditions. In the pantheistic all-god Brahma, the whole world of deities, spirits, and other objects of worship is contained, so that Hinduism adapts itself to every form of religion, from the lofty monotheism of the cultivated Brahmin to the degraded nature-worship of the ignorant, half savage peasant. Hinduism, to quote Monier Williams, "has something to offer which is suited to all minds. Its very strength lies in its infinite adaptability to the infinite diversity of human characters and human tendencies. It has its highly spiritual and abstract side suited to the metaphysical philosopher151its practical and concrete side suited to the man of affairs and the man of the world— esthetic and ceremonial side suited to the man of poetic feeling and imagination— quiescent and contemplative side suited to the man of peace and lover of seclusion. Nay, it holds out the right hand of brotherhood to nature-worshippers, demon-worshippers, animal-worshippers, tree-worshippers, fetish-worshippers. It does not scruple to permit the most grotesque forms of idolatry, and the most degrading varieties of superstition. And it is to this latter fact that yet another remarkable peculiarity of Hinduism is mainly due—, that in no other system in the world is the chasm more vast which separates the religion of the higher, cultured, and thoughtful classes from that of the lower, uncultured, and unthinking masses" (Brahmanism and Hinduism, 1891, p. 11). Hinduism is thus a national, not a world religion, it has never made any serious effort to proselytize in countries outside of India. The occasional visits of Brahmins to countries of Europe and America, and their lectures on religious metaphysics are not to be mistaken for genuine missionary enterprises. Not to speak of its grosser phases, Hinduism, even in its highest form known as Brahminism, could not take root and flourish in countries where the caste system and the intricate network of social and domestic customs it implies do not prevail. Nor has Hinduism exercised any notable influence on European thought and culture. The pessimism of Schopenhauer and his school is indeed very like the pessimism of Buddhism and of the Vedanta system of philosophy, and seems to have been derived from one of these sources. But apart from this unimportant line of modern speculation, and from the abortive theosophic movement of more recent times, one finds no trace of Hindu influence on Western civilization. We have nothing to learn from India that makes for higher culture. On the other hand, India has much of value to learn from Christian civilization.

According to the census of 1901, the total population of India is a little more than 294,000,000 souls, of which 207,000,000 are adherents of Hinduism. The provinces in which they are most numerous are Assam, Bengal, Bombay, Berrar, Madras, Agra, and Oudh, and the Central Provinces. Of foreign religions, Mohammedanism has, by dint of long domination, made the deepest impression on the natives, numbering in India today nearly 62,500,000 adherents. Christianity, considering the length of time it has been operative in India, has converted but an insignificant fraction of the people from Hinduism. The Christians of all sects, foreign officials included, number but 2,664,000, nearly one-half being Catholics.

It was not till towards the end of the eighteenth century that Europeans— Father de Nobili and a few other early missionaries— any knowledge of Sanskrit and allied tongues in which the sacred literature of India was preserved. The extensive commerce which the English developed in Bombay and other parts of India gave occasion to English scholars to make extensive studies in this new field of Oriental research. Sir William Jones was one of the first European scholars to master Sanskrit and to give translations of Sanskrit texts. He translated in 1789 one of Kalidasa's classic dramas, the "Sakuntalã", and in 1794 published a translation of the "Ordinances of Manu". He founded, in 1784, the Royal Asiatic Society, destined to prove a powerful means of diffusing the knowledge of Indian literature and institutions. An able, but less famous, contemporary was the Portuguese missionary, Father Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomeo, to whom belongs the honour of composing the first European grammar of the Sanskrit tongue, published at Rome in 1790. The first important study of Indian literature and rites was made by Henry T. Colebrooke. His "Miscellaneous Essays on the Sacred Writings and Religion of the Hindus", first published in 1805, became a classic in this new field of research. The collection was reedited in 1873 by Professor E. B. Cowell, and is still a work of great value to the student of Hinduism. Other distinguished scholars of England who contributed to the knowledge of Brahminism and Hinduism were Horace H. Wilson, author of a Sanskrit dictionary and of a translation of the Vishnu Purana (1840) and other Hindu texts; John Muir, author of the great work "Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religions and Institutions" (5 vols., London, 1858-70), and Sir Monier Williams, whose work "Brahmanism and Hinduism, Religious Thought and Life in India" (4th ed., London, 1891), is a masterly exposition of Hinduism. With these may be associated Professor Max Müller, though whose exertions the most important sacred texts of India as well as of other Oriental lands have been made accessible to English readers in the well-known collection, "The Sacred Books of the East". In America Professor William D. Whitney made valuable contributions to the understanding of the Atharva Veda and other Brahmin texts. His labours have been ably supplemented by the studies of Professors C. R. Lanman, M. Bloomfield, and E. W. Hopkins. The contributions of Continental scholars to the knowledge of the literature and religions of India are of the very greatest importance. The distinguished Orientalist Eugène Burnouf, in the midst of his studies on Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, found time to translate in part the "Bhagavata Purana" (Paris, 1840). R. Roth and F. Kuhn made valuable studies on the early Vedic texts, while Chr. Lassen produced his "Indische Alterthumskunde" in four volumes (Bonn, 1844-61), a monument of erudition. A. Weber, among other works in this field, published a "History of Indian Literature" (English translation, London, 1892). Eminent modern Indianists are A. Barth, author of the excellent "Religions of India" (London, 1882), H. Oldenberg, and G. Bühler, whose valuable translations of sacred texts may be found in the "Sacred Books of the East". Among those who have made valuable contributions to the study of Hinduism are a number of Catholic priests. Besides Father Paulinus, already mentioned, are the Abbé Roussel, who was chosen to assist in completing the translation of the voluminous "Bhagavata Purana", begun by Burnouf, and who has besides published interesting studies on Hinduism; the Abbé Dubois, who published a masterly exposition of Modern Hinduism under the title "Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies" (Oxford, 1897); and Father J. Dahlmann, S. J. Finally, it is but fair to note that considerable excellent work is being done by native Hindu scholars in translating and interpreting sacred Hindu texts. One of the most diligent is Nath Dutt, author of the following works: "The Mahabharata, Translated Literally from the Sanskrit Text", Parts I-XI (Calcutta, 1895-99); "The Bhagavadgita" (Calcutta, 1893); "The Vishnu Purana Translated into English Prose" (Calcutta, 1896). F. B. Pargiter has translated into English the "Markandeya Purana", Fasc. i-vi (Calcutta, 1888-99), and E. P. C. Roy, besides giving an English translation of the Mahabharata (Calcutta. 1883-96), has published the "Sree Krishna" (Calcutta, 1901). M. Battacharya has published an interesting work entitled "Hindu Castes and Sects" (Calcutta, 1896).

Ann. du Musée Guimet (Paris, 1885); HOPKINS, The Grand Epic of India, its Character and Origin (New York, 1901); India Old and New (New York, 1901); Religions of India (Boston, 1895); MITCHELL, The Great Religions of india (New York, 1906); WILLIAMS, Hinduism (New York, 1897); DAHLMANN, Das Mahabharata als Epos und Rechtsbuch (Berlin, 1895); IDEM, Genesis des Mahabharata (Berlin, 1899); ROUSSEL, Légendes morales de l'Inde empruntées au Bhagavata Purana et au Mahabharata (2 vols., Paris, 1900-01); IDEM, Cosmologie hindoue d'après le Bhagavata Purana (Paris, 1898); DE TASSY, Histoire de la littérature hindoue et hindoustanie (3 vols., Paris, 1870-71); WILKINS, Modern Hinduism (2nd ed., London, 1887); COLINET, Les Doctrines philosophiques et religieuses de La Bhagavadgita (Paris, 1884).

CHARLES F. AIKEN.

Sir William Hales Hingston

Canadian physician and surgeon, b. at Hinchinbrook near Huntingdon, Quebec, June 29, 1829; d. at Montreal, 19 February, 1907. His father, a native of Ireland, was lieutenant-colonel in the Royal 100th Regiment (The Dublins) and died when his son was only eighteen months old, leaving the family in debt on an estate granted to him for military service. Young Hingston was brought up in poverty, but his mother succeeded in solving her difficulties so well as to be able to send him to the Sulpician College at Montreal. Although he had carried off a prize in every subject in his first year he had to become a drug clerk in order to earn his living. His pocket-money was spent for lessons in the classics. Then he took up the study of medicine, still continuing his occupation, and graduated at McGill University in 1851. He had nearly £100 saved, so he at once sailed on a small vessel to Edinburgh, then famous for its teaching of surgery. He became a favourite of both Simpson and Syme, and Sir James Y. Simpson wanted to retain him as his assistant. Before his return at the end of two years young Hingston had with the expenditure of a very small amount of money visited every important medical centre in Europe, attracting attention everywhere by his talent and industry.

He soon acquired a large practice in Montreal, to which his self-sacrifice during the cholera epidemic greatly contributed. In 1860 he became surgeon to the Hôtel-Dieu. He was the first surgeon in America to perform a resection of a diseased elbow and several other important operations. In 1882 he became professor of clinical surgery at Victoria University, Montreal. After its union with Victoria, he occupied this chair in Laval University. In 1875 he became Mayor of Montreal and was re-elected by acclamation, but declined a third term. For the wise discharge of his duties he received the thanks of Governor-General Dufferin. He became an acknowledged leader of American surgery and delivered the address on surgery in America before the British Medical Association in 1892. In 1895 he was knighted by Queen Victoria; in 1896 he was called to the Senate of Canada. Pius IX made him a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, Leo XIII conferred on him the Cross "Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice", and he received honorary degrees from four universities. In 1885 he published "The Climate of Canada and its Relation to Health".

The Montreal Medical Journal (March, 1907); The Canadian Messenger (April, 1907).

JAMES J. WALSH

Hippo Diarrhytus

(Or HIPPO ZARRHYTUS.)

A titular see of Northern Africa, now called Bizerta, originally a Tyrian colony. The surname, Diarrhytus, probably came from the canal that traversed the city. It was captured, fortified, and a new harbour opened by Agathocles (310-307 B.C.); later it supported the mercenaries against Carthage, and became a Roman colony in the early days of the Empire. In 1535 of the Christian era it submitted to the protectorate of Spain, but soon cast this off; it was bombarded by the French in 1770, and by the Venetians in 1785. Since its occupation by the French (1882) Bizerta (in Arabic Ben-Zert, a corruption of Hippo Zarrhytus) has been the chief town of a administrative district. Of its 18,000 inhabitants, 2600 are French, and 6000 Italians. Bizerta has important fortifications, possesses a good trade, and its fisheries are famous. The canal is wide enough to allow men-of-war to enter the lake (the Sisara Lacus of the ancients). St. Restituta, a martyr under Diocletian, was born there; her feast is kept on 17 May. St. Augustine often preached at Hippo Diarrhytus in the Florentia, Margarita, and St. Quadratus basilicas. The names of six of its bishops, between 255 and 646, are known; the first of them, Petrus, is, in some documents, styled a martyr.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Hippo Regius

A titular see of Numidia, now a part of the residential see of Constantine (q.v.). Hippo was a Tyrian colony on the west coast of the bay to which it gave its name (Hipponensis Sinus); the surname Regius was bestowed on it as one of the places where the Numidian kings resided. Later it became a Roman colonia and prospered until A.D. 430, when it was taken by the Vandals. The Arabs rebuilt the town in the seventh century. It contains some ancient ruins, a hospital built by the Little Sisters of the Poor, and a fine basilica dedicated to St. Augustine. About two miles distant the Arabs in the eleventh century established the town of Beleb-el-Anab, which the Spaniards occupied for some years in the sixteenth century, as the French did later, in the reign of Louis XIV. France took this town again in 1832. It is now called Bone or Bona, and is one of the government centres for the department of Constantine in Algeria. It has 37,000 inhabitants, of whom 15,700 are French, 10,500 foreigners, mostly Italians, 9,400 Mussulmans, and 1400 naturalized Jews. The situation of the town is very pleasing, the climate agreeable in winter, but humid in summer. Its trade is good, and the harbour serves as an export station for all the rich inland country. We know seven bishops of Hippo, among them Sts. Theogenes and Fidentius, martyrs, St. Leontius Valerius, who ordained St. Augustine, and the great "Doctor of Grace", Augustine himself (395-28 August, 430). Under St. Augustine there were at least three monasteries in the diocese besides the episcopal monastery. Three councils were held at Hippo (393, 395, 426).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

St. Hippolytus of Rome

Martyr, presbyter and antipope; date of birth unknown; d. about 236. Until the publication in 1851 of the recently discovered "Philosophumena", it was impossible to obtain any definite authentic facts concerning Hippolytus of Rome and his life from the conflicting statements about him, as follows:

• Eusebius says that he was bishop of a church somewhere and enumerates several of his writings (Hist. eccl., VI, xx, 22).
• St. Jerome likewise describes him as the bishop of an unknown see, gives a longer list of his writings, and says of one of his homilies that he delivered it in the presence of Origen, to whom he made direct reference (De viris illustribus, cap. 1xi).
• The Chronography of 354, in the list of popes, mentions Bishop Pontianus and the presbyter Hippolytus as being banished to the island of Sardinia in the year 235; the Roman Calendar in the same collection records under 13 August the feast of Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina and Pontianus in the catacomb of Callistus (ed. Mommsen in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: auctores antiquissimi", IX, 72, 74).
• According to the inscription over the grave of Hippolytus composed by Pope Damasus, he was a follower of the Novatian schism while a presbyter, but before his death exhorted his followers to become reconciled with the Catholic Church (Ihm, "Damasi epigrammata", Leipzig, 1895, 42, n.37).
• Prudentius wrote a hymn on the martyr Hippolytus ("Peristephanon", hymn XI, in P.L., LX, 530 sqq.), in which he places the scene of the martyrdom at Ostia or Porto, and describes Hippolytus as being torn to pieces by wild horses, evidently a reminiscence of the ancient Hippolytus, son of Theseus.
• Later Greek authors (e. g. Georgius Syncellus., ed. Bonn, 1829, 674 sqq.; Nicephorus Callistus, "Hist. eccl.", IV, xxxi) do not give much more information than Eusebius and Jerome; some of them call him Bishop of Rome, others Bishop of Porto. According to Photius (Bibliotheca, codex 121), he was a disciple of St. Irenaeus. Oriental writers, as well as Pope Gelasius, place the See of Hippolytus at Bostra, the chief city of the Arabs.
• Several later legends of martyrs speak of Hippolytus in various connections. That of St. Laurence refers to him as the officer appointed to guard the blessed deacon, who was converted, together with his entire household, and killed by wild horses (Acta SS., August, III, 13-14; Surius, "De probatis Sanctorum historiis", IV, Cologne, 1573, 581 sqq.). A legend of Porto identifies him with the martyr Nonnus and gives an account of his martyrdom with others of the same city (Acta SS., August, IV, 506; P.G., X, 545-48).
• A monument of importance is the large fragment of a marble statue of the saint discovered in 1551 which underwent restoration (the upper part of the body and the head being new), and is now preserved in the Lateran museum; the paschal cycle computed by Hippolytus and a list of his writings are engraved on the sides of the chair on which the figure of Hippolytus is seated; the monument dates from the third century (Kraus, "Realencyklopädie der christlichen Altertumer", 661 sqq.).
• The topographies of the graves of the Roman martyrs place the grave of Hippolytus in the cemetery on the Via Tiburtina named after him, mention the basilica erected there, and give some legendary details concerning him. (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 178-79); the burial vault of the sainted confessor was unearthed by De Rossi (Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1882, 9-76).

The discovery of the "Philosophumean" has now made it possible to clear up the most important period of the life of St. Hippolytus through his own evidence, and at the same time to test and correct the conflicting accounts contained in the old authorities. We proceed on the assumption that Hippolytus was really the author of the aforesaid work, an hypothesis almost universally accepted by investigators to-day.

Hippolytus was a presbyter of the Church of Rome at the beginning of the third century. There is no difficulty in admitting that he could have been a disciple of St Irenaeus either in Rome or Lyons. It is equally possible that Origen heard a homily by Hippolytus when he went to Rome about the year 212. In the reigh of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217) he came into conflict with that pontiff and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on account of the christological opinions which for some time had been causing controversies in Rome. Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi; in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus, of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (modi) of the Divine Nature (Modalism, Sabellianism). Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Subordinationism). As the heresy in the doctrine of the Modalists was not at first clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision. For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, representing him as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus, whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii). Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217-218) on the death of Zephyrinus, Hippolytus immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers. These he calls the Catholic Church and himself successor to the Apostles, terming the great majority of Roman Christians the School of Callistus. He accuses Callistus of having fallen first into the heresy of Theodotus, then into that of Sabellius; also of having through avarice degraded ecclesiastical, and especially the penitential, discipline to a disgraceful laxity. These reproaches were altogether unjustified. Hippolytus himself advocated an excessive rigorism. He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35), and during this period, probably during the pontificate of Pontianus, he wrote the "Philosophumena". He was banished to the unhealthful island (insula nociva) of Sardinia at the same time as Pontianus; and shortly before this, or soon afterward, he became reconciled with the legitimate bishop and the Church of Rome. For, after both exiles had died on the island of Sardinia, their mortal remains were brought back to Rome on the same day, 13 August (either 236 or one of the following years), and solemnly interred, Pontianus in the papal vault in the catacomb of Callistus and Hippolytus in a spot on the Via Tiburtina. Both were equally revered as martyrs by the Roman Church: certain proof that Hippolytus had made his peace with that Church before his death. With his death the schism must have come to a speedy end, which accounts for its identification with the Novatian schism at the end of the fourth century, as we learn from the inscription by Damasus.

The fact that Hippolytus was a schismatic Bishop of Rome and yet was held in high honour afterwards both as martyr and theologian, explains why as early as the fourth century nothing was known as to his see, for he was not on the list of the Roman bishops. The theory championed by Lightfoot (see below), that he was actually Bishop of Porto but with his official residence in Rome, is untenable.

This statement, made by a few authorities, results from a confusion with a martyr of Porto, due perhaps to a legendary account of his martyrdom. Moreover De Rossi's hypothesis, based on the inscription by Damasus, that Hippolytus returned from exile, and subsequently became an adherent of Novatian, his reconciliation with the Roman Church not being effected until just before his martyrdom under the Emperor Valerian (253-60), is incompatible with the supposition that he is the author of the "Philosophumena." The feast of St. Hippolytus is kept on 13 August, a date assigned in accordance with the legend of St. Laurence; that of Hippolytus of Porto is celebrated on 22 August.

Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate. Most of his works have been lost or are known only through scattered fragments, while much has survived only in old translations into Oriental and Slavic languages; other writings are freely interpolated. The fact that the author wrote in Greek made it inevitable that later, when that language was no longer understood in Rome, the Romans lost interest in his writings, while in the East they were read long after and made the author famous. His works deal with several branches of theology, as appears from the aforementioned list on the statue, from Eusebius, St. Jerome, and from Oriental authors. His exegetical treatises were numerous: he wrote commentaries on several books of the Old and New Testaments. Most of these are extant only in fragments. The commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, however, has probably been preserved in its entirety ("Werke des Hippolytus", ed. Bonwetsch, 1897, 343 sqq.); likewise the fullest extant commentary on the Book of Daniel in 4 books (ibid., 2 sqq.). Eight of his works, known by their titles, dealt with dogmatic and apologetic subjects, but only one has come down entire in the original Greek. This is the work on Christ and Antichrist ("De Antichristo", ed. Achelis, op. cit., I, II, 1 sqq.); fragments of a few others have been preserved. Of his polemics against heretics the most important is the "Philosophumena", the original title of which is kata pason aireseon elegchos (A Refutation of All Heresies). The first book had long been known; books IV to X, which had been discovered a short time previously, were published in 1851. But the first chapters of the fourth and the whole of the second and third books are still missing. The first four books treat of the Hellenic philosophers; books V to IX are taken up with the exposition and refutation of Christian heresies, and the last book contains a recapitulation. The work is one of the most important sources for the history of the heresies which disturbed the early Church. Origen is cited in some manuscripts as the author of the first book. Photius attributes it to the Roman author Caius (q.v.), while by others it has been ascribed also to Tertullian and Novatian. But most modern scholars hold for weighty reasons that Hippolytus is undoubtedly its author. A shorter treatise agains heresies (Syntagma), and written by Hippolytus at an earlier date, may be restored in outline from later adaptations (Libellus adversus omnes haereses; Epiphanius, "Panarion"; Philastrius, "De haeresibus"). He wrote a third antiheretical work which was universal in character, called the "Small Labyrinth". Besides these Hippolytus wrote special monographs against Marcion, the Montanists, the Alogi, and Caius. Of these writings only a few fragments are extant. Hippolytus also produced an Easter cycle, as well as a chronicle of the world which was made use of by later chroniclers. And finally St. Jerome mentions a work by him on Church laws. Three treatises on canon law have been preserved under the name of Hippolytus: the "Constitutiones per Hippolytum" (which are parallel with the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions), the Egyptian Church Ordinance, in Coptic, and the "Canones Hippolyti". Of these works the first two are spurious beyond doubt, and the last, the authenticity of which was upheld even by Achelis (Die Canones Hippolyti, Leipzig, 1891), belongs in all probability to the fifth or sixth century.

The works of Hippolytus have been edited by Fabricius, "S. Hippolyti episcopi et mart. opera" (2 vols., Hamburg, 1716-18); by Gallandi in "Bibliotheca veterum patrum", II, 1766; in Migne, P.G., X; by Lagarde (Leipzig and London, 1858); and by Bonwetsch and Achelis, "Hippolytus" I, pts. I and II (Leipzig, 1897), in "Die gr. chr. Schriftsteller", a series published by the Berlin Academy. The "Philosophumena" was edited by Miller, as the work of Origen (Oxford, 1851); by Duncker and Schneidewin as the work of Hippolytus (Göttingen, 1859), and in P.G., XVI. The "Canones Hippolyti" were edited by Haneberg (Munich, 1870); by Achelis, "Die altesten Quellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechts:, I, in "Texte und Untersuchungen", VI (Leipzig, 1891), 4.

J.P. KIRSCH

Sts. Hippolytus

Besides the presbyter, St. Hippolytus of Rome, others of the name are mentioned in the old martyrologies and legends of martyrs as having shed their blood for the Faith. Some of these, however, are to be identified with him. In the Acts of St. Laurence we find an officer Hippolytus who, with his nurse Concordia and nineteen others of his household, was put to death for the Faith. The same statement also appears in the Roman Martyrology under the date of 13 August. But this Hippolytus is without doubt identical with the presbyter and martyr who has been connected by legend with St. Laurence, whose grave is situated near the cemetery of Hippolytus.

Hippolytus was also commemorated at a later date in common with St. Cassian, with whom he had no connection whatsoever. According to the hymn of Prudentius on Cassian (Peristephanon, hymn IX), the latter was a teacher at Imola (Forum Cornelii) and was surrendered to the fury of his pupils, who tortured him to death with their iron styles. He is without doubt an historical martyr, who probably suffered in the persecution of Diocletian.

Another Hippolytus is likewise found among a group of martyrs described as "Greek martyrs" (martyres groeci), whose burial place was venerated in the catacomb of Callistus. This Hippolytus is certainly distinct from the Roman presbyter (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", III, 201-208). The feast of these saints is celebrated on 2 December.

Furthermore the bishop and martyr Hippolytus of Porto is commemorated on 22 August in the Roman Martyrology. This statement, which occurs even in ancient martyrologies, is connected with the confusion regarding the Roman presbyter, resulting from the Acts of the Martyrs of Porto. It has not been ascertained whether the memory of the latter was localized at Porto merely in connection with the legend in Prudentius, without further foundation, or whether a person named Hippolytus was really martyred at Porto, and afterwards confounded in legend with Hippolytus of Rome.

J.P. KIRSCH

Hirena

A titular see of southern Tunis. Nothing is known of the city, the name of which may have been Hirina, Hiren, or Iren. Three bishops are known: Tertullian, present at the conference of Carthage in 311; Saturus, exiled in 484 by Huneric with many other bishops; Theodore, who in 641 signed the letter from the Council of Byzacium to Constantine, son of Heraclius, against Monothelitism.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Abbey of Hirschau

A celebrated Benedictine monastery in Würtemberg, Diocese of Spires, about twenty-two miles west of Stuttgart. It was founded in 830 by Erlafried, Count of Calw, at the suggestion of his son, Noting, Bishop of Vercelli, who wished to enrich his native country with the relics of St. Aurelius, an Armenian bishop, and for that purpose brought them from Italy to Calw. They were first placed in the oratory of St. Nazarius at Calw, while the monastery of Hirschau was being built. When it was ready sixteen monks came from Fulda to form the new community, one of them, named Lutpert, being made first abbot. Count Erlafried endowed the monastery with lands and other gifts, and made a solemn donation of the whole into the hands of Lutpert, on condition that the Benedictine Rule should be observed there. The abbey church, dedicated to St. Peter, was not completed until 838, in which year it was consecrated by Othgar, Archbishop of Mains, who at the same time solemnly translated the body of St. Aurelius from its temporary resting-place to the new church. Abbot Lutpert died in 853, having brought about a substantial increase both in the possessions of the abbey and in the number of the monks under his rule. Regular observance flourished under him and his successors and a successful monastic school was established. In 988 a severe plague devastated the neighbourhood and carried off sixty of the monks including the abbot, Hartfried. Only a dozen were left to elect a successor, and they divided into two parties. The more fervent chose one Conrad, whose election was confirmed by the Bishop of Spires, but some of the others, who favoured a more relaxed rule, elected an opposition abbot in the person of Eberhard, the cellarer. For some time the dispute ran high between the rival superiors and their respective followers. The Count of Calw supported the claims of Eberhard, but neither party would give way to the other and in the end the count brought in an armed force to settle the quarrel. The result was that the abbey was pillaged, the monks dispersed, and the valuable library destroyed. The count became master of the property and the abbey remained empty for over sixty years, during which time the buildings fell into a ruinous state. In 1049 Leo IX, brother (or, as some say, uncle) of Count Adalbert, and grandson of the spoliator, came to Calw, and required Adalbert to restore the abbey. This he did, but so slowly that it was not ready for occupation until 1065, when it was peopled anew by a dozen monks who came from the celebrated Swiss Abbey of Einsiedeln, with Abbot Frederick at their head. It was, however, his successor who revived and even surpassed the former renown and prosperity of the abbey. This was the famous William of Hirschau, a monk of St. Emmeram's at Ratisbon, who was called to the abbacy in 1069. When he came the condition of the monastery was far from satisfactory. The buildings were still incomplete, Count Adalbert still retained possession of some of the monastic property, together with a certain amount of harmful influence over the community, and regular discipline was very much relaxed. Abbot William's zeal and prudence by degrees remedied this evil state of affairs and inaugurated a period of great prosperity, both spiritual and temporal. He secured the independence of the abbey and placed its finances in a satisfactory condition; he completed the buildings already begun and afterwards greatly added to them, as the needs of the increasing community required; and he refounded the monastic school for which the abbey had formerly been famous throughout Germany. But his greatest work, perhaps, and that for which his name is best remembered, was the reformation that he effected within the community itself. Cluny was then at the height of its renown and thither Abbot William sent some of his monks to learn the customs and rule of that celebrated house, and on their return the Cluniac discipline was introduced at Hirschau.

The abbot then wrote his well-known "Consuetudines Hirsaugienses" (P. L., CL, and Herrgott, "Vetus Disciplina Monastica"), which for several centuries remained the standard of monastic observance. From Hirschau monks were sent out to reform other German monasteries on the same lines, and from it seven new monasteries were founded by Abbot William. The numbers of the community increased to 150 under his rule, manual labour and the copying of manuscripts forming an important part of their occupations. Numerous exemptions and other privileges were obtained from time to time from emperors and popes. In the twelfth century the autocratic rule of Abbot Manegold caused for a time some internal dissensions, loss of fraternal charity, and consequent decline of strict discipline, but the vigorous efforts of several worthy abbots checked the decadence, and temporarily re-established the stricter observance. In the fifteenth century, however, the famous "Customs" had gradually become almost a dead letter, and Wolfram, the thirty-eighth abbot (1428-1460), introduced a reform modelled upon that of the Austrian Abbey of Melk. This lasted only for a few years for, soon after, Hirschau adopted the Constitutions of Bursfeld and was united to that congregation. Abbot Wolfram's successor, Bernhard, carried on the good work, freed the abbey from its debts, restored the monastic buildings, and also reformed several other monasteries. In the days of Abbot John III (1514-56) Hirschau fell on evil times; the Protestant Reformation began to make its influence felt, and after a brief period of struggle, the abbey, through the connivance of Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, passed into Lutheran hands, though still maintaining its monastic character. In 1630 it became Catholic again for a short time, but after the Peace of Westphalia (1648) it once more came under the control of the Dukes of Würtemberg and another series of Lutheran abbots presided over it. The community eventually came to an end and the once famous Abbey of Hirschau was finally destroyed by the French under Melac in 1692. Only a few ruins now remain to mark its site. The history of Hirschau up to the year 1503 is fully related by Trithemius, the celebrated Abbot of Spanheim, who had access to its archives before they were dispersed. Besides the "Customs" already referred to, William of Hirschau left a treatise "De Musica et Tonis" (printed by Gerbert, "Script. Eccles.", and also by Migne, P. L., CL).

TRITHEMIUS, Chronicon Hirsaugiense (St. Gall, 1690); MABILLON, Annales O.S.B. (Paris, 1703-39), III, IV; IDEM, Acta SS. O.S.B. (Venice, 1733); STE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1731), V; MIGNE, Dict. des Abbayes (Paris, 1854); HÉLTOT, Dict. des Ordres Religieux (Paris, 1863); BRAUNMÜLLER in Kirchenlexicon, s. v.; GRUTZMACHER in Realencyklopädie (Leipzig, 1900); HAFNER in Studien Mitt-Ben-Cist. (Raigern, 1891-5).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON.

Johann Baptist von Hirscher

Born 20 January, 1788, at Alt-Ergarten, Ravensburg; died 4 September, 1865. He studied at Weissenau monastery school, the lyceum of Constance, and the University of Freiburg. Ordained priest in 1810, he was for two years curate at Röhlingen; in 1812 he became a tutor in the theological faculty of Ellwangen; and in 1814 assistant professor of philosophy at the Ellwangen lyceum. In 1817 he was elected to the chair of moral and pastoral theology in Tübingen University, where he remained twenty years. In 1837 he became professor of moral theology and catechetics at the University of Freiburg in the Breisgau, where, for a quarter of a century, he exerted a very great influence. He was made a canon in 1839, and dean of the chapter in 1850; after 1847 he was often sent as delegate of the university to the First Chamber of the Grand Duchy of Baden. His advanced age forced him to cease teaching in the summer of 1863.

Hirscher exerted a great influence in the domain of moral theology, homiletics, and catechetics. His book on Christian morality, published in 1835, ran through five editions. He defined Christian morality as the scientific doctrine of the effective return of man to the Divine filiation through the merits of Christ. In the earlier editions some of the expressions and opinions of Hirscher, owing to the influence of the day, were deserving of censure; be corrected them by degrees and Kleutgen admits that the last editions are perfectly orthodox. The book marked a reaction against rationalistic morality. Hirscher, always eager to dwell on religious truth, closely traced the moral act to a religious origin and a religious end, and he detested virtue that did not proceed from faith. Though not satisfactory from the point of view of confessors, Hirscher's work, as his apologist Hettinger says, had a salutary effect, and Hettinger himself made use of it to bring an unbeliever to the light of faith.

In homiletics, also, Hirscher's books marked a reaction against the half-rationalistic books of meditation written by the Swiss Zschokke, which were then widely read. Hirscher drew a distinction between false Aufklärung, which is purely negative and confined to combating superstition, and true Aufklärung, which is based on the Gospel. He published commentaries on the Gospels of Lent (1829), on the Gospels of each Sunday (1837), and on the Epistles of each Sunday. To this field of Hirscher's activity belong his "Geschichte Jesu Christi, des Sohnes Gottes und Weitheilandes" (1839); his "Erörterungen über die grossen religiösen Fragen der Gegenwart" (1846), which led to the development of Hettinger's vocation as an apologist; his "Leben der seligsten Jungfrau und Gottesmutter Maria" (1854); his "Hauptstücke des christlichen Glaubens" (1857).

His work on cateehetics, published in 1840, was followed, in 1842, by a catechism, which was introduced into the Diocese of Freiburg and gave rise to lively discussions. To defend his catechism, Hirscher published "Zur Verständigung über den von mir bearbeiteten und demnächst erscheinenden Katechismus der christkatholischen Religion" (1842), and "Nachträge zur Verständigung" (1843). When eighty years of age, he published a brochure entitled "Besorgnisse hinsichtlich der Zweckmässigkeit unseres Religionsunterrichtes" (1863). He regarded the catechism as the history of the Kingdom of God. The first two books treat of God, the Creation, and the Redemption; the next three, of the individualization of the Kingdom of God in souls and of its coming within and without us, that is to say, of justification, sanctification, and the Church; the sixth book treats of the Kingdom of God in the other life. Kleutgen criticized Hirscher for insisting too exclusively on the work of education that God works within us, and neglecting to emphasize the gratuitous creation of the new man by grace. However, such as it was, Hirscher's catechetical work, with Alban Stolz's commentaries on it, helped to advance the teaching of religion in Germany.

Hirscher's ideas on the reform of the Church were more complex and open to suspicion. As a young man he had written a work on the Mass entitled "De genuina missæ notione", in which the idea of the sacrifice was relegated to the background, and which was put on the Index. Later he was blamed for never having formally retracted the book; he answered that at least he had held quite orthodox theories concerning the Mass in his later writings. Nevertheless a number of Catholics were not reassured, and when in 1842 and the following years there was question of appointing Hirscher coadjutor of Freiburg, the historian Hurter and his friend, Baron de Rinck, raised a cry of alarm. The "Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung" and the "Revue Sion" accused Hirscher of being an enemy of Rome and everything Roman, of dreaming of a German national Church, of opposing celibacy, the Breviary, and ecclesiastical discipline with regard to mixed marriages, of preventing the Freiburg theological review from attacking his benefactor Wessenberg, of being the friend of the Baden Liberals. Hirscher replied in the "Revue Sion" (30 November, 1842), and Schleyer, dean of the University of Freiburg, defended him in his book "Hirscher und seine Ankläger". But Rinck continued to write to the effect that if Hirscher were accepted as bishop there would be a worse schism than that of Ronge, and when the Government of Würtemberg wanted to have Hirscher appointed coadjutor to the aged Bishop Keller, Rome refused. These suspicions were confirmed by the pamphlets Hirscher published in 1849, on the social condition of the present day and the Church, "Die socialen Zustände der Gegenwart", and on the present state of religion, "Die kirchlichen Zustände der Gegenwart". These brochures created a profound sensation, for in them Hirscher showed himself hostile to the Catholic Associations' movement, which gave birth to the first general Congress of the German Catholics at Mains, in 1848; he feared that the movement might lead to imprudent demonstrations by the Catholics. He preferred lay associations to be undenominational, and favoured a synodal organization in which the laity would be represented, and which should be periodically convened by the bishops and presided over by them.

Finally he showed himself opposed to the preaching of missions in villages. Several of the bishops were aroused, and attention was drawn to the opinions in Hirscher's pamphlets that had been condemned already by Pius VI in his Constitution "Auctorem fidei". The canonist Phillips, the future Bishop Fessler, and Fathers Amberger of Ratisbon and Heinrich of Mainz, refuted Hirscher. He was condemned by the Congregation of the Index, and submitted with sincerity, for which Hettinger praises him; but he defended himself against his adversaries in another brochure. In 1854 Hirscher was hostile to the definition of the Immaculate Conception, though he was not opposed to the dogma itself; in 1862 after collaborating with Döllinger in drawing up the programme of the famous congress of Catholic scientists to be held at Munich, the following year, he quietly withdrew, judging that the time was not ripe for such a meeting. In the First Chamber of the Baden Diet Hirscher fought vigorously for the liberties of the Church. In 1848 he proposed a motion that the grand duke should be asked to employ "every means to preserve genuine Christianity, active and living, among all classes of society, especially among the young". In 1850 he asked that the grand duke should attend to the wants of the Church, and that he should grant without delay the establishment of three or four petits séminaires, where future clerics should be trained during the time of their gymnasium studies. In November, 1853, he drew up the address by which the chapter of Freiburg allied itself with Archbishop Vicari in his struggle against the bureaucracy of the State, and defended Vicari in his brochure, "Zur Orientirung über den derzeitigen Kirchenstreit" (1854).

Hirscher was an excellent priest whom many of his contemporaries, according to the testimony of Canon Lennig, venerated as a patriarch, and for whom Mgr. Orbin, who died Archbishop of Freiburg, had a real devotion. He aroused some to enthusiasm: the celebrated publicist, Alban Stolz, who did so much towards the Catholic revival in Germany, collaborated with Hirscher, with whom he spent an evening each week, and on one occasion wrote a vehement letter to a bishop who had forbidden his theologians to study at Freiburg, for fear of their falling under the influence of Hirscher; he asserted even that at first he had placed the writings of Hirscher above those of the Fathers. Hirscher's misfortune was to have known too little of Christian antiquity and especially of the Middle Ages. What he criticized under the name of Scholasticism in his pamphlet of 1823, on the relations of the Gospels with Scholastic theology, were formulæ of a handbook more impregnated with the philosophy of Wolf than with that of St. Thomas. Finally, the sometimes too bitter attacks of which he was the object prevented the diffusion of certain of his ideas which would have been dangerous; but, on the other hand, his zeal as a catechist, his exalted piety, his personal influence, the purity of his intentions, the ardour he displayed in his defence of Vicari, the part he played in the religious awakening in Baden, recognized by the "Historisch-politische BIätter" in 1854, won for Hirscher the gratitude of German Catholics.

LAUCHERT, Revue internationale de théologie (1894), 627-56; (1895), 260-80, 723-38; (1896) 151-74; ROLFUS, Preface to HIRSCHER'S Nachgelassene kleinere Schriften (Freiburg, 1868); KOSSING in WEECH, Badische Biographieen, I (Karlsruhe, 1881), 372-7; SCHLEYER, Hirscher und seine Ankläger (Augsburg, 1843); HEINRICH HURTER, Hurter und seine Zeit (2 vols., Graz, 1876); KLEUTGEN, Theologie der Vorzeit (Paderborn, 1853); THALHOFER, Entwicklung des katholischen Katechismus in Deutschland von Canisius bis Deharbe (Freiburg, 1899); STOLZ, Nachtgebet meines Lebens (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), 99; HETTINGER, Aus Welt und Kirche, II (Freiburg im Br., 1885), 291-95; GOTAU, L'Allemagne Reliqieuse, le Catholicisme, II, III, IV (Paris, 1905-8); HURTER, Nomenclator.

GEORGES GOYAU.

Ecclesiastical History

I. NATURE AND OFFICE

Ecclesiastical history is the scientific investigation and the methodical description of the temporal development of the Church considered as an institution founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost for the salvation of mankind.

In a general way the subject matter of history is everything that suffers change owing to its existence in time and space; more particularly, however, it is the genetical or natural development of facts, events, situations, that history contemplates. The principal subject of history is man, since the external changes in his life affect closely his intellectual interests. Objectively speaking, history is the genetical development of the human mind and of human life itself in its various aspects, as it comes before us in series of facts, whether these pertain to individuals, or to the whole human race, or to any of its various groups. Viewed subjectively, history is the apperception and description of this development, and, in the scientific sense, the comprehension of the same set forth in a methodical and systematic manner. The history of mankind may have as many divisions as human life has aspects or sides. Its noblest form is the history of religion, as it developed in the past among the different groups of the human race. Reason shows that there can be only one true religion, based on the true knowledge and the proper worship of the one God. Thanks to the light of revelation we know that this one true religion is the Christian religion, and, since there are different forms of the Christian religion, that the true religion is in particular the one known as Catholic, concrete and visible in the Catholic Church. The history of Christianity, therefore, or more properly the history of the Catholic Church, is the most important and edifying part of the history of religion. Furthermore, the history of religion is necessarily a history of religious associations, since the specifically human, that is, moral -- and therefore religious -- life, is necessarily social in character. Every religion, therefore, aims naturally at some form of social organization, Christianity all the more so, since it is the highest and most perfect religion. There are three stages in the formation of religious associations:

1. The religious associations of pagans, i. e. of those who had or have no clear knowledge of the one true God. Among them every people has its own gods, religion coincides with nationality and lives no independent life, while the religious association is closely connected or rather wholly bound up with the civil order, and is, like the latter, essentially particularistic.
2. The religious community of the Jews. Although this also was closely connected with the theocratic government of the Jewish people, and hence particularistic and confined to one nation, it was still the custodian of Divine revelation.
3. Christianity, which contains the fullness or perfection of Divine revelation, made known to mankind by the Son of God Himself. In it are realized all the prototypes that appear in Judaism. By its very nature it is universal, destined for all men and all ages. It differs profoundly from all other organizations, lives its own independent life, possesses in its fullness all religious truth and, in opposition to the Jewish religion, recognizes the spirit of love as its highest principle, and penetrates and comprehends the whole spiritual life of man. Its cult is at once the sublimest and purest form of Divine worship. It is in every sense without a peer among human associations.

The annals of Christianity in its widest sense are occasionally dated from the creation of man, seeing that a Divine revelation was made to him from the beginning. However, since Christ is the founder of the perfect religion which derives from Him its name, and which He established as a free and independent association and a sublime common possession of the whole human race, the history of Christianity maybe more naturally taken to begin with the earthly life of the Son of God. The historian, however, must deal with the ages preceding this momentous period, in so far as they prepared mankind for the coming of Christ, and are a necessary elucidation of those factors which influenced the historical development of Christianity. (See LAW, NATURAL, MORAL, DIVINE; GOD.)

The external historical form of Christianity, viewed as the religious association of all the faithful who believe in Christ, is the Church. As the institution which the Son of God founded for the realization on earth of the Kingdom of God and for the sanctification of man, the Church has a double element, the Divine and the human. The Divine element comprises all the truths of Faith which her Founder entrusted to her -- His legislation and the fundamental principles of her organization as an institute destined for the guidance of the faithful, the practice of Divine worship, and the guardianship of all the means by which man receives and sustains his supernatural life (see SACRAMENTS; GRACE). The human element in the Church appears in the manner in which the Divine element manifests itself with the co-operation of the human free will and under the influence of earthly factors. The Divine element is unchangeable, and, strictly speaking, does not fall within the scope of history; the human element on the other hand is subject to change and development, and it is owing to it that the Church has a history. Change appears first of all by reason of the extension of the Church throughout the world since its foundation. During this expansion various influences revealed themselves, partly from within the Church, partly from without, in consequence of which the expansion of Christianity was either hindered or advanced. The inner life of the Christian religion is influenced by various factors: moral earnestness, for example, and a serious realization of the aims of the Church on the part of Christians promote the attainment of her interests; on the other hand, when a worldly spirit and a low standard of morality infect many of her members, the Church's action is gravely impeded. Consequently although the teaching of the Church is in itself, as to its material content, unchangeable considered as supernatural revelation, there is still room for a formal development of our scientific apprehension and explanation of it by means of our natural faculties. The development of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and constitution, of the worship of the Church, of the legislation and discipline which regulate the relations between the members of the Church and maintain order, offers not a few changes which are a proper subject for historical investigation.

We are now in a position to grasp the scope of ecclesiastical history. It consists in the scientific investigation and methodical treatment of the life of the Church in all its manifestations from the beginning of its existence to our own day among the various divisions of mankind hitherto reached by Christianity. While the Church remains essentially the same despite the changes which she undergoes in time, these changes help to exhibit more fully her internal and external life. As to the latter, ecclesiastical history makes known in detail the local and temporal expansion or restriction of the Church in the various countries, and indicates the factors influencing the same (History of Missions, in the widest sense), also the attitude which individual states or political bodies and other religious associations assume towards her (History of Ecclesiastical Polity, of Heresies and their Refutation, and of the Relations of the Church with Non-Catholic Religious Associations). If we turn to the internal life of the Church, ecclesiastical history treats of the development of ecclesiastical teaching, based on the original supernatural deposit of faith (History of Dogma, of Ecclesiastical Theology, and Ecclesiastical Sciences in general), of the development of ecclesiastical worship in its various forms (History of Liturgy), of the utilization of the arts in the service of the Church, especially in connexion with worship (History of Ecclesiastical Art), of the forms of ecclesiastical government and the exercise of ecclesiastical functions (History of the Hierarchy, of the Constitution and Law of the Church), of the different ways of cultivating the perfect religious life (History of Religious Orders), of the manifestations of religious life and sentiment among the people, and of the disciplinary rules whereby Christian morality is cultivated and preserved and the faithful are sanctified (History of Discipline, Religious Life, Christian Civilization.)

II. METHOD AND CHARACTERISTICS

The ecclesiastical historian must apply the principles and general rules of the historical method exactly and in their entirety, and must accept at their proper value all facts which have been proved to be certain. The cornerstone of all historical science is the careful establishment of facts. The ecclesiastical historian will accomplish this by a full knowledge and critical treatment of the sources. An objective, reasonable, and unbiased interpretation of the sources, based on the laws of criticism, is the first principle of the true method of ecclesiastical history. Systematic instruction in this field is obtained through the historical sciences usually known as auxiliary or introductory, i. e. palæography, diplomatics, and criticism.

Secondly, in discussing the facts, ecclesiastical history must ascertain and explain the relation of cause and effect in the events. it is not sufficient merely to establish a certain series of events in their objective appearance; the historian is also bound to lay bare their causes and effects. Nor does it suffice to consider only those factors which lie on the surface and are suggested by the events themselves, as it were: the internal, deeper, and real causes must be brought to light. As in the physical world there is no effect without an adequate cause, so too in the spiritual and moral world every phenomenon has its particular cause, and is in turn the cause of other phenomena. In the ethical and religious world the facts are the concrete realization or outcome of definite spiritual ideas and forces, not only in the life of the individual, but also in that of groups and associations. Individuals and groups without exception are members of the one human race created for a sublime destiny beyond this mortal life. Thus, the action of the individual exercises its influence on the development of the whole human race, and this is true in a special manner of the religious life. Ecclesiastical history must therefore give us an insight into this moral and religious life, and lay clearly before us the development of the ideas active therein, as they appear both in the individual and in the groups of the human race. Moreover, to discover fully the really decisive causes of a given event, the historian must take into account all the forces that concur in producing it. This is particularly true of the free will of man, a consideration of great importance in forming a judgment about ethical phenomena. It follows that the influence of given individuals on the development of the whole body must be properly appreciated. Moreover, the ideas once current in religious, social, and political spheres, and which often survive in the masses of the people, must be justly appreciated, for they help, though as a rule imperceptibly, to determine the voluntary acts of individuals, and thereby to prepare the way for the work of especially prominent persons, and thus make possible the influence of individuals upon the whole race. Scientific church history must therefore take into consideration both the individual and the general factors in its investigation of the genetic connexion of the outward phenomena, at the same time never losing sight of the freedom of man's will. The ecclesiastical historian, moreover, can by no means exclude the possibility of supernatural factors. That God cannot intervene in the course of nature, and that miracles are therefore impossible is an assumption which has not been and cannot be proved, and which makes a correct appreciation of facts in their objective reality impossible. Herein appears the difference between the standpoint of the believing Christian historian, who bears in mind not only the existence of God but also the relations of creatures to Him, and that of the rationalistic and infidel historian, who rejects even the possibility of Divine intervention in the course of natural law.

The same difference of principle appears in the teleological appreciation of the several phenomena and their causal connexion. The believing ecclesiastical historian is not satisfied with establishing the facts and ascertaining the internal relation of cause and effect; he also estimates the value and importance of the events in their relation to the object of the Church, whose sole Christ-given aim is to realize the Divine economy of salvation for the individual as well as for the whole race and its particular groups. This ideal, however, was not pursued with equal intensity at all times. External causes often exercised great influence. In his judgment on such events, the Christian historian keeps in view the fact that the founder of the Church is the Son of God, and that the Church was instituted by Him in order to communicate to the whole human race, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, its salvation through Christ. It is from this standpoint that the Christian historian estimates all particular events in their relation to the end or purpose of the Church. The unbelieving historian on the other hand recognizing only natural forces both at the origin and throughout the development of Christianity, and rejecting the possibility of any supernatural intervention is incapable of appreciating the work of the Church in as far as it is the agent of Divine design.

The foregoing considerations enable us also to understand in what sense ecclesiastical history should be pragmatical. The ecclesiastical historian applies first that philosophical pragmatism which traces the genesis of events from a natural standpoint and in the light of the philosophy of history, and tries to discover the ideas which underlie or are embodied in them. But to this must be added theological pragmatism, which takes its stand on supernatural revealed truth, and strives to recognize the agency of God and His providence, and thus to trace (as far as it is possible for the created mind) the eternal purpose of God as it manifests itself in time. The Catholic historian insists on the supernatural character of the Church, its doctrines, institutions, and standards of life, in so far as they rest on Divine revelation, and acknowledge the continual guidance of the Church by the Holy Ghost. All this is for him objective reality, certain truth, and the only foundation for the true, scientific pragmatism of ecclesiastical history. This view does not hinder or weaken, but rather guides and confirms the natural historical understanding of events, as well as their true critical investigation and treatment. It also includes full recognition and use of the scientific historical method. As a matter of fact, the history of the Church exhibits most clearly a special guidance and providence of God.

A final characteristic, which ecclesiastical history has in common with every other species of history, is impartiality. This consists in freedom from every unfounded and personal prejudice against persons or facts, in an honest willingness to acknowledge the truth as conscientious investigation has revealed it, and to describe the facts or events as they were in reality; in the words of Cicero, to assert no falsehood and to hide no truth (ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne quid veri dicere non audeat, "De Oratore", II, ix, 15). It by no means consists in setting aside those supernatural truths we have come to know, or in stripping off all religious convictions. To demand from the ecclesiastical historian an absence of all antecedent views (Voraussetzungslosigkeit) is not only entirely unreasonable, but an offence against historical objectivity. It could be maintained only on the hypothesis " ignoramus et ignorabimus", that is that the end of scientific investigation is not the discovery of truth, but merely the seeking after truth without ever finding it. Such a hypothesis, however, it is quite impossible to defend, for the assertion of sceptics and rationalists that supernatural truth, or even plain objective truth of any kind, is beyond our reach, is itself an antecedent hypothesis upon which the unbelieving historian bases his investigations. It is therefore only a simulated impartiality, which the rationalistic historian displays when he prescinds entirely from religion and the supernatural character of the Church.

III. DIVISION

The rich and abundant material for scientific investigation that the long life of the Church offers us, has been variously treated by historians. We must first mention the great exhaustive works of a universal nature, in which the entire temporal development of the Church is taken into account (Universal Ecclesiastical History); alongside of these works we find numerous researches on individuals and particular institutions of the Church (Special Ecclesiastical History). These particular expositions treat either of the internal or external life of the Church, as has been explained at length above, and thus lead to a distinction between internal and external history. There are, however, many works which must consider both phases of religious life: to this class belong not only works on church history in general, but also many whose scope is confined to definite spheres (e. g. Histories of the Popes). Special ecclesiastical history falls naturally into three main classes. First we meet with accounts of the lives and activity of individuals (Biographies), who were during their lifetime of special importance for the life of the Church. Moreover special ecclesiastical history treats of particular parts and divisions of the Church in such a manner that either the whole history of a given part is discussed or only selected features of the same. Thus we have historical descriptions of single countries or parts of them, e. g. dioceses, parishes, monasteries, churches. To it also belongs the history of missions, a subject of far-reaching importance. Finally, after a selection of special subjects from the entire mass of material (especially of the internal history of the Church), these are separately investigated and treated. Thus we have the history of the popes, of cardinals, of councils, collections of the lives and legends of the saints, the history of orders and congregations; also of patrology, dogma, liturgy, worship, the law, constitution, and social institutions of the Church.

IV. UNIVERSAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

The office of universal ecclesiastical history is, as its name implies, to exhibit a well-balanced description of all phases of ecclesiastical life. The investigation and treatment of the various phenomena in the life of the Church furnish the material of which universal church history is built. It must first treat of the one true Church which from the time of the Apostles, by its uninterrupted existence and its unique attributes, has proved itself that Christian association which is alone in full possession of revealed truth: the Catholic Church. It must, moreover, deal with those other religious associations which claim to be the Church of Christ, but in reality originated through separation from the true Church. The Catholic historian does not admit that the various forms of the Christian religion may be taken, roughly speaking, as a connected whole, nor does he consider them one and all as so many imperfect attempts to adapt the teachings and institutions of Christ to the changing needs of the times, nor as progressive steps towards a future higher unity wherein alone we must seek the perfect ideal of Christianity. There is but one Divine revelation given us by Christ, but one ecclesiastical tradition based on it; hence one only Church can be the true one, i. e. the Church in which the aforesaid revelation is found in its entirety, and whose institutions have developed on the basis of this revelation and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To assume equality among the various forms of the Christian religion would be equivalent to a denial of the Divine origin and supernatural character of the Church.

While, however, the Catholic Church is the central subject of universal ecclesiastical history, all other forms of the Christian religion must also be considered by it, for they originated by secession from the true Church, and their founders, in so far as each form can be traced back to a founder, were externally members of the Church. Some of these separated bodies still retain among their institutions certain ecclesiastical forms which were in common use at the time of their separation from the Church, wherefore a knowledge of such institutions is of no little use to students of ecclesiastical conditions previous to the separation. This is true in a special manner of the Oriental Christian communities, their liturgy and discipline. Moreover, such schismatic bodies became, as a rule, the bitterest enemies of the Church; they harassed and persecuted its faithful adherents and endeavoured in every way to induce them also to secede. New doctrinal discussions arose as a result of these secessions, ending usually in fuller and more exact statements of Christian teaching, and new methods had to be adopted to nullify the attacks made by apostates on the Catholic Faith. In this way non-Catholic communities have often indirectly influenced the development of the interior life of the Church and the growth of new institutions.

The vast material which, from these points of view, a universal history of the Church must treat, calls of course for methodical arrangement. Ecclesiastical history has generally been divided into three chief periods, each of which is subdivided into shorter epochs characterized by changes of a less universal nature.

First Period:

The foundation of the Church and the development of fixed standards of ecclesiastical life within the limits of Græco-Roman civilization. -- In this period the geographical extent of the Church is practically confined to the Mediterranean lands of the Roman empire. Only in a few places, especially in the Orient, did she overstep its boundaries. The uniform and universal Græco-Roman civilization there prevailing was a propitious soil for the growth of the new ecclesiastical life, which displays three main phases.

• (1) The foundation of the Church by the Apostles, those few but all-important years in which the messengers of God's Kingdom, chosen by Christ Himself, laid out the ground-plan for all subsequent development of the Church (Apostolic Epoch).
• (2) The expansion and interior formation of the Church amid more or less violent but ever persistent attacks on the part of the Roman government (Epoch of Persecutions). In the different provinces of the Roman Empire, and in the East even beyond its confines, Christian communities sprang into life guided originally by men who had been appointed by the Apostles and who continued their work. Insignificant at first, these communities increased steadily in membership despite the equally steady opposition of the Roman government and its sanguinary attempts at repression. It was then that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, worship, the religious life assumed fixed forms that conditioned all later development.
• (3) The third epoch is characterized by a close union between Church and State, by the consequent privileged position of the clergy and the complete conversion of the Roman state (The Christian Empire).

Heresies regarding the person of the Incarnate Son of God bring to the front important dogmatical questions. The first great councils belong to this epoch, as well as the rich ecclesiastico-theological literature of Christian antiquity. Meanwhile the ecclesiastical hierarchy and administration are developed more fully, the primacy of Rome standing out conspicuously as in the preceding epoch. Monasticism introduces a new and important factor into the life of the Church. The fine arts place themselves at the service of the Church. In the eastern half of the empire, later known as the Byzantine empire, this development went on quite undisturbed; in the West the barbarian invasion changed radically the political conditions, and imposed on the Church the urgent and important task of converting and educating new Western nations, a task which she executed with great success. This brought a new element into the life of the Church, so important that it marks the beginning of a new period.

Second Period:

The Church as mistress and guide of the new Romanic, German, and Slavic states of Europe, the secession of Oriental Christendom from ecclesiastical unity and the final overthrow of the Byzantine empire. -- In this period occurred events which for a considerable time greatly affected ecclesiastical life. Three main epochs suggest themselves.

• (1) The first centuries of this epoch are characterized by the development of a close union between the papacy and the new Western society and by the falling away of the Orient from the centre of ecclesiastical unity at Rome. The Church carried out the great work of civilizing the barbarian nations of Europe. Her activity was consequently very many-sided, and she gained a far-reaching influence not only on religious, but also on political and social life. In this respect the creation of the Western Empire. and its relations with the pope as the head of the Church were characteristic of the position of the medieval Church. A deep decline, it is true, followed this alliance of the popes with the Carlovingians. This decline was manifest not only at Rome, the centre of the Church, where the factious Roman aristocracy used the popes as political tools, but also in different parts of the West. Through the intervention of the German emperor the popes resumed their proper position, but at the same time the influence of the secular power on the government of the Church grew dangerous and insupportable. The action of Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, led to a rupture with Rome, which was destined to become final.
• (2) A second part of this period shows how the Christian West grew into the great fellowship of the peoples under the supreme guidance of a common religious authority. Popular life everywhere reflects this Christian universalism. In the conflict with the secular power, the popes succeeded in carrying through ecclesiastical reforms, and at the same time set afoot in the West the great movement of the Crusades. All public interests centered in the ecclesiastical life. Nobles and commonalty, filled with the spirit of faith, furthered vigorously through powerful associations the aims of the Church. The papacy rose to the zenith of its power, not only in the religious, but also in the temporal domain. New orders, particularly the mendicant, fostered a genuine religious life in every rank of society. The universities became the centres of a notable intellectual activity, devoted for the most part to the development of theology. The building of magnificent churches was undertaken in the cities and was an evidence at once of the religious zeal and the vigorous self-confidence of the inhabitants. This powerful position of the Church and her representatives entailed, nevertheless, many dangers, arising on the one hand from the increasing worldliness of the hierarchy, and on the other from the opposition to an excessive centralization of ecclesiastical government in the papal curia, and the antagonism of princes and nations to the political power of the ecclesiastical superiors, particularly the popes.
• (3) In consequence a third epoch of this period is filled with reaction against the evils of the preceding time, and with the evil results of wide-spread worldliness in the Church and the decline of sincerely religious life. It is true that the papacy won a famous victory in its conflict with the German Hohenstaufen, but it soon fell under the influence of the French kings, suffered a grievous loss of authority through the Western Schism and had difficulty at the time of the reform councils (Constance, Pisa, Basle) in stemming a strong anti-papal tide. Furthermore, the civil authority grew more fully conscious of itself, more secular in temper, and frequently hostile to the Church; civil encroachments on the ecclesiastical domain multiplied. In general, the spheres of spiritual and secular authority, the rights of the Church and those of the State, were not definitely outlined until after many conflicts, for the most part detrimental to the Church. The Renaissance introduced a new and secular element into intellectual life; it dethroned from their supremacy the long dominant ecclesiastical studies, disseminated widely pagan and materialistic ideas, and opposed its own methods to those of scholasticism, which had in many ways degenerated. The new heresies took on a more general character. The call for "reform of head and members", so loudly voiced in the councils of those days, seemed to justify the growing opposition to ecclesiastical authority. In the councils themselves a false constitutionalism contended for the supreme administration of the Church with the immemorial papal primacy. So many painful phenomena suggest the presence of great abuses in the religious life of the West. Simultaneously, the Byzantine Empire was completely overthrown by the Turks, Islam gained a strong foothold in south-eastern Europe and threatened the entire Christian West.

Third Period:

The collapse of religious unity among the two western nations and the reformation from within of the ecclesiastical life accomplished during the conflict against the latest of the great heresies. -- Immense geographical expansion of the Church owing to the zealous activity of her missionaries through whom South America, part of North America and numerous adherents in Asia and Africa, were gained for the Catholic Faith. In this period, also, which reaches to our own time, we rightly discern several shorter epochs during which ecclesiastical life is characterized by peculiar and distinctive traits and phenomena.

• (1) The civil life of the various Western peoples was no longer regarded as identified with the life and aims of the Universal Church. Protestantism cut off whole nations, especially in Central and Northern Europe, from ecclesiastical unity and entered on a conflict with the Church which has not yet terminated. On the other hand, the faithful adherents of the Church were more closely united, while the great Œcumenical Council of Trent laid a firm foundation for a thorough reformation in the inner or domestic life of the Church, which was soon realized through the activity of new orders (especially the Jesuits) and through an extraordinary series of great saints. The popes again devoted themselves exclusively to their religious mission and took up the Catholic reforms with great energy. The newly discovered countries of the West, and the changed relations between Europe and the Eastern nations aroused in many missionaries a very active zeal for the conversion of the pagan world. The efforts of these messengers of the Faith were crowned with such success that the Church was in some measure compensated for the defection in Europe.
• (2) The subsequent epoch shows again a decline of ecclesiastical influence and religious life. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, there exist three great religious associations: the true Catholic Church; the Greek schismatical church, which found a powerful protector in Russia, together with the smaller schismatical churches of the East; Protestantism, which, however, never constituted a united religious association, but split up constantly into numerous sects, accepted the direct supremacy of the secular power, and was by the latter organized in each land as a national church. The growing absolutism of states and princes was in this way strongly furthered. In Catholic countries also the princes tried to use the Church as an "instrumentum regni", and to weaken as much as possible the influence of the papacy. Public life lost steadily its former salutary contact with a universal and powerful religion. Moreover, a thoroughly infidel philosophy now levelled its attacks against Christian revelation in general. Protestantism rapidly begot a race of unbelievers and shallow free-thinkers who spread on all sides a superficial scepticism. The political issue of so many fatal influences was the French Revolution, which in turn inflicted the severest injuries on ecclesiastical life.
• (3) With the nineteenth century appeared the modern constitutional state based on principles of the broadest political liberty. Although in the first decades of the nineteenth century the Church was often hampered in her work by the downfall of the old political system, she nevertheless secured liberty under the new national popular government, fully developed her own religious energies, and in most countries was able to exhibit an upward movement in every sphere of religious life. Great popes guided this advance with a strong hand despite the loss of their secular power. The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican, by defining papal infallibility, supported with firmness ecclesiastical authority against a false subjectivism. The defection of the Old Catholics was relatively unimportant. While Protestantism is the daily prey of infidelity and loses steadily all claim to be considered a religion based on Divine revelation, the Catholic Church appears in its compact unity as the true guardian of the unadulterated deposit of faith, which its Divine Founder originally entrusted to it. The conflict is ever more active between the Church, as the champion of supernatural revelation, and infidelity, which aims at supremacy in public life, politics, the sciences, literature, and art. The non-European countries begin to play an important role in the world, and point to new fields of ecclesiastical activity. The Catholic faithful have increased so rapidly during the last century, and the importance of several non-European countries on ecclesiastical life has taken on such proportions, that the universal history of the Church is becoming more and more a religious history of the world.

The great turning-points in the historical development of the Church do not appear suddenly or without due cause. As a rule divers important events occurring within the shorter epochs bring about eventually a change of universal import for the life of the Church, and compel us to recognize the arrival of a new period. Naturally, between these prominent turning-points there are shorter or longer intervals of transition, so that the exact limits of the chief periods are variously set down by different ecclesiastical historians, according to the importance which they severally attach to one or the other of the aforesaid momentous events or situations. The division between the first and second periods has its justification in the fact that, owing to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire and to the relations between the Church and the new Western nations, essentially new forms of life were called into being, while in the East Byzantine culture had become firmly established. The turning-point between the old and the new state of things did not, however, immediately follow the conversion of the Teutonic tribes; a considerable time elapsed before Western life was moving easily in all its new forms. Some (Neander, Jacobi, Baur, etc.) consider the pontificate of Gregory the Great in 590, or (Moeller, Müller), more generally, the end of the sixth and the middle of the seventh century as the close of the first period; others (Döllinger, Kurtz) take the Sixth General Council in 680, or (Alzog, Hergenröther, von Funk, Knöpfler) the Trullan synod of 692, or the end of the seventh century; others again close the first period with St. Boniface (Ritter, Niedner), or with the Iconoclasts (Gieseler, Moehler), or with Charlemagne (Hefele, Hase, Weingarten). For the West Kraus regards the beginning of the seventh century as the close of the first period; for the East, the end of the same century. Speaking generally, however, it seems more reasonable to accept the end of the seventh century as the close of the first period. Similarly, along the line of division between the second and the third periods are crowded events of great importance to ecclesiastical life: the Renaissance with its influence upon all intellectual life, the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, the discovery of America and the new problems which the Church had to solve in consequence, the appearance of Luther and the heresy of Protestantism, the Council of Trent with its decisive influence on the evolution of the interior life of the Church. Protestant historians regard the appearance of Luther as the beginning of the third period. A few Catholic authors (e. g. Kraus) close the second period with the middle of the fifteenth century; it is to be noted, however, that the new historical factors in the life of the Church which condition the third period become prominent only after the Council of Trent, itself an important result of Protestantism. It seems, therefore, advisable to regard the beginning of the sixteenth century as the commencement of the third period.

Nor do authors perfectly agree on the turning-points which are to be inserted within the chief periods. It is true that the conversion of Constantine the Great affected the life of the Church so profoundly that the reign of this first Christian emperor is generally accepted as marking a sub-division in the first period. In the second period, especially prominent personalities usually mark the limits of the several sub-divisions, e.g. Charlemagne, Gregory VII, Boniface VIII, though this leads to the undervaluation of other important factors e. g. the Greek Schism, the Crusades. Recent writers, therefore, assume other boundary lines which emphasize the forces active in the life of the Church rather than prominent personalities. In subdividing the third period the same difficulty presents itself. Many historians consider the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century as an event of sufficient importance to demand a new epoch; others, more reasonably perhaps see a distinct epochal line in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), with which the formation of great Protestant territories came to an end. From the above considerations we deduce the following chronological arrangement of general ecclesiastical history:

First Period:

Origin and Development of the Church in the ancient Græco-Roman world (from the birth of Christ to the close of the seventh century).

• (a) First Epoch: Foundation, expansion and formation of the Church despite the oppression of the pagan-Roman state (from Christ to the Edict of Milan, 313).
• (b) Second Epoch: The Church in close connexion with the Christian-Roman Empire (from the Edict of Milan to the Trullan Synod, 692).

Second Period:

The Church as the guide of the Western nations (from the close of the seventh century to the beginning of the sixteenth).

• (a) First Epoch: The popes in alliance with the Carlovingians, decadence of religious life in the West, isolation of the Byzantine Church and its final rupture with Rome (Trullan Synod to Leo IX, 1054).
• (b) Second Epoch: Interior reformation of ecclesiastical life through the popes, the Crusades, flourishing of the religious life and sciences, acme of the ecclesiastical and political power of the papacy (from 1054 to Boniface VIII, 1303).
• (c) Third Epoch: Decline of the ecclesiastical and political power of the papacy; decay of religious life and outcry for reforms (from 1303 to Leo X, 1521).

Third Period:

The Church after the collapse of the religious unity in the West, struggle against heresy and infidelity, expansion in non-European countries (from beginning of sixteenth century to our own age).

• (a) First Epoch: Origin and expansion of Protestantism; conflict with that heresy and reformation of ecclesiastical life (from 1521 to Treaty of Westphalia, 1648).
• (b) Second Epoch: Oppression of the Church by state-absolutism, weakening of religious life through the influence of a false intellectual emancipation (from 1648 to the French Revolution, 1789).
• (c) Third Epoch: Oppression of the Church by the Revolution; renewal of ecclesiastical life struggling against infidelity; progress of missionary activity (from 1789).

As regards the methodical treatment of the subject-matter within the principal divisions, most writers endeavour to treat the main phases of the internal and external history of the Church in such a manner as to secure a logical arrangement throughout each period. Deviations from this method are only exceptional, as when Darras treats each pontificate separately. This latter method is, however, somewhat too mechanical and superficial, and in the case of lengthy periods it becomes difficult to retain a clear grasp of the facts and to appreciate their interconnexion. Recent writers, therefore, aim at such a division of the matter within the different periods as will lay more stress on the important forms and expressions of ecclesiastical life (Moeller, Muller, Kirsch in his revision of Hergenröther). The larger periods are divided into a number of shorter epochs, in each of which the most important event or situation in the history of the Church stands out with distinctness, other phases of ecclesiastical life -- including the ecclesiastical history of the individual countries -- being treated in connexion with this central subject. The subject-matter of each period thus receives a treatment at once chronological and logical, and most in keeping with the historical development of the events portrayed. The narrative gains in lucidity and artistic finish, within the shorter periods the historical material is more easily grasped, while the active forces in all great movements appear in bolder relief. It is true that this method involves a certain inequality in the treatment of the various phases of ecclesiastical life, but the same inequality already existed in the historical situation described.

V. SOURCES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Historical sources are those human products which were either originally intended, or which -- on account of their existence, origin, and other conditions -- are preeminently fitted, to furnish knowledge and evidence of historical facts. The sources of ecclesiastical history are therefore whatever things, either because of their object or of other circumstances, can throw light on the facts that make up the ecclesiastical life of the past. These sources fall naturally into two classes:

• (A) Remains (reliquiœ, Ueberreste) or immediate sources, i. e. such as prove a fact directly, being themselves part or remnant of the fact. To this class belong remains in the narrower sense of the word, e. g. liturgical customs, ecclesiastical institutions, acts of the popes and councils, art-products etc.; also monuments set up to commemorate events, e. g. inscriptions.
• (B) Tradition or mediate sources, i. e. such as rest upon the statements of witnesses who communicate an event to others. Tradition may be oral (narrative and legends), written (writings of particular authors), or pictorial (pictures, statues).

The critical treatment of the two kinds of sources differs. It is usually sufficient to prove the authenticity and integrity of "remains" in order to establish the validity of their evidence. In dealing with tradition, on the other hand, it must be proved that the author of the source in question deserves credit, also that it was possible for him to know the fact. The sources are further divided:

• (a) according to their origin, into divine (the canonical sacred writings) and human (all other sources);
• (b) according to the position of the author, into public (such as originated from an official person or magistrate, e.g. papal writings, decrees of councils, pastoral letters of bishops, rules of orders etc.) and private (such as come from a person holding no public office, or from an official in his private capacity, e.g. biographies, works of ecclesiastical writers, private letters etc.);
• (c) according to the religion of the author, into domestic (of Christian origin) and foreign (i.e. written by non-Christians);
• (d) according to the manner of transmission, into written (inscriptions, public acts, writings of all kinds) and unwritten (monuments, art-products stories, legends etc.).

The aforesaid historical sources have in modern times been fully and critically investigated by numerous scholars and are now easily accessible to all in good editions. A very general outline of these sources will suffice here (see special articles in this Encyclopedia).

(A) Remains

The remains of the Church's past, which give direct evidence of historical facts, are the following:

• (1) Inscriptions, i.e. texts written on durable material, which were either meant to perpetuate the knowledge of certain acts, or which describe the character and purpose of a particular object. The Christian inscriptions of different epochs and countries are now accessible in numerous collections.
• (2) Monuments erected for Christian purposes, especially tombs, sacred edifices, monasteries, hospitals for the sick and pilgrims; objects used in the liturgy or private devotions.
• (3) Liturgies, rituals, particularly liturgical books of various kinds, which were once used in Divine service.
• (4) Necrologies and confraternity-books used at the prayers and public services for the living and the dead.
• (5) Papal acts, Bulls and Briefs to a great extent edited in the papal "Bullaria", "Regesta", and special ecclesiastico-national collections.
• (6) Acts and decrees of general councils and of particular synods.
• (7) Collections of official decrees of Roman congregations, bishops, and other ecclesiastical authorities.
• (8) Rules of faith (Symbola fldei) drawn up for the public use of the Church, various collections of which have been made.
• (9) Official collections of ecclesiastical laws juridically obligatory for the whole Church.
• (10) Rules and constitutions of orders and congregations.
• (11) Concordats between the ecclesiastical and the secular power.
• (12) Civil laws, since they often contain matters bearing on religion or of ecclesiastical interest.

(B) Tradition

We speak here of those sources which rest on mere tradition, and which, unlike the remains, are themselves no part of the fact. They are:

• (1) Collections of acts of the martyrs, of legends and lives of the saints.
• (2) Collections of lives of the popes (Liber Pontiflcalis) and of bishops of particular Churches.
• (3) Works of ecclesiastical writers, which contain information about historical events; to some extent all ecclesiastical literature belongs to this category.
• (4) Ecclesiastico-historical works, which take on more or less the character of sources, especially for the time in which their authors lived.
• (5) Pictorial representations (paintings, sculptures, etc.).

The foregoing are accessible in various collections, partly in editions of the works of particular authors (Fathers of the Church, theologians, historians), partly in historical collections which contain writings of different authors correlated in content, or all the traditional written sources for a given land.

VI. AUXILIARY SCIENCES

The basis of all historical science is the proper treatment and use of the sources. The ecclesiastical historian must therefore master the sources in their entirety, examine them as to their trustworthiness, understand them correctly, and use methodically the information gleaned from them. Systematic guidance in all these matters is afforded by certain sciences, known as the "auxiliary historical sciences". Since ecclesiastical history is so closely related to theology on the one hand, and on the other to the historical sciences, a knowledge of all is generally speaking a prerequisite for the scientific study of church history. How to treat the sources critically is best learned from a good manual of scientific introduction to the study of history (Bernheim); special auxiliary sciences (e. g. epigraphy, palæography, numismatics) deal with certain particular kinds of the above-mentioned sources. Of these helps we may mention:

• (1) The study of the languages of the sources, which necessitates the use of lexicons, either general or special (i. e. for the language of particular authors). Among the general lexicons or glossaries are: Du Fresne du Cange, "Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ græcitatis" (2 vols., Lyons, 1688); Idem, "Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ latinitatis"; Forcellini, "Lexicon totius latinitatis" (Padua, 1771, often reprinted). "Thesaurus linguæ latinæ" (begun at Leipzig, 1900).
• (2) Palœography, a methodical introduction to the reading and dating of all kinds of manuscript sources. It was first scientifically investigated and formulated by Mabillon, "De re diplomaticâ" (Paris, 1681); the literature on this subject is to be found in the manuals of de Wailly, "Elements de Paléographie" (2 vols., Paris, 1838); Wattenbach, "Latein. Paläog." (4th ed., Leipzig, 1886) and "Schriftwesen im Mittelalter" (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1896); E. M. Thompson, "Handbook of Greek and Latin Palæography" (2nd ed., London, 1894); Prou, "Manuel de Paléographie latine et française" (Paris, 1904); Chassant, "Paléographie des chartes et des manuscrits" (8th ed., Paris, 1885); Reusens, "Elements de paléogr." (Louvain, 1899); Paoli, "Paleografia" (3 vols., Florence, 1888-1900). Charts for practice in reading medieval manuscripts were edited by: Wattenbach, "Script. græc. specimina" (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1897); Sickel, "Monum. graph. medil ævi" (10 series, 1858-82); Bond, Thompson, and Warner, "Facsimiles" (5 series, London, 1873-1903); Delisle, "Album paléogr." (Paris, 1887); Arndt and Tangl, "Schrifttafeln" (3 vols., 1904-6); Chroust, "Mon. palæogr." (25 series, Munich, 1899-); Steffens, "Latein. Paläogr." (2nd ed., 3 parts, Trier, 1907-); Zangemeister and Wattenbach, "Exempla cod. latin." (1876-9); Sickel and Sybel, "Kaiserurkunden in Abbildungen (1880-91); Pflugk-Harttung, "Chartarum pont. Rom. specimina" (3 parts, 1881-6); Denifle, "Specimina palæographica ab Inn. III ad Urban. V" (Rome, 1888), A very useful work is Capelli, "Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane" (Milan, 1899).
• (3) Diplomatics, which teaches how to examine critically the form and content of historical documents (e. g. charters, privileges), to pronounce on their genuineness, to understand them correctly, and to use them methodically. It is usually combined with paleography. The literature may be found in recent manuals, e. g. Bresslau, "Handbuch der Urkundenlehre für Deutschland und Italien", I (Leipzig, 1889); Giry, "Manuel de diplomatique" (Paris, 1894). See also "Nouveau traité de diplomatique" (Paris, 1750-65).
• (4) Historical Methodology, which enables the student to treat in a correct and critical way all the sources known to him and to combine the results of his researches in a methodical narrative. See Fr. Blass, "Hermeneutik und Kritik" in Iwan Müller's "Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft", I (2nd ed., Munich, 1893); Bernheim, "Lehrbuch der historischen Methode" (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1903); Idem, "Das akademische Studium der Geschichtswissenschaft (2nd ed., Greifswald, 1907); Idem, "Einleitung in die Geschichtswissenschaft" in "Sammlung Goschen" (Leipzig, 1906); Zurbonsen, "Anleitung zum wissenschaftlichen Studium der Geschichte nebst Materialien" (Berlin, 1906); "Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft", edited by Al. Meister, I (Leipzig, 1906); Langlois and Saignobos, "Introduction aux études historiques" (Paris, 1905); Battaini, "Manuale di metodologia storica" (Florence, 1904).
• (5) Bibliography, a practical science which enables the student to find quickly all the literature bearing on a given ecclesiastico-historical subject. The most important literature is to be found in recent ecclesiastico-historical manuals at the end of the various subjects treated, and is given with especial fulness in the fourth edition of Hergenröther's "Kirchengeschichte" by J. P. Kirsch (Freiburg, 1902-9). Among the bibliographical works of special importance for ecclesiastical history must be named: "Bibliotheca hagiographica latina antiquæ et mediæ ætatis", edited by the Bollandists (2 vols., Brussels, 1898-1901); Potthast, "Bibliotheca historica medii ævi" (2nd ed., 2 vols., Berlin, 1896); Bratke, "Wegweiser zu den Quellen und der Literatur der Kirchengeschichte" (Gotha, 1890); Chevalier, "Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen-âge: I. Bio-Bibliographie" (Paris, 1877-88, 2nd ed., 2 vols., ibid., 1905); "II. Topo-Bibliographie historique" (2 parts, Paris, 1901-4); Stein, "Manuel de bibliographie generale" (Paris, 1898); de Smedt, "Introductio generalis ad historiam ecclesiasticam critice tractandam" (Ghent 1876); Hurter, "Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologiæ catholicæ" (2nd ed., 3 vols., Innsbruck, 1890-4; vol. 4: "Theologia catholica medii ævi", ibid., 1899. A third edition comprises the whole of ecclesiastical history, ibid., 1903-). For the history of the several nations see: Wattenbach, "Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrh." (6th ed., Berlin, 1894, 7th ed. by Dummler, I, ibid., 1904); Lorenz, "Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter seit der Mitte des 13. Jahrh." (3rd ed., ibid., 1886); Dahlmann and Waitz, "Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte" (6th ed. by Steindorff, Göttingen, 1894); Monod, "Bibliographic de l'histoire de France" (Paris, 1888); Molinier, "Les sources de l'histoire de France" (6 vols., Paris 1902); Gross, "The Sources and Literature of English History from the earliest times to about 1485" (London, 1900). Among the bibliographical periodicals that treat the history of the Church see : "Theologischer Jahresbericht" (since 1880), in the section "Kirchengeschichte"; "Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft" (since 1878) in the section "Kirchengeschichte"; "Bibliographie der kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur", in the "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte". The most complete bibliography of church history is now to be found in "Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique" (Louvain, since 1900).
• (6) Chronology, which instructs the student how to recognize and fix with accuracy the dates found in the sources. The first important chronological investigations were undertaken by Scaliger ("De emendatione temporum," Jena, 1629-), Petavius ("Rationarium temporum", Leyden, 1624; "De doctrinâ temporum", Antwerp, 1703), and the authors of "Art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques" (Paris, 1750-). The most important recent works are: Ideler, "Handbuch der mathem. u. techn. Chronologie" (Berlin, 1825; 2nd ed., 1883); De Mas-Latrie, "Trésor de chronologie, d'histoire et de géographie pour l'étude et l'emploi des documents du moyen-âge" (Paris, 1889); Brinkmeier, "Praktisches Handbuch der historischen Chronologie aller Zeiten und Völker" (2nd ed., Berlin, 1882); Rühl, "Chronologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit" (Berlin, 1897); Lersch, "Einleitung in die Chronologie" (Freiburg, 1899); Grotefend, "Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und den Neuzeit" (Hanover, 1891-8); Cappelli, "Cronologia e calendario perpetuo" (Milan, 1906); Ginzel, "Handbuch den mathemat. und technischen Chronologie. Das Zeitrechnungswesen den Völker", I (Leipzig, 1906).
• (7) Ecclesiastical Geography and Statistics, the first teaches us to recognize the places in which historical events took place, the other represents the development of the Church and the actual condition of her institutions exhibited synoptically, in tables with corresponding figures, etc. Important works of this kind are: Le Quien, "Oriens christianus" (3 vols., Paris, 1740); Morcelli, "Africa christiana" (2 vols., Brescia, 1816); Toulotte, "Géographie de l'Afrique chrétienne" (Paris, 1892-4); Ughelli, "Italia sacra" (2nd ed., 10 vols., Venice, 1717-22); "Gallia Christiana" by Claude Robert (Paris, 1626), by Denis de Sainte-Marthe and others (new editions, 16 vols., Paris, 1715-); Böttcher, "Germania sacra" (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874); Neher, "Kirchliche Geographie und Statistik" (3 vols., Ratisbon, 1864-8); Idem, "Conspectus hierarchiæ catholicæ" (Ibid., 1895); Silbernagl, "Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämtlicher Kirchen des Orients" (2nd ed., Munich, 1904); Baumgarten, "Die katholische Kirche unserer Zeit und ihre Diener", III (Munich, 1902, 2nd ed., vol. II, ibid., 1907); Gams, "Series episcoporum ecclesiæ catholicæ' (Ratisbon, 1873; Supplem, 1879 and 1886), continued by Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii ævi", I-II (Münster, 1898-1901); Spruner and Menke, "Historischer Handatlas" (3rd ed., Gotha, 1880); Werner, "Katholischer Kirchenatlas" (Freiburg im Br., 1888); Idem, "Katholischer Missionsatlas" (2nd ed., ibid., 1885); McClure, "Ecclesiastical Atlas" (London, 1883); Heussi and Mulert, "Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte" (Tübingen, 1905); see also the annual Catholic directories of various nations (England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, etc.) and the new "Dictionnaire d'Hist. et de Géog. ecclés.", edited by Baudrillart, Vogt, and Rouziès (Paris, 1909-).
• (8) Epigraphy, a guide for the reading and methodical use of the Christian inscriptions on monuments. Works on this science are: Larfeld, "Griechische Epigraphik" and Hübner, "Römische Epigraphik", both in Iwan Müller's "Handbuch der klassischen Altertumskunde", I (2nd ed., Munich, 1892); Reinash, "Traité d'épigraphie grecque" (Paris, 1886); Cagnat, "Cours d'épigraphie latine" (3rd ed., Paris, 1898); De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christianæ urbis Romæ" I and II, "Introductio" (Rome, 1861-88); Le Blant, "L'épigraphie chrétienne en Gaule et dans l'Afrique romaine" (Paris, 1890); Idem, "Paléographie des inscriptions latines de la fin du III au VII siècle" (Paris, 1898); Grisar, "Le iscrizioni cristiane di Roma negli inizi del medio evo" in "Analecta Romana" (Rome, 1899).
• (9) Christian Archœology and History of the Fine Arts, from which the student learns how to study scientifically and to use the monuments which owe their origin to Christian influences. See CHRISTIAN ARCHÆOLOGY and ECCLESIASTICAL ART.
• (10) Numismatics, the science of the coins of various countries and ages. Since not only the popes but also the numerous bishops, who once possessed secular power, exercised the right of coinage, numismatics belongs, at least for certain epochs, to the auxiliary sciences of church history. See Bonanni, "Numismata Pontificum Romanorum" (3 vols., Rome, 1699); "Numismata Pontificum Romanorum et aliarum ecclesiarum" (Cologne, 1704); Vignolius, "Antiqui denarii Romanorum Pontificum a Benedicto XI ad Paulum III" (2 vols., Rome, 1709; new ed. by B. Floravanti, 2 vols., Rome, 1734-8); Scilla, "Breve notizia delle monete pontificie antiche e moderne" (Rome, 1715); Venuti, "Numismata pontificum Romanorum præstantiora a Martino V ad Benedictum XIV" (Rome, 1744); Garampi, "De nummo argenteo Benedicti III dissertatio" (Rome, 1749). For further bibliography see von Ebengreuth, "Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte des Mittelalters und den neueren Zeit" (Munich, 1904) and in Engel and Serrure, "Traité de numism. du moyen-âge".
• (11) Sphragistics, or the science of seals (Gk. spragis, a seal). Its object is the study of the various seals and stamps used in sealing letters and documents as a guarantee of their authenticity. Besides the works mentioned above under Diplomatics, see Pflugk and Harttung, "Specimina selecta chartarum Pontificum Romanorum", part III, "Bullæ" (Stuttgart, 1887); Idem, "Bullen der Päpste bis zum Ende des XII Jahrh." (Gotha, 1901); Baumgarten, "Aus Kanzlei und Kammer: Bullatores, Taxatores domorum, Cursores" (Freiburg, 1907); Heineccius, "De veteribus Germanorum aliarumque nationum sigillis" (Frankfort, 1719); Grotefend, "Ueber Sphragistik" (Breslau, 1875); Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Waldenburg, "Sphragistische Aphorismen" (Heilbronn, 1882); Ilgen in Meister, "Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft", I (Leipzig, 1906).
• (12) Heraldry, which teaches the student how to read accurately the coats of arms etc., used by ecclesiastical and secular lords. It frequently throws light on the family of historical personages, the time or character of particular events, the history of religious monuments. The literature of this science is very extensive. See Brend, "Die Hauptstücke der Wappenkunde" (2 vols., Bonn, 1841-9); Idem, "Allgemeine Schriftenkunde der gesammten Wappenwissenschaft"; Seiler, "Geschichte den Heraldik" (Nuremberg, 1884); E. von Sacken, "Katechismus der Heraldik" (5th ed., Leipzig, 1893); Burke, "Encyclopedia of Heraldry" (London, 1878); Davies, "Encyclopedia of Armory" (London, 1904); Pasini-Frassoni, "Essai d'armorial des papes d'après les manuscrits du Vatican et les monuments publics" (Rome, 1906).

VII. LITERATURE OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

The peoples among which Christianity first spread, possessed a highly developed civilization and a literature rich in works of history. They possessed the historical sense, and though in early Christian times there was little occasion for extended ecclesiastical historical works, nevertheless historical records were not wholly wanting. The New Testament was itself largely historical, the Gospels being literally narratives of the life and death of Christ. Soon we meet the accounts of the conflict with the Roman state (Acts of the Apostles) and traditions of widespread Christian suffering (Acts of the Martyrs). The (lost) anti-Gnostic work of Hegesippus also contained historical information. Chronicles were compiled in the third century by Julius Africanus and by Hippolytus, some fragments of which are yet extant. It is only during the fourth century that ecclesiastical history, properly so called, makes its appearance. Any synopsis of its vast materials falls into three periods corresponding to the three main periods of church history.

(A) Church Historians during the First Period

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine (died 340) is rightly styled the "Father of Church History". We are indebted to him for a "Chronicle" (P. G., XIX) and a "Church History" (ibid., XX; latest scientific edition by Schwartz and Mommsen, 2 vols, in "Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der drei ersten Jahrhunderte", Berlin, 1903-8). The "Church History" was an outgrowth of the "Chronicle", and was the first work to merit fully the name it bore. It first appeared in nine books and covered the time from the death of Christ to the victories of Constantine and Licinius (312 and 313). Eusebius afterwards added a tenth book, which carried the narrative to the victory of Constantine over Licinius (323). He made use of many ecclesiastical monuments and documents, acts of the martyrs, letters, extracts from earlier Christian writings, lists of bishops, and similar sources, often quoting the originals at great length so that his work contains very precious materials not elsewhere preserved. It is therefore of great value, though it pretends neither to completeness nor to the observance of due proportion in the treatment of the subject-matter. Nor does it present in a connected and systematic way the history of the early Christian Church. It is to no small extent a vindication of the Christian religion, though the author did not primarily intend it as such; it is impossible, however, for any true history of the Church not to exhibit at once the Divine origin of the latter and its invincible power. Eusebius has been often accused of intentional falsification of the truth, but quite unjustly; it may be admitted, however, that in judging persons or facts he is not entirely unbiased. On the other hand, he has been rightly censured for or his partiality towards Constantine the Great and his palliation of the latter's faults ("Vita Constantini" in P. G., XX, 905 sqq.; latest scientific ed. Heikel, "Eusebius' Werke", I, Leipzig, 1902, in "Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte"). In his biography of the great emperor, Eusebius, it must be remembered, sought to set forth in the most favourable light the Christian sentiments of the imperial convert and his great services to the Christian Church. A brief historical treatise of Eusebius, "On the Martyrs of Palestine", has also been preserved.

This great Christian historian found several imitators in the first half of the fifth century; it is to be regretted, however, that the first two general narratives of ecclesiastical history after Eusebius have been lost -- i. e. the "Christian History" of the presbyter Philip of Side in Pamphylia (Philippus Sidetes), and the "Church History" of the Arian Philostorgius. Three other early ecclesiastical histories written about this period are also lost (the presbyter Hesychius of Jerusalem (died 433), the Apollinarian, Timotheus of Berytus, and Sabinus of Heraclea). About the middle of the fifth century the "Church History" of Eusebius was continued simultaneously by three writers -- an evidence of the esteem in which this work of the "Father of Church History" was held among scholarly ecclesiastics. All three continuations have reached us. The first was written by Socrates, an advocate (scholasticus) of Constantinople, who, in his "Church History" (P. G., LXVII, 29-842; ed. Hussey, Oxford, 1853), which he expressly (I, 1) calls a continuation of the work of Eusebius, describes in seven books the period from 305 (Abdication of Diocletian) to 439. It is a work of great value. The author is honest, exhibits critical acumen in the use of his sources, and has a clear and simple style. After him, and frequently making use of his history, comes Hermias Sozomenus (or Sozomen), also an advocate in Constantinople, whose "Church History" in nine books comprises the period from 324 to 425 (P. G., LXVII, 834-1630; ed. Hussey, Oxford, 1860), but is inferior to that of Socrates. Both these writers are surpassed by the learned Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (died about 458), who, in his "Church History" (P. G., LXXXII, 881-1280; ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1854), a continuation of the work of Eusebius, describes in five books the period from the beginning of Arianism (320) to the beginning of the Nestorian troubles (428). In addition to the writings of his predecessors, Socrates and Sozomen, he also used those of the Latin scholar Rufinus, and wove many documents into his clear well-written narrative. Theodoret wrote also a "History of the Monks" (P. G., LXXXII, 1283-1496), in which he sets forth the lives of thirty famous ascetics of the Orient. Like the famous "History of the Holy Fathers" ("Historia Lausiaca", so called from one Lausus to whom the book was dedicated by Palladius, written about 420; Migne, P. G., XXXIV, 995-1278; Butler, "The Lausiac History of Palladius", Cambridge, 1898), this work of Theodoret is one of the principal sources for the history of Oriental monasticism. Theodoret also published a "Compendium of Heretical Falsehoods", i. e. a short history of heresies with a refutation of each (P. G., LXXXIII, 335-556). Together with the similar "Panarion" of St. Epiphathus (P. G., XLI-XLII), it offers important material to the student of the earliest heresies.

During the sixth century these historians, found other continuators. Theodorus Lector compiled a brief compendium (yet unedited) from the works of the above-mentioned three continuators of Eusebius: Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. He then wrote in two books an independent continuation of this summary as far as the reign of Emperor Justin I (518-27); only fragments of this work have reached us (P. G., LXXXVI, I, 165-228). Zacharias Rhetor, at first an advocate at Berytus in Phœnicia and then (at least from 536) Bishop of Mitylene in the Island of Lesbos, composed, while yet a layman, an ecclesiastical history, which describes the period from 450 to 491, but is mostly taken up with personal experiences of the author in Egypt and Palestine. A Syriac version of this work is extant as books III-VI of a Syriac universal history, while there are also extant some chapters in a Latin version (Laud, "Anecdota Syriaca", Leyden, 1870; P. G., LXXV, 1145-78; Ahrens and Krüger, "Die sogennante Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor", Leipzig, 1899). Apart from this history, his inclination towards Monophysitism is also apparent from his biography of the Monophysite patriarch, Severus of Antioch, and from his biography of the monk Isaias, two works extant in a Syriac version (Laud, op. cit., 346-56, edited the "Life of Isaias", and Spanuth, Göttingen, 1893, the "Life of Severus"; cf. Nau in "Revue de l'orient chrétien", 1901, pp. 26-88). More important still is the "Church History" of Evagrius of Antioch, who died about the end of the sixth century. His work is a continuation of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and treats in six books the period from 431 to 594. It is based on good sources, and borrows from profane historians but occasionally Evagrius is too credulous. For Nestorianism and Monophysitism, however, his work deserves careful attention (P. G., LXXXVI, I, 2415-886; edd. Bidez and Parmentier in "Byzantine Texts" by J. B. Bury, London, 1899). Among the chronicles that belong to the close of Græco-Roman antiquity, special mention is due to the Chronicon Paschale, so called because the Paschal or Easter canon forms the basis of its Christian chronology (P. G., XCII). About the year 700 the Monophysite bishop, John of Nikiu (Egypt) compiled a universal chronicle; its notitiœ are of great value for the seventh century. This chronicle has been preserved in an Ethiopic version ("Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou", publ. par. H. Zotenberg, Paris, 1883). Zotenberg believes that the work was originally written in Greek and then translated; Nöldeke ("Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen", 1881, 587 sqq.) thinks it more probable that the original was Coptic. To the Alexandrian Cosmas, known as the "Indian Voyager" we owe a Christian "Topography" of great value for ecclesiastical geography (ed. Montfaucon, "Collectio nova Patrum et Scriptor. græc", II, Paris, 1706; translated into English by McCrindle, London, 1897). Of great value also for ecclesiastical geography are the "Notitiæ episcopatuum" (Taktika), or lists of the patriarchal, metropolitan, and episcopal sees of the Greek Church ("Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiæ græcæ episcopatuum", ed. Parthey, Berlin, 1866; "Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis Romani", ed. Geizer, Leipzig, 1890). The most important collection of the early Greek historians of the Church is that of Henri de Valois in three folio volumes (Paris, 1659-73; improved by W. Reading, Cambridge, 1720); it contains Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, and the fragments of Philostorgius and Theodorus Lector.

The ancient Syrian writings of ecclesiastico-historical interest are chiefly Acts of martyrs and hymns to the saints ("Acta martyrum et sanctorum", ed. Bedjan, Paris, 1890-). The "Chronicle of Edessa", based on ancient sources, was written in the sixth century (ed. Assemani, "Bibliotheca orientalis", I, 394). In the same century the Monophysite bishop, John of Ephesus, wrote a history of the Church, but only its third part (571 to 586) is preserved (ed. Cureton, Oxford, 1853; tr., Oxford, 1860). Lengthy extracts from the second part are found in the annals of Dionysius of Telmera. His work covers the years 583-843 (fragments in Assemani, "Bibliotheca orientalis", II, 72 sqq.). Among the Armenians we meet with versions of Greek and Syriac works. The most important native Armenian chronicle of an ecclesiastico-historical character is ascribed to Moses of Chorene, an historical personage of the fifth century. The author of the "History of Greater Armenia" calls himself Moses of Chorene, and claims to have lived in the fifth century and to have been a disciple of the famous St. Mesrop (q. v.). The self-testimony of the compiler must be rejected, since the work makes use of sources of the sixth and seventh centuries, and there is no trace of it to be found in Armenian literature before the ninth century. Probably, therefore, it originated about the eighth century. In the known manuscripts the work contains three parts: the "Genealogy of Greater Armenia" extends to the dynasty of the Arsacides, the "Middle Period of our Ancestry" to the death of St. Gregory the Illuminator, and the "End of the History of our Country" to the downfall of the Armenian Arsacides (ed. Amsterdam, 1695; Venice, 1881; French translation in Langlois, "Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Arménie", 2 vols., Paris, 1867-9). In the Middle Ages there was still extant a fourth part. The work seems to be on the whole reliable. The ancient history, down to the second or third century after Christ, is based on popular legends. Another Armenian historian is St. Elishé (q. v.).

Comprehensive ecclesiastico-historical works appear in the Latin West later than in the Greek East. The first beginnings of historical science are confined to translations with additions. Thus St. Jerome translated the "Chronicle" of Eusebius and continued it down to 378. At the same time he opened up a special field, the history of Christian literature, in his "De viris illustribus"; ("Chronicon", ed. Schoene, 2 vols., Berlin, 1866-75; "De vir. ill.", ed. Richardson, Leipzig, 1896). About 400 the "Church History" of Eusebius was translated by Rufinus who added the history of the Church from 318 to 395 in two new books (X and XI). Rufinus's continuation was itself soon translated into Greek. The latest edition is in the Berlin collection of Greek Christian writings mentioned above in connexion with Eusebius. St. Jerome's Latin recension of the "Chronicle" of Eusebius was followed later by many other chronicles, among which may be mentioned the works of Prosper, Idacius, Marcellinus, Victor of Tununum, Marius of Avenches, Isidore of Seville, and Venerable Bede. In the West, the first independent history of revelation and of the Church was written by Sulpicius Severus, who published in 403 his "Historia (Chronica) Sacra" in two books; it reaches from the beginning of the world to about 400 (P. L., XX; ed. Hahn, Vienna, 1866). It is a short treatise and contains little historical information. A little later, Orosius wrote his "Historia adversus paganos" in seven books -- a universal history from the standpoint of the Christian apologist. It begins with the deluge and comes down to 416. The purpose of Orosius was to refute the pagan charge that the great misfortunes of the Roman Empire were due to the victory of Christianity (P. L., XXXI; ed. Zangemeister, Vienna, 1882). With the same end in view, but with a far grander and loftier conception, St. Augustine wrote his famous "De civitate Dei", composed between 413 and 428, and issued in sections. It is an apologetic philosophy of history from the standpoint of Divine revelation. The work is important for church history on account of its numerous historical and archæological digressions (ed. Dombart, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877). About the middle of the sixth century, Cassiodorus caused the works of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret to be translated into Latin, and then amalgamated this version into one complete narrative under the title "Historia tripartita" (P. L., LXIX-LXX). Together with the works of Rufinus and Orosius, it was one of the principal sources from which through the Middle Ages the Western peoples drew their knowledge of early church history. Rich material for ecclesiastical history is also contained in the national histories of some Western peoples. Of the "History of the Goths", written by Cassiodorus, we possess only an extract in Jordanis, "De origine actibusque Getarum" (ed. Mommsen in "Mon. Germ. Hist: Auct. antiquissimi", V., Berlin, 1882). Especially important is the "History of the Franks" in ten books by Gregory of Tours, which reaches to 591 (ed. Arndt, "Mon. Germ. Hist: Scriptores rerum Meroving.", I, Hanover, 1884-5). Gregory wrote also a "Liber de vitâ Patrum", a work entitled "In gloriâ martyrum", and the book "De virtutibus (i.e. miracles) S. Juliani" and "De virtutibus S. Martini" (ed. cit., pt. II, ad. Krusch). In the beginning of the seventh century St. Isidore of Seville composed a "Chronicle of the West Goths" ("Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum, Suevorum", ed. Mommsen, "Chronica Minora", II, 241-303). Several other similar chronicles, from the fourth to the seventh century, were edited by Mommsen in the "Monumenta Germaniæ Historica: Auctores Antiquissimi" under the title of "Chronica Minora".

(B) The Church Historians of the Second Period

The second period of church history, it is true, produced a copious historical literature, although it belongs rather to special than to general church history. Its works deal more often with particular nations, dioceses, and abbeys; general histories are rare. Moreover, owing to the dominant position of the Church among the Western peoples, ecclesiastical and profane history are in this epoch closely interwoven.

In the East church history is almost completely identified with the history of the imperial court owing to the close relations of State and Church. For the same reason the Byzantine chronicles from Justinian the Great to the destruction of the empire in the middle of the fifteenth century contain much valuable information about the history of the Greek Church. The most important of them are: the "Chronography of Theophanes Isaacius" (ed. de Boor, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1885); the "Chronicles" of Georgius Syncellus, George Hamartolus, Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, John Malalas, Procopius, Paulus Silentiarius, the works of Leo Diaconus, Anna Comnena, Zonaras, Georgius Cedrenus, to which we may add Nicetas Choniates, Georgius Pachymeres, Nicephorus Gregoras, and John Cantacuzenus. These Byzantine historical works were first published in a large collection at Paris (1645-1711) under the title, "Byzantinæ historiæ Scriptores". A new edition, better and more complete, was executed by Niebuhr, Becker, Dindorf, and other collaborators in forty volumes (Bonn, 1828-78) under the title, "Corpus Scriptorum historiæ Byzantinæ". Most of these writings are also to be found in the Patrologia Græca of Migne. The only true church historian of the Byzantine period worthy of the name is Nicephorus Callistus, who flourished in the beginning of the fourteenth century.

In Syriac we possess the aforesaid chronicle of Dionysius of Telmera. Towards the end of the twelfth century Michael Kandis, Patriarch of the Jacobites (died 1199), wrote a chronicle from the creation to 1196. It is an important source for the history of the Syriac Church after the sixth century, particularly for the history of the Crusades. This work has reached us in a thirteenth century Armenian version; a French translation was published by Langlois, "Chronique de Michel le Grand" (Venice, 1868). Another patriarch of the Jacobites, Gregory Abulpharagius or Bar-Hebræus, Maphrian (i. e. primate) of the Syro-Jacobite Church (1266-86), also wrote a universal chronicle in three parts. We must also mention the "Bibliotheca" (Myriobiblon) of Photius (died 891), in which about 280 authors are described and passages quoted from them (ed. Becker, Berlin, 1834), and the work "On Heresies" of St. John Damascene.

Throughout this period the West was furnishing abundant material for ecclesiastical history, but few genuinely historical works. Public life moved in narrow circles; a speculative tendency ruled in the centres of intellectual activity; consequently, ecclesiastico-historical works of a general character accorded ill with the spirit of the age, and during the whole period from the eighth to the fifteenth century the West offers only a few works of this class. In the ninth century, Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt (died 853), undertook to write an ecclesiastical history of the first four centuries, taking Rufinus as his principal authority ("De christianarum rerum memoriâ", ed. Boxhorn, Leyden, 1650; P. L., CXVI). Subsequently with the aid of Latin versions of Georgius Syncellus, Nicephorus, and especially of Theophanes, to which he added his own material, the Roman Abbot Anastasius Bibliothecarius (the Librarian) wrote a "Church History" to the time of Leo the Armenian, who died in 829 (Migne, P. G., CVIII). About the middle of the twelfth century, Ordericus Vitalis, Abbot of St. Evroul in Normandy, wrote an" Historia ecclesiastica" in thirteen books; it reaches to 1142, and is of especial value for the history of Normandy, England, and the Crusades (ed. A. Le Prevost, 5 vols., Paris, 1838-55). The Dominican Bartholomew of Lucca, called also Ptolemæus de Fiadonibus (died 1327), covered a longer period. His work in twenty-four books reaches to 1313, and was continued to 1361 by Henry of Diessenhofen (ed. Muratori, "Scriptores Rerum Italicarum ", XI). The "Flores chronicorum seu Catalogus Pontificum Romanorum" of Bernard Guidonis, Bishop of Lodève (died 1331), may be counted among the works on the general history of the Church (partially edited by Mai, "Spicilegium Romanum", VI; Muratori, op. cit., III; Bouquet, "Script. rer. gall.", XXI). The most extensive, and relatively the best, historical work during this period is the "Summa Historialis" of St. Antoninus. It deals with profane and ecclesiastical history from the creation to 1457.

The national histories which appeared towards the end of the last period (of Cassiodorus, Jordanis, Gregory of Tours), were followed by similar works giving the history of other peoples. Venerable Bede wrote his admirable "Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum", which describes in five books the history of England from the Roman conquest to 731, though treating principally of events after St. Augustine's mission in 596 (ed. Stevenson, London, 1838; ed. Hussey, Oxford, 1846). Paulus Warnefrid (Diaconus) wrote the history of his fellow-Lombards (Historia Langobardorum) from 568 to 733; it still remains the principal source for the history of his people. An unknown writer continued it to 774, and in the ninth century the monk Erchembert added the history of the Lombards of Beneventum to 889 (ed. Waitz in "Mon. Germ. Hist: Script. rer. Langob. et Ital.", Hanover, 1877). Paulus wrote also a history of the bishops of Metz ("Gesta episcoporum Mettensium", ad. in "Mon. Germ. Hist: Script.", II) and other historical works. The Scandinavian North found its ecclesiastical historian in Adam of Bremen; he covers the period between 788 and 1072, and his work is of special importance for the history of the Diocese of Hamburg-Bremen ("Gesta Hamburgensis ecclesiæ Pontificum", ed. Lappenberg in "Mon. Germ. Hist: Script.", VII, 276 sqq.). Flodoard (died 966) wrote the history of the Archdiocese of Reims (Historia ecclesiæ Remensis) to 948, a very important source for the history of the Church of France to that time ("Mon. Germ. Hist. Script.", XIII, 412 sqq.). The ecclesiastical history of Northern Germany was described by Albert Crantz, a canon of Hamburg (died 1517), in his "Metropolis" or "Historia de ecclesiis sub Carolo Magno in Saxoniâ instauratis" (i. e. from 780 to 1504; Frankfort, 1576 and often reprinted). Among the special historical works of this period of the Western Church we must mention the "Liber Pontificalis", an important collection of papal biographies that take on larger proportions after the fourth century, are occasionally very lengthy in the eighth and ninth centuries, and through various continuations reach to the death of Martin V in 1431 (ed. Duchesne, 2 vols., Paris, 1886-92; ed. Mommsen, I, extending to 715, Berlin 1898). The German, Italian, French, and English chronicles, annals, and biographies of this epoch are very numerous. The more important authors of chronicles are: Regino of Prüm, Hermannus Contractus, Lambert of Hersfeld, Otto of Freising, William of Tyre, Sigebert of Gemblours. The most important modern collections, in which the reader can find the chronicles and annals of the various Christian countries, are the following: for England: "Rerum Britannicarum medii ævi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain", I sqq. (London, 1858-); for Belgium: "Collection de Chroniques belges", I sqq. (Brussels, 1836-); "Collection des chroniqueurs et trouvères belges publ. par l'Académie belge", I sqq. (Brussels, 1863-); "Recueil de chroniques publié par la Société d'émulation de Bruges" (56 vols., Bruges, 1839-64); for France: Bouquet, "Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France" (Paris, 1738-; new ed. by L. Delisle, Paris, 1869-); for Germany: " Monumenta Germ. historica: Scriptores", I sqq. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-); for Italy: Muratori, "Rerum Italicarum Scriptores præcipui" (25 vols., Milan, 1723-51); Idem, "Antiquitates Italicæ medii ævi" (6 vols., Milan, 1738-42); for Spain: Flórez, "España sagrada" (51 vols., Madrid, 1747-1886); for Austria: "Fontes rerum Austriacarum: Scriptores" (8 vols., Vienna, 1855-75); for Poland: Bielowski, "Monuments Poloniæ historica" (2 vols., Lemberg, 1864-72; continued by the Academy of Cracow, III sqq., Cracow, 1878-); "Scriptores rerum polonicarum" (ibid., 1873-); for Denmark and Sweden: Langebek, "Scriptores rerum Danicarum medii ævi" (9 vols., Copenhagen, 1772-8); Fant, "Scriptores rerum Suecicarum medii ævi" (3 vols., Upsala, 1818-76); Rietz, "Scriptores Suecici medii ævi" (3 vols., Lund, 1842). Other important collections are: L. d'Achéry, "Spidilegium veterum aliquot scriptorum" (13 vols., Paris, 1655); Mabillon, "Acts Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti" (9 vols., Paris, 1668); "Acts Sanctorum Bollandistarum" (see BOLLANDISTS). The best guide to the sources of medieval history is Potthast, "Bib. hist. medii ævi: Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des europäischen Mittelalters bis 1500" (Berlin, 1896).

(C) The Church Historians of the Third Period

With the sixteenth century a new epoch dawned for ecclesiastical history. Under fresh and vigorous impulses it perfected its methods of investigation and narration, and assumed a daily more important place in the intellectual life of the educated classes. Historical criticism went hand in hand with the growth of humanist education. Henceforth, before their testimony was accepted, the sources of historical events were examined as to their authenticity. Increasing intimacy with the authors of Græco-Roman antiquity also of the primitive Christian ages, developed the historical sense. The religious controversies that followed the rise of Protestantism were also an incentive to historical study. Printing made possible a rapid distribution of all kinds of writings, so that the sources of church history soon became known and studied in the widest circles, and new works on church history could be circulated in all directions. In this period also the development of church history may be considered in three divisions.

(1) From the Middle of the Sixteenth to the Middle of the Seventeenth Century

The first large work on church history which appeared in this period was composed in the interests of Lutheranism. Mathias Flacius, called Illyricus (a native of Illyria), united with five other Lutherans (John Wigand, Mathias Judex, Basilius Faber, Andreas Corvinus, and Thomas Holzschuher), to produce an extensive work, that should exhibit the history of the Church as a convincing apology for strict Lutheranism. (See CENTURIATORS OF MAGDEBURG.) In the "Centuriæ", the institutions of the Roman Church appear as works of Satan and darkness; naturally, therefore, we cannot expect from such writers any true objective estimate of the Church and her development. The work called forth many refutations, the most able of which was written by Card. Cæsar Baronius. Urged by St. Philip Neri, he undertook in 1568 the task of producing an ecclesiastical history, which with astounding diligence he brought down to the end of the twelfth century and published under the title, "Annales ecclesiastici" (12 vols., Rome, 1588-1607). Numerous editions and continuations of it have appeared. (See BARONIUS.)

(2) From the Middle of the Seventeenth to the End of the Eighteenth Century

(3) The Nineteenth Century

Ecclesiastico-historical studies have fared better in the nineteenth century. The horrors of the French Revolution led to a vigorous reaction and gave birth to a more ideal spirit in literature. Patriotism and religious zeal revived and exerted a favourable influence on all intellectual life. Romanticism led to a juster appreciation of the Catholic medieval world, while in all departments of learning there appeared an earnest desire to be objective in judgment. Finally, the sources of ecclesiastical history were studied and used in a new spirit, the outgrowth of an ever more definite and penetrating historical criticism. The general result was favourable to the science of history.

In conclusion it may be added that the biographies of most of the Catholic authors mentioned above will be found in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.

FREEMAN, The Methods of Historical Study (London, 1886); BERNHEIM, Lehrbuch der historischen Methods (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1903); MEISTER in Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft, vol. I, pt. I (Leipzig, 1906); DR SMEDT, Principes de la critique historique (Liege, 1883); LANGLOIS AND SEIGNOBOS, Introduction aux études historiques (3rd ed., Paris, 1905); KNÖPFLER, Wert und Bedeutung des Studium der Kirchengeschichte (Munich, 1894; cf. also SCHRÖRS, Hist. Jahrb., 1894, pp. 133-145); EHRHARD, Stellung und Aufgabe der Kirchengeschichte in der Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 1898); DE SMEDT, Introductio generalis ad historiam ecclesiasticam critice tractandam (Ghent, 1876); NIRSCHL, Propädeutik der Kirchengeschichte (Mainz, 1888); KIHN, Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Theologie (Freiburg, im Br., 1892); HAGENBACH, Enzyclopädie und Methodologie der theologischen Wissenschaften (12th ed., Leipzig, 1889); HURTER, Nomenclator literarius theologiœ catholicœ (3rd ed., Innsbruck, 1903-); HERGENRÖTHER, Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, I (4th ed. by KIRSCH, Freiburg im Br., 1902), Introduction; DELEHAYE, Les légendes hagiographiques (2nd ed., Paris, 1906); FONCK, Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten. Beiträge zur Methodik des akademischen Studiums (Innsbruck, 1908).

J. P. KIRSCH

Melchior Hittorp

A theologian and liturgical writer, born about 1525, at Cologne; died there in 1584. On the completion of his studies he obtained the degree of Licentiate of Theology, and was appointed Canon at S. Maria ad Gradus. In 1593 he was elected dean of the collegiate church of St. Cunibert. At the request of Jacob Pameius, then canon of Bruges and later Bishop of St-Omer, Hittorp published in 1568 "Vetustorum ecclesiæ patrum libri varii de divinis catholicæ ecclesiæ officiis", a work containing various writings of Isidore of Seville, Alcuin, Rhabanus Maurus, Strabo, Berno, and others. An enlarged edition by Ferrari (1591) was reproduced in the "Magn. Bibl, vet. PP.", X (Paris, 1644).

HURTER, Nomenclator; Allgem. deutsche Biog., XII, 507; HARZHEIM, Bibl. Colonien.; IDEM, Catal. biblioth. Metrop. Colon.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Franz von Paula Hladnik

Botanist and schoolmaster, b. 29 March, 1773, at Idria, Carniola, Austria; d. 25 November, 1844, at Laibach, Carniola. He was the son of a mining official; he studied philosophy and theology and became a priest in 1796. His weak health prevented his undertaking parish duties, and in 1796 he occupied the post of Skriptor in the library of the Laibach Lyceum, but soon gave this up, and for forty years devoted himself to teaching in the different schools of Laibach. In 1803 he was already director of the Normal School and in1807 prefect of the gymnasium, which post he held till his sight failed. In his last years he was blind. Hladnik was a true teacher, who brought the gymnasium of Laibach to a flourishing condition, for which he was honourably distinguished by the Emperor Francis. During the French occupation, Hladnik was appointed professor of botany and natural history in the Central School of Laibach, and presented with a piece of land to be laid out for the cultivation of the flora of Carniola. It soon contained 600 kinds of local plants.

Whilst occupied with his botanical garden, he was also delivering lectures on botany and spent his holidays for thirty years in making researches in the crownland of Carniola. These researches form his most important contributions to science. He bequeathed his rich botanical collection to the Rudolfinum Public Museum, founded in Laibach in 1831. The museum owes him much and contains his portrait, painted by A. von Hermannsthal. Among Hladnik's pupils was Skofitz, the founder of the "Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschrift", now in its sixtieth year of publication. Hladnik discovered several new kinds of plants and certain genera have been named after him. He did not publish any scientific works; his manuscripts now in possession of the Carniola Historical Society are written in Latin, German, French, and Slavonian, proving the learning and industry of the author. They treat of ascetic theology, history, botany, and mineralogy.

VON WURZBACH, Biogr. Lexikon des Kaisertums Oesterreich, IX (Vienna, 1863); Oesterr. Botan. Zeitschrift, XXV (Vienna, 1875); Botanik u. Zoologie in Oesterreich, (Vienna, 1901); DALLA TORRE AND HARMS, Genera Siphonogamarum (Leipzig, 1900-7).

JOS. H. ROMPEL

Archdiocese of Hobart

(HOBARTENSIS)

Hobart comprises Tasmania, Bruni Island, and the Cape Barren, Flinders, King, and other islands in Bass Straits. Tasmania was originally under the jurisdiction of the vicar Apostolic of Capetown, Mauritius and New Holland, and afterwards under that of New Holland, when it was made a separate vicariate. Hobart was made a diocese in 1842. On the establishment of the Australian hierarchy the Bishop of Hobart was suffragan of the Archbishop of Sydney. When in 1874 Melbourne became the archdiocese of the new province of Melbourne, Hobart was named one of its suffragan sees. It remained part of the province of Melbourne until 1888, when Hobart was made an archdiocese and Tasmania became an independent ecclesiastical province. Though Tasmania was discovered in 1642 by the Dutch, no attempt at settlement seems to have been made by them. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the presence of French exploring expeditions aroused the suspicions of the British, who had already established a colony in New South Wales, and led to the permanent occupation of Tasmania by Britain. The first settlement was made in 1803 at Risdon, but in 1804 it was removed to Sullivan's Cove, the site of the present city of Hobart. The population of Tasmania was about 183,000 on 31 December, 1908 (Catholics, 32,000). The circumstances of the early settlement of the island did not tend to religious progress. It was made the dumping-ground for the refractory prisoners of Botany Bay.

There was no Catholic chaplain to administer to the prison population and the first few free settlers until 1821, when Rev. Philip Connolly was appointed; he was vicar-general to the Vicar Apostolic of Mauritius for Van Diemen's Land and New Holland. His first church, a small wooden structure, was named after St. Virgilius; in 1835 Father Cotham, O.S.B., was appointed to help him. Connolly died in 1839, and Bishop Polding appointed Father Therry as his vicar-general in Tasmania. The account of his struggles in those early days, when as in other British colonies an attempt was made to make the settlement as Protestant as possible, is very interesting. Therry and his colleagues did wonders among their flock. They had a parish of 26,215 square miles, with a number of scattered settlements, without roads to make passage easy, and with hostile blacks to endanger their lives. When in 1842 Bishop Willson took possession of the See of Hobart, he found a land well prepared for his labours.

It was mainly through his efforts in directing attention to the inhumanity of the prison system that the penal settlement at Norfolk Island, then under his jurisdiction, was broken up, the lot of the prisoners in Tasmania made much more tolerable, and the system itself finally abandoned. His successor, Most Rev. Daniel Murphy, who arrived in 1866, had laboured in India previously. He died on 27 Dec., 1907. While Dr. Wilson's episcopate was chiefly noted for his labours in the cause of humanity, Dr. Murphy laboured for the training of the young. The Sisters of Charity had long worked in Hobart under Bishop Willson. Under Bishop Murphy their work was extended, and the Presentation Sisters, the Sisters of St. Joseph, the Sisters of Mercy, and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart all opened schools. Dr. Murphy's last work was the erection of the College of St. Virgilius for the young boys of his flock. The present archbishop, Most Rev. Patrick Delany, has arranged with the Irish Christian Brothers to take charge of St. Virgilius's College. At the request of the archbishop, the Catholic schools of the island are subject to inspection and examination by the State School inspectors, but they receive nothing from the public funds. The State schools have Scripture lessons in their curriculum. The teacher, whether a believer or an unbeliever, is bound to give them. If Catholic parents object, their children are exempt from attendance at these lessons. The Catholics strongly protest against the injustice of being forced to contribute to a system which teaches a kind of mild Protestantism to the children.

The State offers a number of scholarships to be competed for by the pupils of all schools, whether public or "private". But as both schools and teachers have now by law to be registered and licensed by the School Registration Board, there is, strictly speaking, no longer any "private" school in the State. Education is now free in the public primary schools. There is a Tasmanian university, on the board of which a Catholic priest has a place, just as a priest holds a seat on the school registration board. The personal influence and example of the Bishops and Archbishops of Hobart and of the pioneer priests succeeded in removing almost altogether the religious acerbities by which other British dependencies are often troubled. There are at present in the archdiocese, the archbishop, 26 priests, 135 nuns, 4 superior day schools, 25 primary schools, i orphanage, 1 Magdalen home (ùnder the Good Shepherd nuns), and 3280 children in Catholic schools. Like every Australian province, Tasmania has its Catholic paper, the "Monitor". During the early days the clergy were paid by the State as chaplains to the prison population. The endowment continued after the State had received the right of representative government. In 1869 State endowments to religion were withdrawn, but certain sums of money were voted, according to the number of their adherents, to the hitherto endowed churches. The sum granted to the Catholics is held in State bonds and returns to the archdiocese about £700 a year. The aborigines are extinct, having been "civilized" out of existence. The last survivor died in 1876. There are some half-castes who are forced by the Government to reside on the islands in Bass Straits. They, too, are dying out.

KNIBBS, Commonwealth Statistics; MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s. d.); Government Handbook of Tasmania; Australian Catholic Directory, 1909.

JOHN O'MAHONEY.

Sydney Hodgson

A lawman and martyr; date and place of birth unknown; d. at Tyburn, 10 Dec., 1591. He was a convert to the Church. In 1591, while Father Edmund Jennings was saying Mass at the house of Mr. Swithin Wells in London, the pursuivant Topcliffe and his assistants broke into the house just at the moment of consecration. On this account alone, their entrance into the room was obstructed by some of the male members of the congregation, including Sydney Hodgson, until the conclusion of the Mass; these gentlemen then surrendered themselves. Hodgson and the others were brought to trial on 4 Dec., the charge against him being merely that of receiving and relieving priests, and of being reconciled to the Church of Rome. He was offered his life if he would give some sort of a promise of occasional conformity to the Established Church, but as he preferred to die for his religion, he was condemned and executed.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. s. v.; CHALLONER, Memoirs (Edinburgh, 1878), I, 180, 190; DODD-TlERNEY, Church History, II, 260; MORRIS, Troubles, 3rd series.

C.F. WEMYSS BROWN

Andreas Hofer

A patriot and soldier, born at St. Leonhard in Passeyrthale, Tyrol, 22 Nov., 1767; executed at Mantua, 20 Feb., 1810. His father was known as the "Sandwirth" (i. e., landlord of the inn on the sandy spit of land formed by the Passeyr. The inn had been in the family for over one hundred years). Hofer's education was very limited. As a youth, he was engaged in the wine and horse trade, but he went farther afield, learned to know men of every class, and even acquired a knowledge of Italian that stood him in good stead later. After his marriage with Anna Ladurner, he took over his father's business, which, however, did not flourish in his hands. Gifted, though not a genius, a dashing but upright young man, loyal to his God and his sovereign, he made many friends by his straightforward character; his stately figure and flowing beard contributing in no small degree to his attractiveness. When the Tyrol was handed over to Bavaria at the Peace of Presburg, the "Sandwirth" was among the delegates who escorted the departing Archduke John. Thenceforth he attended quietly to his own affairs until, in 1806, he was called to Vienna with others, and was informed of the proposed uprising in the Tyrol. At the outset of the rebellion he was by no means its chief, but acquired fame as a leader mainly by his capture of a Bavarian detachment in the marsh of Sterzing. Hofer was not engaged in the first capture of Innsbruck, being then an officer on the southern frontier with the title of "Imperial Royal Commandant". When the French broke victoriously into the Tyrol and occupied Innsbruck, he issued a general summons to the people, which roused many patriots and drew them to his standard. The fact that the enemy, underestimating the strength of the popular party, left only a small garrison of troops, favoured their cause. After various skirmishes Hofer's men broke into Innsbruck on 30 May. The real battle came off at Berg Isel. The "Sandwirth" took no part in the conflict; nevertheless he directed it with skill and success.

The Tyrol was now free from invasion for two months; indeed, a few bands of insurgents ventured into Bavarian and Italian territory. Under these conditions Hofer thought he could return to his home and leave the government in the hands of the Intendant Hormayr, who had been sent from Vienna. But when, in spite of positive assurances from the emperor, the Tyrol was abandoned at the armistice of Znaim, and Marshal Lefebvre advanced to subdue the country, the people determined to risk their lives for faith and freedom. Again the written order of the "Sandwirth" flew round the valleys. Haspinger and Speckbacher organized the people, and on 13 and 14 August occurred the second battle of Berg Isel. Haspinger decided the result of the day; but Hofer stood for some time in the very heat of the battle, and by bis energetic efforts induced the already weakening ranks to renew their efforts. Henceforth, the Intendant having fled, Hofer took the government into his own hands, moved into the Hofburg, and ruled his admiring countrymen in a patriarchal manner. Francis II bestowed on him a golden medal, but this proved fatal to Hofer, who was thereby strengthened in his delusion that the emperor would never abandon his faithful Tyrolese. Thus it happened that he even disregarded a letter from the Archduke John, as though it were a Bavarian or French proclamation, and on 1 November lost the third battle of Berg Isel against a superior force of the enemy.

The renewed success of the French general and the Bavarian crown prince (afterwards Ludwig I) now determined Hofer to surrender; trusting however, to his friends and to false rumours, he changed his mind and decided to fight to the last. The mighty columns of the allies soon crushed all resistance, and the leaders of the peasant army saw that nothing remained but flight; Hofer alone remained and went into hiding. A covetous countryman, greedy for the reward offered for his capture, betrayed him. He was surprised in his hiding place, dragged to Mantua amid insults and outrages, and haled before a court. Without awaiting its sentence a peremptory order from Napoleon ordered him to be shot forthwith. He took his death-sentence with Christian calmness, and died with the courage of a hero. The prophecy he uttered in the presence of his confessor shortly before he died: "The Tyrol will be Austrian again" was fulfilled three years later. His remains were disinterred in 1823 and laid to rest in the court chapel at Innsbruck, where his life-size statue now stands. The emperor ennobled the Hofer family. The youth of Germany has been inspired by his heroic figure, and German poets like Mosen, Schenkendorf, Immermann, etc. have sung of his deeds and sufferings. Even the French pay a wondering homage to his sincere piety, bis self-sacrificing patriotism, and his noble sense of honour (Denis in "Hist. gén."; Corréard in "Précis d'histoire moderne": a text-book for the pupils of the military school of St. Cyr).

Andreas Hofer und die Tiroler Insurrektion (Munich, 1810); HORMAYR, Das Land Tirol und der Tirolerkrieg, 1809 (Leipzig, 1845); RAPP, Tirol im Jahre 1809 (Innsbruck, 1852); EGGER, Geschichte Tirols (3 vols., Innsbruck, 1880); HEIGEL, in Allg. d. Biogr., s. v.; FRANKE, Hofer im Liede (Innsbruck, 1884); HIRN, Tirols Erhebung im Jahre 1809 (Innsbruck, 1909).

PIUS WITTMAN.

Konstantin von Höfler

An historian; born at Memmingen, Bavaria, 26 March, 1811; died at Prague, 29 December, 1898. After finishing his studies in the gymnasia at Munich and Landshut, he studied first jurisprudence and then history at the University of Munich under Görres, Döllinger, and especially Schelling, and received his degree in 1831 on presenting the dissertation "Ueber die Anfänge der griechischen Geschichte". Aided by a pension from the government, he studied two more years at Göttingen, where he published a "Geschichte der englischen Civilliste". He then went to Italy, residing chiefly at Florence and Rome, and worked there industriously in the examination of original sources. Returning to Munich he accepted the editorship of the official "Münchener Zeitung" in order to earn a subsistence, but while thus engaged he had by 1838 qualified himself as Privatdozent in history at the university. The following year he became extraordinary, in 1841 ordinary, professor of history; in 1842 he became a member of the Academy of Sciences. In 1839 he published "Die deutschen Päpste" in two volumes. After this he devoted himself to his duties as professor until 1846, when he fell into disfavour with King Ludwig I on account of the position he took, along with several other professors, in the popular agitation against the relations of the king with the dancer Lola Montez. He expressed his views on the subject in "Concordat und Constitutionseid der Katholiken in Bayern", and for this was removed from his university position, 26 March 1847. Although the king after some months took Höfler again into the government service, he was, nevertheless, transferred to Bamberg (Upper Franconia), as keeper of the district archives. With his accustomed zeal he began the study of Franconian history and published in 1849-52 as the fruit of his investigations: "Quellensammlung für fränkische Geschichte", in four volumes, and in 1852-53 "Fränkische Studien", parts I-V. During the same period he issued "Bayern, sein Recht und seine Geschichte" (1850), also in the last mentioned year "Ueber die politische Reformbewegung in Deutschland im Mittelalter und den Anteil Bayerns an derselben (1850). Further, in the midst of these labours, he began the preparation of his "Lehrbuch der Geschichte" which appeared in 1856.

In 1851 when the Austrian school-system was reorganized, Count Thun called Höfler as professor of history to Prague, where he taught with great success until he retired on a pension in 1882. In 1865 he became a member of the Bohemian Diet, in 1872 a life member of the Austrian House of Lords. In this latter year he was raised to the hereditary nobility and received the order of the Iron Crown. In politics he was one of the leaders of the German-Bohemian party, a branch of the constitutional party of that period, and was one of the chief opponents of the Czechs. From 1872, however, he almost practically retired from politics, partly from the increasing opposition which grew up in the German parties in Austria against "Catholicism", partly because the clerical party was drawing closer to the Slavs. Conflicts were unavoidable; on the one hand he was a thorough German, absolutely convinced of the great mission of the Germans in Austria, on the other he was one of the most faithful sons of the Catholic Church. Consequently he gradually withdrew from party politics, without losing, however, his strong interest in the struggles of the mostly anticlerical German-Bohemiaus against the Czechs, and devoted himself entirely to the cultivation of German sentiment and intellectual life. By his activity, both as teacher and author, he became the founder of the modern school of German-Bohemian historical research, which received enthusiastic support from the Society founded by him, in 1862, for the study of the history of the German element in Bohemia, and in consequence ranks as one of the most deservedly respected historians of Austria.

Höfler gave special attention to the history of the Hussite movement and reached the conclusion that it was directed less against the papacy than against the German power in Bohemia and against the cities. He characterized the movement as "an unsympathetic historical phenomenon, a movement foredoomed to failure, which soon became a burden to itself". He saw in Hus only an antagonist of Germanism, the destroyer of the University of Prague and of the sciences. His works on Hussitism are: "Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung" (1856-66), in three volumes; "Magister Johannes Hus und der Abzug der deutschen Professoren und Studenten aus Prag 1409" (1864); "Concilia Pragensia, 1353-1413" (1862). These historical investigations involved Höfler in a violent literary feud with František Palacký, the official historiographer of Bohemia, an enthusiastic representative of Czech interests, and the indefatigable champion of Slavic supremacy in Bohemia. But as the scientific proofs produced by Höfler were indisputable he was victorious in this controversy and broke down Palacký's hitherto unquestioned authority as a historian. These exhaustive studies in Bohemian history led Höfler to deeper research into the history of the Slavic races. In his "Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der slawischen Geschichte" (1879-82), five volumes, he showed how the Slavic element had always warred against the German element; in the same work he emphasized strongly the importance of the German element in the development of Bohemia.

In other works Höfler treated the ecclesiastical reform movements among the Romanic peoples. The most important of this class of his writings is: "Die romanische Welt und ihr Verhältnis zu den Reformideen des Mittelalters" (1878). Others are: "Der Aufstand der kastillianischen Städte gegen Karl V" (1876); "Zur Kritik und Quellenkunde der ersten Regierungsjahre Kaiser Karls V" (1876-83), in three parts; "Der deutsche Kaiser und der letzte deutsche Papst, Karl V und Adrian VI" (1876); "Papst Adrian VI" (1880) in which he proves that this pope was the author of Catholic reform in the sixteenth century. We are also indebted to him for the two volumes of "Monumenta Hispanica" (1881-82). Höfler's contributions to the history of the Hohenzollern family are to be found in: "Denkwürdigkeiten des Ritters Ludwig von Eyb" (1849), and in the monograph "Barbara, Markgräfin von Brandenburg" (1867). Other works worthy of notice are: two volumes of "Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Oesterreichs" (1871-72); "Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der Geschichte König Phiipps des Schönen" (1883); "Bonifatius, der Apostel der Deutschen und die Slawenapostel Konstantinos (Cyrillus) und Methodius" (1887). He also published many papers in the "Denkschriften der k.k. Akademie der Wissenschaften", in the "Fontes rerum Austriacarum", and in the "Zeitschrift des Vereins für die Gesch. der Deutschen in Böhmen".

Höfler also wrote a number of historical dramas in verse, as well as elegant and thoughtful epigrams; his poetical works, however, met with but moderate success. Höfler was an eminent man. Endowed with a keen mind, and profound observation, as well as with many physical advantages, strong health and manly beauty, he succeeded, by hard work and "indefatigable self-discipline" says his successor Bachmann, "in surmounting many initial difficulties and later obstacles and in reaching the high position of a generally respected savant and teacher: he attained the broad views and experience of a statesman, and the sure and harmonious bearing of a sage. Himself the embodiment of kindliness and goodness, to such a degree that he strove to lend assistance where assistance was neither possible nor timely, he anxiously sought to respect the individuality of others and to be a model of courtesy and fairness, not merely to appear such".

Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, XXXVI (1898), 381-411; Biographisches Jahrbuch, II, 209-11; Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (1905), L, 428-33.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

John Baptist Hogan

Better known, on account of his long sojourn in France, as Abbé Hogan, born near Ennis in County Clare, Ireland, 24 June, 1829; died at Saint-Sulpice, Paris, 29 September, 1901. His earlier years were spent ai Ireland, but an uncle, who was a priest in the Diocese of Périgueux in France, brought him to that country at the age of fifteen and placed him in the preparatory seminary of Bordeaux. To his early training in this institution where he soon evinced a more than ordinary talent and power of adaptation, was due the thorough mastery which he acquired of the French language, as also his perfect assimilation of the French spirit and ways, albeit without prejudice to his command of English, or to the qualities characteristic of a thoroughly Irish temperament.

Having completed his classical studies, he entered the theological seminary of Bordeaux, and, as at the end of his course he was too young to receive orders, he went, in 1849, to the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice in Paris, where he followed a post-graduate course of theology for two years. Then, feeling called to the work of clerical education, he entered the "Solitude" or novitiate of the Sulpicians at Issy, and was ordained to the priesthood, 5 June, 1852. The following September, not having yet completed his twenty-third year, he was appointed to the chair of dogmatic theology in the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, where from the outset he gave evidence of those rare qualities which constitute the teaching faculty, and made him so eminent as an instructor. During the ensuing years he was called, through force of circumstances, to teach successively various other branches of ecclesiastical science, but from 1863 to 1884 he occupied without interruption the chair of moral theology, adding thereto, during a period of thirteen years, the course of sacred liturgy.

After thirty-two years spent in teaching in Saint-Sulpice, he was sent in 1884 to the United States, having been appointed the first president of the newly erected theological seminary of Boston. After fulfilling the duties of this post for five years, he was transferred to the presidency of the graduate theological seminary connected with the Catholic University in Washington. This dignity he also held for five years, his teaching being confused almost exclusively to lectures on ascetic theology. He was then recalled (1894) to St. John's Seminary, Boston, and passed there the seven remaining years of his life as its president. At the end of the school year 1901 he was compelled, on account of rapidly declining health, to interrupt his labours for needed rest. Arrangements were made for him to spend the following winter at Hyères in the south of France but he died suddenly on his way thither, at the age of seventy-two.

Dr. Hogan, while hardly to be called a specialist in any branch, was a scholar of great erudition. He took a lively interest in all topics, whether pertaining to ecclesiastical or to secular science, and was conversant with the best literature bearing on subjects in these fields. He was endowed with that rare ability for imparting information to different mentalities which makes the ideal teacher, and as such his influence was widely felt and much appreciated, especially in France, where for so many years those who were to achieve the highest distinction among the secular clergy received the benefit of his intellectual guidance. His was a keen, versatile, analytic mind, characterized by breadth of view as well as penetration, and thoroughly alive to the difficulties connected with all theological and philosophical problems. His method was chiefly Socratic, free from dogmatism of tone, and he possessed in a rare degree the gift of being able to render interesting, at least to the more intelligent students, the discussion of even the driest and most abstruse questions. One who bad known him intimately for many years paid due tribute to his merits in an article in the "Homiletic Monthly", Dec., 1901, on Abbé Hogan's "Clerical Studies".

Though a scholar greatly gifted in the art of expounding, Dr. Hogan gave little attention to writing and publication. Except occasional articles contributed to periodicals, his only published works are "Clerical Studies", which first appeared in the "Ecclesiastical Review" (Philadelphia, 1891-95), and "Daily Thoughts". Both of these have been translated into French. In the former, which merits a place among the best clerical manuals, he covers the entire field of ecclesiastical science, treating each subject in his own original, suggestive manner, from the practical as well as the theoretical standpoint. The latter is a book of short meditations for the use of priests and seminarians.

The Am. Ecclesiastical Review (Philadelphia, Oct., 1901); The Messenger (New York, Oct., 1901); Catholic News (New York, Oct., 1901); Pilot (Boston, Oct., 1901); Tablet (London, Oct., 1901), files.