Victor de Laprade

French poet and critic, b. at Montbrison in 1812; d. at Lyons in 1883. He first studied medicine, then law, and was admitted to the bar, but soon left it to become professor of French literature at the "Faculté des lettres" of Lyons. He lost this position in 1863 for having published "Les Muses d'Etat", a satire aimed at the men of the Second Empire, and from that time on he devoted all his time to poetry. In 1858 he had taken the seat of Musset in the French Academy. Laprade is probably the most idealistic French poet of the nineteenth century. His talon somewhat resembles that of Lamartine, whom he gladly acknowledge as his master. His inspiration is always lofty, his verses are harmonious and at times graceful. God, nature, the fatherland, mankind, friendship, the family are his favourite topics. To form a correct opinion of his work, one should discriminate between the two phases of his literary career. During the first, which extends down to his admission into the French Academy, he takes pains to connect the ancient with the modern world, mythology with Christianity. This is what might be termed the impersonal phase of his thought. "Psyché" (1842), "Les Odes et Poèmes" (1844), "Les Poèmes évangéliques (1852). "Les Symphonies" (1844), belong to this first period. Another collection of poems "Les Idylles héroiques" (1858), marks the transition from the first to the second phase. Laprade's poetical pantheism has now given place to a more Christian and more humane inspiration. The "poet of the summits", as he was sometimes called, had become a man of his times; filial and parental love, the country life of his dear native province (Forez), are now his topics. To this period belong "Pernette" (1878), "Harmodius" (1870), "Les Poèmes civiques" (1873). It was then that, in some measure, he became popular. He was also a remarkable educational and aesthetical writer, as is shown by the following works: "Questions d'art et de morale: (1867), "Le Sentiment de la nature avant le christianisme" (1867), "L'éducation homicide" (1867), "L'éducation libérale" (1873).

PIERRE MARIQUE

Lapsi

(Lat., labi, lapsus).

The regular designation in the third century for Christians who relapsed into heathenism, especially for those who during the persecutions displayed weakness in the face of torture, and denied the Faith by sacrificing to the heathen gods or by any other acts. Many of the lapsi, indeed the majority of the very numerous cases in the great persecutions after the middle of the third century, certainly did not return to paganism out of conviction: they simply had not the courage to confess the Faith steadfastly when threatened with temporal losses and severe punishments (banishments, forced labor [smudged in my version]... death), and their sole desire was to preserve themselves from persecution by an external act of apostasy, and to save their property, freedom, and life. The obligation of confessing the Christian Faith under all circumstances and avoiding every act of denial was firmly established in the Church from Apostolic times. The First Epistle of St. Peter exhorts the believers to remain steadfast under the visitations of affliction (i, 6, 7; iv, 16, 17). In his letter to Trajan, Pliny writes that those who are truly Christians will not offer any heathen sacrifices or utter any revilings against Christ. Nevertheless we learn both from "The Shepherd" of Hermas, and from the accounts of the persecutions and martyrdoms, that individual Christians after the second century showed weakness, and fell away from the Faith. The aim of the civil proceedings against Christians, as laid down in Trajan's rescript to Pliny, was to lead them to apostasy. Those Christians were acquitted who declared that they wished to be so no longer and performed acts of pagan religious worship, but the steadfast were punished. In the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp" (c. iv; ed. Funk, "Patres Apostolici", 2nd ed., I, 319), we read of a Prhygian, Quintus, who at first voluntarily avowed the Christian Faith, but showed weakness at the sight of wild beasts in the amphitheatre, and allowed the proconsul to persuade him to offer sacrifice. The letter of the Christians of Lyons, concerning the persecution of the Church there in 177, tells us likewise of ten brethren who showed weakness and apostatized. Kept, however, in confinement and stimulated by the example and the kind treatment they received from the Christians who had remained steadfast, several of them repented their apostasy, and in a second trial, in which the renegades were to have been acquitted, they faithfully confessed Christ and gained the martyrs' crown (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", V, ii).

In general, it was a well-established principle in the Church of the second and beginning of the third century that an apostate, even if he did penance, was not again taken into the Christian community, or admitted to the Holy Eucharist. Idolatry was one of the three capital sins which entailed exclusion from the Church. After the middle of the third century, the question of the lapsi gave rise on several occasions to serious disputes in the Christian communities, and led to a further development of the pentitential discipline in the Church. The first occasion on which the question of the lapsi became a serious one in the Church, and finally led to a schism, was the great persecution of Decius (250-1). An imperial edict, which frankly aimed at the extermination of Christianity, enjoined that every Christian must perform an act of idolatry. Whoever refused was threatened with the severest punishments. The officials were instructed to seek out the Christians and compel them to sacrifice, and to proceed against the recalcitrant ones with the greatest severity (see DECIUS). The consequences of this first general edict of persecution were dreadful for the Church. In the long peace which the Christians had enjoyed, many had become infected with a worldly spirit. A great number of the laity, and even some members of the clergy, weakened, and, on the promulgation of the edict, flocked at once to the altars of the heathen idols to offer sacrifice. We are particularly well-informed about the events in Africa and in Rome by the correspondence of St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and by his treatises, "De catholicae ecclesiae unitate" and "De lapsis" ("Caecilii Cypriani opera omnia", ed. Hartel I, II, Vienna, 1868-71). There were various classes of lapsi, according to the act by which they fell:

• sacrificati, those who had actually offered a sacrifice to the idols,
• thuruficati, those who had burnt incense on the altar before the statues of the gods;
• libellatici, those who had drawn up attestation (libellus), or had, by bribing the authorities, caused such certificates to be drawn up for them, representing them as having offered sacrifice, without, however, having actually done so.

So far five of these libelli are known to us (one at Oxford, one at Berlin, two at Vienna, one at Alexandria; see Krebs in "Sitzungsberichte der kais. Akademie de Wissenschaften in Wein", 1894, pp. 3-9; Idem in "Patrologia Orientalis", IV, Paris, 1907, pp. 33 sq.; Franchi de' Cavalieri in "Nuovo Bulletino di archeologia cristiana", 1895, pp. 68-73). Some Christians were allowed to present a written declaration to the authorities to the effect that they had offered the prescribed sacrifices to the gods, and asked for a certificate of this act (libellum tradere): this certificate was delivered by the authorities, and the petitioners received back the attestation (libellum accipere). Those who had actually sacrificed (the sacrificati and the thurificati) also received a certificate of having done so. The libellatici, in the narrow sense of the the word, were those who obtained certificates without having actually sacrificed. Some of the libellatici, who forwarded to the authorities documents drawn up concerning their real or alleged sacrifices and bearing their signatures, were also called acta facientes.

The names of the Christians, who had shown their apostasy by one of the above-mentioned methods, were entered on the court records. After these weak brethren had received their attestations and knew that their names were thus recorded, they felt themselves safe from futher inquisition and persecution. The majority of the lapsi had indeed only obeyed the edict of Decius out of weakness: at heart they wished to remain Christians. Feeling secure against further persecution, they now wished to attend Christian worship again and to be readmitted into the communion of the Church, but this desire was contrary to the then existing penitential discipline. The lapsi of Carthage succeeded in winning over to their side certain Christians who had remained faithful, and had suffered torture and imprisonment. These confessors sent letters of recommendation in the name of the dead martyrs (libella pacis) to the bishop in favor of the renegades. On the strength of these "letters of peace", the lapsi desired immediate admittance into communion with the Church, and were actually admitted by some of the clergy inimically disposed to Cyprian. Similar difficulties arose at Rome, and St. Cyprian's Carthaginian opponents sought for support in the capital in their attack against their bishop. Cyprian, who had remained in constant communication with the Roman clergy during the vacancy of the Roman See after the martyrdom of Pope Fabian, decided that nothing should be done in the matter of reconciliation of the lapsi until the persecution should be over and he could return to Carthage. Only those apostates who showed that they were penitent, and had received a personal note (libellus pacis) from a confessor or a martyr, might obtain absolution and admission to communion with the Church and to the Holy Eucharist, if they were dangerously ill and at the point of death. At Rome, likewise, the principle was established that the apostates should not be given up, but that they should be exhorted to do penance, so that, in case of their being again cited before the pagan authorities, they might atone for their apostasy by steadfastly confessing the Faith. Furthermore, communion was not to be refused to those who were seriously ill, and wished to atone for their apostasy by penance.

The party opposed to Cyprian at Carthage did not accept the bishop's decision, and stirred up a schism. When, after the election of St. Cornelius to the Chair of Peter, the Roman priest Novatian set himself up at Rome as the antipope, he claimed to be the upholder of strict discipline, inasmuch as he refused unconditionally to readmit to communion with the Church any who had fallen away. He was the founder of Novatianism. Shortly after Cyprian's return to his episcopal city in the Spring of 251, synods were held in Rome and Africa, at which the affair of the lapsi was adjusted by common agreement. It was adopted as a principle that they should be encouraged to repent, and, under certain conditions and after adequate public penance (exomologesis), should be readmitted to communion. In fixing the duration of the penance, the bishops were to take under consideration the circumstances of the apostasy, e.g., whether the penitent had offered sacrifice at once or only after torture, whether he had led his family into apostasy or on the other hand had saved them therefrom, after obtaining for himself a certificate of having sacrificed. Those, who of their own accord had actually sacrificed (the sacrificati or thurificati), might be reconciled with the Church only at the point of death. The libellatici might, after a reasonable penance, be immediately readmitted. In view of the severe persecution then imminent, it was decided at a subsequent Carthaginian synod that all lapsi who had undergone public penance should be readmitted to full communion with the Church. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria adopted the same attitude towards the lapsi as Pope Cornelius and the Italian bishops, and Cyprian and the African bishops. But in the East Novatian's rigid views at first found a more sympathetic reception. The united efforts of the supporters of Pope Cornelius succeeded in bringing the great majority of the Eastern bishops to recognize him as the rightful Roman pontiff, with which recognition the acceptance of the principles relative to the case of the lapsi was naturally united. A few groups of Christians in different parts of the empire shared the views of Novatian, and this enabled the latter to form a small schismatic community (see NOVATIANISM).

At the time of the great persecution of Diocletian, matters took the same course as under Decius. During this severe affliction which assailed the Church, many showed weakness and fell away, and, as before, performed acts of heathen worship, or tried by artifice to evade persecution. Some, with the collusion of the officials, sent their slaves to the pagan sacrifices instead of going themselves; others bribed pagans to assume their names and to performed the required sacrifices (Petrus Alexandrinus, "Liber de poenitentia" in Routh, "Reliquiae Sacr.", IV, 2nd ed., 22 sqq). In the Diocletian persecution appeared a new category of lapsi called the traditores: these were the Christians (mostly clerics) who, in obedience to an edict, gave up the sacred books to the authorities. The term traditores was given both to those who actually gave up the sacred books, and to those who merely delivered secular works in their stead. As on the previous occasion the lapsi in Rome, under the leadership of a certain Hericlius, tried forcibly to obtain readmission to communion with the Church without performing penance, but Popes Marcellus and Eusebius adhered stricly to the traditional penitential discipline. The confusion and disputes caused by this difference among the Roman Christians caused Maxentius to banish Marcellus and later Eusebius and Heraclius (cf. Inscriptions of Pope Damasus on Popes Marcellus and Eusebius in Ihm, "Damasi epigrammata", Leipzig, 1895, p. 51, n. 48; p. 25, n. 18). In Africa the unhappy Donatist schism arose from disputes about the lapsi, especially the traditores (see DONATISTS). Several synods of the fourth century drew up canons on the treatment of the lapsi, e.g., the Synod of Elvira in 306 (can. i-iv, xlvi), or Arles in 314 (can. xiii), of Ancyra in 314 (can. i-ix), and the General Council of Nice (can. xiii). Many of the decisions of these synods concerned only members of the clergy who had committed acts of apostasy in time of persecution.

HEFELE, Konziliengesch., I (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1873), 111 sqq., 155 sqq., 211, 222 sqq., 412 sqq.; DUCHESNE, Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise, I (Paris, 1906), 397 sqq.; FUNK, Zur altchristl. Bussdisziplin in Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen u. Untersuchungen, I, 158 sqq., MÜLLER, Die Bussinstitution in Karthago unter Cyprian in Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. (1907), 577 sqq.; CHABALIER, Les Lapsi dans l'Eglise d'Afrique au temps de S. Cyprien: Thèse (Lyons, 1904); SCHÖNAICH, Die Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Decius (Jauer, 1907); DE ROSSI, Roma sotteranea cristiana, II, 201 sqq.; ALLARD, Historie de persécutions, V, 122 sqq. See also bibliography under CYRIAN, SAINT.

J.P. KIRSCH

Ven. Luis de Lapuente

(Also, D'Aponte, de Ponte, Dupont).

Born at Valladolid, 11 November, 1554; died there, 16 February 1624. Having entered the Society of Jesus, he studied under the celebrated Suarez, and professed philosophy at Salamanca. Endowed with exceptional talents for government and the formation of young religious, he was forced by impaired health to retire from offices which he had filled with distinction and general satisfaction. The years that followed were devoted to literary composition. Though not reckoned among Spanish classics, his works are so replete with practical spirituality that they claim for him a place among the most eminent masters of asceticism. Ordaind priest in 1580, he became the spiritual director of the celebrated Marina de Escobar, in which office he continued till his death. In 1599 he devoted himself with great charity to the care of the plague-stricken in Villagarcia. Of remarkable innocence of life, he not only avoided all grievous sin, but bound himself by vow, some years before his death, to avoid as far as human weakness permitted even venial faults. Besides a mystical commentary in Latin on the Canticle of Canticles, he wrote in Spanish: " Life of Father Baltasar Alvarez"; "Life of Marina de Escobar"; "Spiritual Directory for Confession, Communion and the Sacrifice of the Mass"; "The Christian Life" (4 vols.), and "Meditations on the Mysteries of Our Holy Faith", by which he is best known to English readers. This last work has been translated into ten languages, including Arabic. A few years after his death, the Sacred Congregation of Rites admitted the cause of his beatification and canonization.

HENRY J. SWIFT

Laranda

A titular see of Isauria, afterwards of Lycaonia. Strabo (XII, 569), informs us that Laranda had belonged to the tyrant Antipater of Derbe, whence we may infer that it was governed by native princes. The city was taken by storm and destroyed by Perdiccas (Diodorus Siculus, XVIII, 22), afterwards rebuilt. Owing to its fertile teritory Laranda became one of the most important cities of the district, also one of the principal centres for the pirates of Isauria. It was the birthplace of the poets Nestor and his son Pisander (Suidas, s.v.). In later time it was a part of the sultanate of Konia, and after the possessions of the Seljuks were divided, it became the capital of Caramania, conquered in 1486 by the Osmanli Sultan Bajazet II. The name Laranda is seldom heard in modern days; the city is generally known as Caraman. It has about 15,000 inhabitants, the majority being Mussulmans, and is one of the chief towns of the vilayet of Konia. Cotton and silk fabrics are made there, and it is a railway-station, between Konia and Eregli on the way to Bagdad. There are no ancient ruins. Laranda is mentioned as a suffragan of Iconium by the "Notitiae Episcopatuum" until about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Only four of its bishops are known: Neo, mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Exxl., VI, xix); Paul, present at the Council of Nicaea, 325; Ascholius, at Chalcedon, 451; Sabbas, at Constantinople, 879.

LE QUIEN, Oriens Christ., I, 1081; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., s.v.; RAMSAY, Asia Minor, passim.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Lares

Formerly a titular archiepiscopal see in pro-consular Africa. In ancient times it was a fortified town, mentioned by Sallust (Jugurtha, xc), later it received the name of Colonia Xlia Aug. Lares. At least five of its bishops are known: Hortensian, who took part in 242 and 255 at the Councils of Carthage; Victorinus who with his Donatist colleague Honoratus figured at the conference of Carthage; Quintian who lived at the time of the persecution of Huneric (about 480); Vitulus, who was living in 525 in the time of King Hilderic. St. Augustine (Ep. ccxxix), Victor Vitensis (Hist. Pers. Vand., 6 and 9), Procopius (Bell. Vand., II, 22 and 28), also Arabian and other historians mention the town. It is the Lorbeus of today, between Tunis and Tebessa; the ruins cover a large area, which would indicate that once it had been a town of considerable importance. A mosque has taken the place of a church, and the ruins of a basilica are still visible.

Armand de La Richardie

Born at Perigueux, 7 June, 1686; died at Quebec, 17 March, 1758. He entered the Society of Jesus at Bordeaux, 4 Oct., 1703, and in 1725 was sent to the Canada mission. He spent the two following years helping Father Pierre Daniel Richer at Lorette, and studying the Huron language. In 1728 he went to Detroit to re-establish the long-interrupted mission to the dispersed Petun-Hurons in the West. Not a solitary professing Christian did he find, but among the aged not a few had been baptized. The new Indian church, though "seventy cubits long" (105ft?) was scarcely spacious enough to contain the fervent congregation of practising Hurons. During the night, 24-25 March, 1746, the father was stricken with paralysis, and on 29 July he was placed in an open canoe and thus conveyed to Quebec.

In 1747 the Hurons insisted on his returning to restore tranquillity to their nation. The father had almost completely recovered from his palsy, and willingly consented. He set out from Montreal on 10 Sept., and reached Detroit on 20 Oct. From this date until 1751, leaving the loyal Hurons in the keeping of Father Potier at the Detroit village, he directed all his energies to reclaiming Nicolas Orontondi's band of insurgent Hurons. These had already in 1740, owing to a bloody feud with the Detriot Ottawas and to the reluctance, if not refusal, of Governor Beauharnais to let the Hurons remove to Montreal, sullenly left Detroit and settled at "Little Lake" (now Rondeau Harbour) near Sandusky. There they had been won over to the English cause, had openly revolted in 1747, and had murdered a party of Frenchmen. Early in the spring of 1748 Orontondi (not Orontony) set fire to the fort and cabins at Sandusky, and withdrew to the Riviere Blanche, not far from the junction of the Ohio and Wabash Rivers. Until his death, which occurred some time after Sepember, 1749, Orontondi continued to intrigue with the English emissaries, the Iroquois, and the disaffected Miamis. When there was no longer doubt of the renegade leader's demise, de La Richardie resolved on a final attempt at conciliation. He had already at intervals spent months at a time among the fugitives, and now on Sept., 1750, at the peril of his life he started, with only three canoe men for the country of the 'Nicolites" as they were then termed. The greater number remained obdurate. It is the descendants of the latter who in July, 1843, removed from their lands at Upper Sandusky, Ohio, to beyond the Mississippi, and now occupy the Wyandot reserve in the extreme north-eastern part of Oklahoma. The father's failing strength obliged his superiors to recall him to Quebec in 1751, and on 30 June he bade a final farewell to the Detroit mission. From the autumn of 1751 until his death he filled various offices in Quebec College. His Huron name was Ondechaouasti.

ARTHUR EDWARD JONES

Larino

(Larinum).

Diocese in the province of Capmobasso, Southern Italy. Larinum was a city of the Frentani (a Samnite tribe) and a Roman municipium. The present city is a mile from the site of the ancient Larinum, destroyed by war and epidemic, and is first mentioned as an episcopal see in 668. Noteworthy among the bishops were Giovanni Leone (1440), a distinguished canonist and theologian; Fra Giacomo de' Petruzzi, a saintly a renowned philosopher; Belisario Baldovino (1555), present at the Council of Trent, founder of the seminary and episcopal palace; the Oratian Gian Tommaso Eustachi (1612), famous for his sanctity; Carlo M. Pianetti (1706), who restored the cathedral, with its beautiful marble façade; Gian Andrea Tri (1726), historian of Larino. The diocese is a suffragan of Benevento, and has 21 parishes with 79,000 souls, 3 religious houses of men and 1 of women, and 1 school for girls.

U. BENIGNI

Larissa

The seat of a titular archbishopric of Thessaly. The city, one of the oldest and richest in Greece, is said to have been founded by Acrisius, who was killed accidentally by his son, Perseus (Stephanus Byzantius, s.v.). There lived Peleus, the hero beloved by the gods, and his son Achilles; however, the city is not mentioned by Homer, unless it be identified with Argissa of the Iliad (II, 738). The constitution of the town was democratic, which explains why it sided with Athens in the Peloponnesian War. In the neighbourhood of Larissa was celebrated a festival which recalled the Roman Saturnalia, and at which the slaves were waited on by their masters. It was taken by the Thebans and afterwards by the Macedonian kings, and Demetrius Poliorcestes gained possession of it for a time, 302 B.C. It was there that Philip V, King of Macedonia, signed in 197 B.C. a shameful treaty with the Romans after his defeat at Cynoscephalae, and it was there also that Antiochus III, the Great, won a great victory, 192 B.C. Larissa is frequently mentioned in connection with the Roman civil wars which preceded the establishment of the empire and Pompey sought refuge there after the defeat of Pharsalus. First Roman, then Greek until the thirteenth century, and afterwards Frankish until 1400, the city fell into the hands of the Turks, who kept it until 1882, when it was ceded to Greece; it suffered greatly from the conflicts between the Greeks and the Turks between 1820 and 1830, and quite recently from the Turkish occupation in 1897. On 6 March, 1770, Aya Pasha massacred there 3000 Christians from Trikala, who had been treacherously brought there.

Very prosperous under the Turkish sovereignty Larissa, which counted 40,000 inhabitants thirty years ago, has now only 14,000, Greeks, Turks, and Jews; the province of which it is the chief town has a population of 140,000. Christianity penetrated early to Larissa, though its first bishop is recorded only in 325 at the Council of Nicaea. We must mention especially, St. Achilius, in the fourth centruy, whose feast is on 15 May, and who is celebrated for his miracles. Lequien, "Oriens Christ," II, 103-112, cites twenty-nine bishops from the fourth to the eighteenth centuries; the most famous Jermias II, occupied the Patriarch of the West until 733, when the Emperor Leo III the Isaurian annexed it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the first years of the tenth century it had ten suffragen sees (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . .Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum", Munich, 1900, 557); subsequently the number increased and about the year 1175 under the Emperor Manuel Commenus, it reached twenty-eight (Parthey, "Hieroclis Synecdemus", Berlin, 1866, 120). At the close of the fifteenth century, under the turkish, domination, there were only ten suffragan sees (Gelzer, op. cit., 635), which gradually grew less and finally disappeared. Since 1882, when Thessaly was ceded to Greece, the Orthodox Diocese of Larissa has been dependent on the Holy Synod of Athens, not Constantinople. Owing to the law of 1900 which suppressed all the metropolitan sees excepting Athens, Larissa was reduced to the rank of a simple bishopric; its title is united with that of Pharsalus and Platamon, two adjoining bishoprics now suppressed.

S. VAILHÉ

Joseph de La Roche Daillon

Recollect, one of the most zealous missionaries of the Huron tribe, d. in France, 1656. He landed at Quebec, 19 June, 1625, with the first Jesuits who came to New France, and at once set out with the Jesuit Father Brebeuf for Three Rivers, to meet the Hurons into whose country they hoped to enter. Owing to a report that the Hurons had drowned the Recollect Nicolas Viel, their missionary, the journey was put off. In 1626 La Roche Daillon was among the Hurons, leaving whom he passed to the Neutral Nation after travelling six days on foot. He remained with them for three months, and at one time barely escaped being put to death. This caused his return to the Hurons. In 1628 he went to Three Rivers with twenty Huron canoes, on their way to trade pelts with the French. From Three Rivers he journeyed to Quebec, and on the taking of the city, in 1629, the English sent him back to France. La Roche Daillon published an account of his voyage to and sojourn amongst the Neutrals, describing their country and their customs, and mentioning a kind of oil which seems to be coal oil. Sagard and Leclercq reproduced it in their writings, in a more or less abridged form.

ODORIC-M. JOUVE

The Duke of La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt

(François-Alexandre-Frédéric).

Born at La Roche-Guyon, on 11 January, 1747; died at Paris, 27 March, 1827.

Opposed during the last years of the reign of Louis XV to the government of Maupeou, and the friend of all the reformers who surrounded Louis XVI, he owed to the influence of these economists the favour of the king. Having little liking for the military profession he devoted himself to scientific agriculture. During the rage for rural life which characterized the last years of the old regime, La Rochefoucauld made his estate at Liancourt an experimental station, whishing to improve both the soil and the peasantry. He introduced new methods of farming, founded the first model technical school in France (intended for the children of poor soldiers), and started two factories. Politically, he was a partisan of a democratic regime of which the king was to be the head, and throughout his life was faithful to this dream. Deputy for the nobility of Clermont in Beauvaisis at the States-General, he voted unhesitatingly for the "reunion of the three orders". it was he who in the night which followed the taking of the Bastille (14 July, 1789) roused Louis XVI, saying: "Sire, it is not a revolt, it is a revolution." He presided at the Constituent Assembly from 20 July to 3 August, 1789. On the night of 4 August he was one of the most enthusiastic in voting the abolition of titles of nobility and privileges. As grand master of the wardrobe he accompanied Louis XVI from Versailles to Paris on 5 and 6 October, 1789. As president of the committee of mendicancy, he made a supreme effort at the Constituent Assembly to organize public relief; he determined the extent and the limits of the rights of every citizen to assistance, determined the obligations of the State, and established a budget of State assistance which amounted annually to five millions and a half of francs, and which implied the national confiscation of hospital property, of ecclesiastical charitable property, and of the income from private foundations.

Liancourt is one of the most undiscerning representatives of the tendency which led the revolutionary state to destroy all collective forms of charity. Absolutely devoted to the person of Louis XVI as well as to the doctrines of the Revolution, he secured for himself in 1792 the lieutenancy of Normandy and Picardy, so as to prepare for the flight of the king as far as Rouen; but Louis XVI refused to place himself in the hands of constitutional deputies. La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt emigrated shortly after 10 August, and resided in England until 1794, afterwards in the United States (1794-7). He took advantage of his residence in that country to write eight volumes on the United States to induce Washington to interfere in favour of Lafayette, and to gather ideas upon education and agriculture which he attempted later to apply in France. After 18 Brumaire, Napoleon authorized him to return to his Liancourt estate, which was restored to him. This former duke and peer gloried in being appointed, during the first Empire (1806), general inspector of the "Ecole des arts et métiers" at Châlons, of which his Liancourt school had been a forerunner. The book "Prisons de Philadelphie" which he composed in American and published in 1796, was meant to initiate a penitentiary reform in France at the Restoration in 1814 he begged but one favour—to be appointed prison inspector. In 1819 he became inspector of one of the twenty-eight arrondissements into which France was divided for penitentiary purposes. Louis XVIII gave him back neither the blue ribbon nor the mastership of the wardrobe, and in the House of Peers he sat with the opposition.

La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt was the Franklin of the Revolution. An aristocrat by birth, a liberal in his views, in touch with all the representatives of the new commerce, he availed himself of this concurrence of circumstances to become the leader of every campaign for the people's protection and betterment; improvement of sanitary conditions in hospitals and foundling asylums, reorganization of schools according to the theories of Lancaster, whose book he had translated (Système anglais d'Instruction). He brought into use the methods of mutual instruction, and the pupils between 1816 and 1820 increased from 165,000 to 1,123,000. In 1818 he established the first savings bank and provident institution in Paris. On 19 Nov., 1821, he founded the Society of Christian Morals, over which he presided until 1825. It was at times looked upon with suspicion by the police of the Restoration. At its meetings were such men as Charles de Rémusat, Charles Coquerel, Guizot the Pedagogue, Oberlin, and Llorente, historian of the Inquisition. Broglie, Guizot, and Benjamin Constant were chairmen in turn, and Dufaure, Tocqueville, and Lamartine made there their maiden speeches. In these meetings provident institutions, rather than charitable ones, were discussed; slavery, lottery, gambling were combatted, and the matter of prison inspection was taken up. When La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt died, the Restoration would not permit the students of Châlons to carry his coffin, and the two chambers were much concerned over such extreme measures. La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt was a typical philanthropist, with all that this word implies of generous intentions and practical innovations; but also with a certain naïve pride, inherited from the philosophy of the eighteenth century, which led him to mistrust the charitable initiative of the Church, and to forget that the Church, the most perfect representative of the spirit of brotherhood, is still called in our modern society to win the victory for this spirit by putting it to practical uses, as she alone can.

FERDINAND-DREYFUS, Un philanthrope d'autrefois: La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, 1747-1827 (Paris, 1903).

GEORGE GOYAU

Henri-Auguste-Georges du Vergier, Comte de la Rochejacquelein

French politician, b. at the château of Citran (Fironde), on 28 September, 1805; d. on 7 January, 1867. He belonged to an old illustrious French family, whose name is mentioned in connection with Saint Louis's Crusade in 1248. His father, Louis de La Rochejacquelein, and his uncle Henri had won fame as royalist generals in the wars of the Vendéans against the National Convention. His mother left interesting memoirs which have been edited many times. Young La Rochejacquelein entered the military academy at Saint-Cyr at the age of sixteen and in 1823 he received a commission as second lieutenant in the cavalry. He took part in the Spanish War (1823) and in the Russo-Turkish War of 1828. In 1825 he had been made a peer, but he resigned shortly after the Revolution of 1830, which brought the younger branch of the House of Bourbon to the throne of France. The Department of Morbihan sent him to the legislature in 1842. He took his seat among the members of the Extreme Right, or Legitimist party, with whom he usually cast his vote, although he occasionally support liberal measures. In 1848 the "Gazette de France" supported his candidacy for the presidency of the newly established French Republic, but he obtained only an insignificant number of votes. In 1852 he was made a senator by Napoleon III, which caused some astonishment and comment among his friends the Legitimists. In the senate La Rochejacquelein always showed himself an ardent defender of Catholicism, but he may be reproached with having given his support to the whole foreign policy of the imperial Government. He published a number of works on political and economical subjects, among them being: "Considérations sur l'impôt du sel" (Paris, 1844); "Opinion sur le projet de loi relatif à la réforme des pensions" (1844); "Situation de la France" (1849); "A mon pays" (1850); "La France en 1853" (1853); "Question du jour" (1856); "La suspension d'armes" (1859); "La politique internationale et le droit des gens" (1860); "Un schisme et l'honneur" (1861).

PIERRE MARIQUE

La Rochelle

The Diocese of La Rochelle (Rupellensis), suffragan of Bordeaux, comprises the entire Department of Charente-Inférieure. The See of Maillezais (see LuÇon) was transferred on 7 May, 1648, to La Rochelle, which diocese just, previous to the Revolution, aside from the territory of the former Bishop of Maillezais, included the present arrondissements of Marennes, Rochefort, La Rochelle, and a part of Saint-Jean d'Angély. At the Concordat the entire territory of the former See of Saintes (less the part comprised in the Department of Charente, and belonging to the See of Angoulême) and of the See of Luçon was added to it. In 1821 a see was established at Luçon, and had under its jurisdiction, aside from the former Diocese of Luçon, almost the entire former Diocese of Maillezais; so that Maillezais, once transferred to La Rochelle, no longer belongs to the diocese now known as La Rochelle et Saintes.

I. SEE OF LA ROCHELLE

Mgr Landriot, a well-known religious writer, occupied this see from 1856 to 1867. St. Louis of France is the titular saint of the cathedral of La Rochelle and the patron of the city. St. Eutropius, first Bishop of Saintes, is the principal patron of the present Diocese of La Rochelle. In this diocese are especially honoured: St. Gemme, martyr (century unknown); St. Seronius, martyr (third century); St. Martin, Abbot of the Saintes monastery (fifth century); St. Vaise, martyr about 500; St. Maclovius (Malo), first Bishop of Aleth, Brittany, who died in Saintonge about 570; St. Amand, Bishop of Maastricht (seventh century). From 1534 La Rochelle and the Province of Aunis were a centre of Calvinism. In 1573 the city successfully resisted the Duke of Anjou, brother of Charles IX, and remained the chief fortress of the Huguenots in France. But in 1627 the alliance of La Rochelle with the English proved to Louis XIII and to Richelieu that the political independence of the Protestants would be a menace to France; the famous siege of La Rochelle (5 August, 1627-28 October, 1628), in the course of which the population was reduced from 18,000 inhabitants to 5000, terminated with a capitulation which put an end to the political claims of the Calvinistic minority.

II. ANCIENT SEE OF SAINTES

Saintes had a certain importance under the Romans, as is proved by many existing monuments. The oldest bishop of known date is Peter, who took part in the Council of Orléans (511). The first bishop, however, is St. Eutropius. Venantius Fortunatus, in a poem written in the second half of the sixth century, makes explicit mention of him in connexion with Saintes. Eutropius was said to be a Persian of royal descent, ordained and sent to Gaul by St. Clement; at Saintes he converted to Christianity the governor's daughter, St. Eustelle, and like her suffered martyrdom. This tradition is noted by Gregory of Tours, with a cautious ut fertur; Saintes is thus the only church of Gaul which Gregory traces back to the first century. This evidence is much weakened, says Mgr Duchesne, by Gregory's remark to the effect that no one knew the history of St. Eutropius before the removal of his relics by Bishop Palladius, which took place about 590. At this tardy date seems to have arisen the account of Eutropius as a martyr. Among the bishops of Saintes are mentioned: St. Vivianus (119-52?), once Count of Saintes, later a monk; St. Trojanus, died about 532; St. Concordius (middle of the sixth century); S. Pallais (Palladius), about 580, to whom St. Gregory the Great recommended St. Augustine on way to England; St. Leontius, bishop in 625; Cardinal Raimond Perauld (1503-05), an ecclesiastical writer, several times nuncio, legate for a crusade against the infidels and the re-establishment of peace between Maximilian and Louis XII; Cardinal François Soderini (1507-16), who died in Rome as dean of the Sacred College, and his nephew Jules Soderini (1516-44); Charles of Bourbon (1544-50), cardinal in 1548, afterward Archbishop of Rouen, whom Mayenne wished later to make King of France; Pierre Louis de La Rochefoucauld (1782-92), massacred at Paris with his brother, the Bishop of Beauvais, 2 September, 1792, thus closing the list of the bishops of the diocese as it opened, with a martyr.

Several councils were held at Saintes: in 562 or 563, when Bishop Emerius, illegally elected, was deposed and Heraclius appointed in his stead; other councils were held in 579, 1074 or 1075, 1080, 1081, at which last, metropolitan authority over the sees of Lower Brittany was granted to Tours as against the claims of Dol, and William VII gave the church of St. Eutropius to the monks of Cluny; also in 1083, 1088, 1089, 1097. The crypt of St. Eutropius, one of the largest in France, dates from the beginning of the twelfth century. Urban II consecrated it on 20 April, 1096. Kings of France and England, and dukes of Guyenne, enriched the church with numerous foundations. Charles VII made a pilgrimage to it in 1441. Louis XI himself wrote a prayer against dropsy, in honour of St. Eutropius. Through the Middle Ages many pilgrimages were made to the tomb. In 1568 the Calvinists ravaged the crypt, but the tomb of St. Eutropius was so well hidden by the monks that it was thought to be lost; it was not until 19 May, 1843, that it was again discovered. In a Bull of Nicholas V, 1451, it is said that the cathedral of Saintes was the second church ever dedicated to St. Peter. Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, and his wife, Agnes of Burgundy, founded in 1047 the Abbey of Notre-Dame de Saintes for Benedictine nuns, which foundation was sanctioned by a Bull of Leo IX. During seven centuries this monastery had thirty abbesses, most of them daughters of the first families of France. The abbey church, now a military barrack, is Poitou Romanesque of the twelfth century. The Church of Saintes claims the honour of being the first to begin the practice of the Angelus; when John XXII heard of this pious custom he solemnly authorized it by two Bulls (1318, 1327). The monastery of "Angeriacum", founded in 768 by Pepin the Short, was the beginning of the town of Saint-Jean-d'Angély. In 1010 Abbot Alduin, while having the walls of the church restored, declared that he found in a cylindrical stone a silver reliquary containing the head of St. John the Baptist; William V, Duke of Aquitaine, had the relic exposed, and King Robert and Queen Constance inspected it. The future fifteenth-century Cardinal Jean de La Balue was Abbot of Saint-Jean-d'Angély. Bernard Palissy, the famous artist in ceramics (1510-90), was one of the founders of the Protestant Reform Church of Saintes, and his atelier was about 1562 a secret assembly-place of the Huguenots; for this he was summoned before the Parliament. Aside from the Basilica of St. Eutropius, the principal pilgrimages of the diocese are: Our Lady of Corme-Ecluse, near Saujon; Our Lady of Pity, at Croix-Gente (twelfth century); Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, at Jaugou.

There were in the Diocese of La Rochelle, when the Associations Law was enforced, Lazarists, Little Brothers of Mary, Marianists, Children of Mary Immaculate, and a local congregation called the Brothers of St. Francis of Assisi, known as "farming brothers"; this congregation, founded in 1841 by Père Deshayes, then superior general of the Missionaries of the Holy Ghost, the Daughters of Wisdom, and the St. Gabriel Brothers, looked after the agricultural instruction of foundlings. Three congregations of women trace their origin to this diocese: the Providence Sisters of St. Joseph, a teaching order founded at La Rochelle in 1658 by Isabelle Mauriet; Providence Sisters of St. Mary, a teaching order founded in 1818, with the motherhouse at Saintes; Ursulines of the Sacred heart, a nursing and teaching order, founded in 1807 by Père Charles Barreaud, with motherhouse at Pons. In 1900, before the Associations Law, the religious congregations had in the diocese one crèche, 34 day nurseries, one convalescent home for children, an institute for the blind, an agricultural settlement for boys, 8 orphanages for girls, an industrial room, a society for the preservation of young girls from danger, 14 hospitals, homes, and asylums for the aged, 18 convents of visiting nurses, 2 houses of retreat, and an insane asylum. In 1905 (last year of the Concordat) the Diocese of La Rochelle had 452,149 inhabitants, 46 parishes, 326 succursal churches, 52 curacies.

Gallia Christiana, Nova, II (1720), 1053, 1093 and instrum., 457-86; Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, II, 72 75 and 138-39; Briand, Histoire de l'église santone et aunisienne depuis son origine (3 vols., La Rochelle, 1845-46); Bunell Lewis, The antiquities of Saintes (London, 1887); Audiat, Documents pour l'histoire des diocèses de Saintes et de La Rochelle (Paris, 1882); Idem, Abbaye de Notre-Dame de Saintes, histoire et documents (Paris, 1884); Bruhat, De administratione terrarum Sanctonensis atabatio, 1047-1220 (La Rochelle, 1901); Audiat, Le diocèse de Saintes au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1894); Palaysi, Bernard Palissy et les débuts de to Réforme en Saintonge (Cahors, 1899); Courpron, Essaie sur t'histoire du protestantisme en Aunis et Saintunge, 1685-1787 (Cahors, 1902); Barbot, Histoire de La Rochelle, ed. Denys D'aussy (3 vols., Paris, 1880-90); de La Gravière, Les origines de la marine française et la tactique naturelie: le siège de La Rochelle (Paris, 1891); Rodo canachi, Les derniers temps du siège de La Rochelle, relation du nonce apostolique Guidi (Paris, 1899); Laronze, Quas ob causas rupellensis respublica perierit (La Rochelle, 1890); Chevalier, Topo-Bibl., s. v. Rochelle.

GEORGES GOYAU

Dominique-Jean Larrey

Baron, French military surgeon, b. at Baudéan, Hautes-Pyrénées, July, 1766; d. at Lyons, 25 July, 1842. His parents were so poor that he obtained his preliminary education only through the kindness of the village priest. After the death of his father, when the boy was thirteen years of age, he was sent to his uncle Dr. Oscar Larrey, a successful surgeon of Toulouse. The surgical ability of the family had already been established by his elder brother, Charles-François-Hilaire Larrey, recognised as an able surgeon and writer on surgery. At the age of twenty-one the younger Larrey went to Paris, and after a brilliant competitive examination entered the navy. Later he became a pupil of Dessault. He joined the army in 1792, and the next year established the ambulance volante (flying ambulance), a corps of surgeons and nurses who went into battle with the men and tended to their wounds on the battle-field as far as was possible. For this he was made surgeon-in-chief and accompanied Napoleon on his expedition into Egypt. He became a great favourite with Napoleon for his devotion to duty. He was noted not only for his care of the wounded soldiers during and after the battles but also for his care of the health of the troops at all times. Friends or enemies all received the same devoted attention. For distinguished courage he was made a baron by Napoleon on the field of Wagram in 1809. He was wounded at Austerlitz and at Waterloo. He made many ingenious and important inventions in operations, and significant advances in clinical surgery. His observations in medicine and on the health of troops during campaigns were scarcely less valuable. Some of his suggestions on medicine and surgery are still used. "If ever", said Napoleon, "the soldiers erect a statue it should be to Baron Larrey, the most virtuous man I have ever known." He has two monuments, one erected in 1850 in the court of the Val-de-Grâce military hospital, Paris, and the other in the hall of the Academy of Medicine. The American surgeon Agnew said of him: "As an operator he was judicious but bold and rapid; calm and self-possessed m every emergency; but full of feeling and tenderness. He stands among the military surgeons where Napoleon stands among the generals, the first and the greatest." His attachment to his profession was only exceeded by his patriotism. After the exile of Napoleon, deprived of his honours and emoluments, though solicited by the Emperor of Russia and by Pedro I of Brazil to take charge of their armies with high rank, he refused to leave his native land. One of his special pleasures at the end of his life was a meeting with the Abbé de Grace, the preceptor of his early years, whom he held in high veneration. His works ave been a favourite study of the surgeons of all nations during the nineteenth century. Most of them have been translated into all modern languages. His principal works are: "Relation histor. et chirurg.de l'expédition de l'armée d'Orient en Egypte et en Syrie" (Paris, 1803), translated into English and German; "Clinique chirurgicale dans les camps et hopitaux militaires"; "Surgical Memoirs of Campaigns: Russia, Germany, France' (Philadelphia, 1832); "Choléra Morbus, Md-moire" (Paris, 1831).

The principal sources of material for his life are his works. Agnew, Baron Larroy (Philadelphia, 1861); Werner, Larrey, Ein Lebensbild (Berlin, 1585).

JAMES J. WALSH

Charles de Larue

Born 29 July, 1685 (some say 12 July, 1684), at Corbie, in France; died 5 Oct., 1739, at St. Germain-des-Près. Very early he displayed talent in the study of languages and signs of a religious vocation. He took the habit of St. Benedict in the Abbey of St. Faro at Meaux, and made his religious profession on 21 Nov., 1703. He then studies philosophy and theology, and in 1712 was sent to Paris to assist Dom Bernard de Montifacon in his literary work. The latter soon had a true estimate of his young assistant, and set him to work at editing all the works of Origen, except the "Hexapla". Larue worked with energy; in 1725 printing was begun, and eight years later two volumes appeared with a dedication to Pope Clement XII. In the preface Larue gives the various opinions of earlier writers on Origen and his works, and states his reasons for making a new edition. The first volume contains the letters of Origen (mostly in fragments), the four books "De principiis" on prayer, an exhortation to martyrdom, and the eight books against Celsus. To this is added "De recta in Deum fide contra Marcionem", which had been published in 1674 under the name of Origen. Larue proves that this book and the books "Contra hæreses" are falsely ascribed to Origen. To each book Larue adds copious explanatory notes. In the preface to the second volume is given an outline of the method followed by Origen in explaining the Holy Scriptures; then follow the commentaries on the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Jobs, and the Psalter. Larue had gathered material for two other volumes, but a stroke of paralysis put an end to his labours. They were edited by his nephew Vincent de Larue, a member of the same congregation.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Charles de La Rue

One of the great orators of the Society of Jesus in France in the seventeenth century, b. at Paris, 3 August, 1643; d. there, 27 May, 1725. He entered the novitiate on 7 September, 1659, and being afterwards professor of the humanities and rhetoric, he attracted attention while still young by a poem on the victories of Louis XIV. Corneille translated it and offered it to the king, saying that his work did not equal the original of the young Jesuit. He wrote several tragedies, brought out an edition of Virgil, and wrote several Latin poems. After having several times refused to permit him to go to Canada, his superiors assigned him to preaching; as an orator he was much admired by the court and the king. His funeral orations on the Dukes of Burgundy and Luxemburg, and that on Bossuet, his sermons on "Les Calamités publiques" and "The Dying Sinner" have been regarded as masterpieces by the greatest masters. He preached missions among the Protestants of Languedoc for three years. He was a most virtuous religious, and during his last years endured courageously great infirmities.

ABEL CHAMPON

La Salette

Located in the commune and parish of La Salette-Fallavaux, Canton of Corps, Department of Isere, and Diocese of Grenoble. It is celebrated as the place where, it is said, the Blessed Virgin appeared to two little shepherds; and each year is visited by a large number of pilgrims.

On 19 September, 1846, about three o'clock in the afternoon in full sunlight, on a mountain about 5918 feet high and about three miles distant from the village of La Salette-Fallavaux, it is related that two children, a shepherdess of fifteen named Mélanie Calvat, called Mathieu, and a shepherd-boy of eleven named Maximin Giraud, both of them very ignorant, beheld in a resplendent light a "beautiful lady" clad in a strange costume. Speaking alternately in French and in patois, she charged them with a message which they were "to deliver to all her people". After complaining of the impiety of Christians, and threatening them with dreadful chastisements in case they should persevere in evil, she promised them the Divine mercy if they would amend.

Finally, it is alleged, before disappearing she communicated to each of the children a special secret. The sensation caused by the recital of Mélanie and Maximin was profound, and gave rise to several investigations and reports. Mgr. Philibert de Bruillard, Bishop of Grenoble, appointed a commission to examine judicially this marvellous event; the commission concluded that the reality of the apparition should be admitted. Soon several miraculous cures took place on the mountain of La Salette, and pilgrimages to the place were begun. The miracle, needless to say, was ridiculed by free-thinkers, but it was also questioned among the faithful, and especially by ecclesiastics. There arose against it in the Dioceses of Grenoble and Lyons a violent oppposition, aggravated by what is known as the incident of Ars. As a result of this hostility and the consequent agitation, Mgr. de Bruillard (16 November 1851) declared the apparition of the Blessed Virgin as certain, and authorized the cult of Our Lady of La Salette. This act subdued, but did not suppress, the opposition, whose leaders, profiting by the succession in 1852 of a new bishop, Mgr. Ginoulhiac, to Mgr. Bruillard, who had resigned, retaliated with violent attacks on the reality of the miracle of La Salette. They even asserted that the "beautiful lady" was a young woman named Lamerliere, which story gave rise to a widely advertised suit for slander. Despite these hostile acts, the first stone of a great church was solemnly laid on the mount of La Salette, 25 May, 1852, amid a large assembly of the faithful. This Church, later elevated to the rank of a basilica, was served by a body of a religious called Missionaries of La Salette. In 1891 diocesan priests replaced these missionaries, driven into exile by persecuting laws.

As said above, the Blessed Virgin confided to each of the two children a special secret. These two secrets, which neither Mélanie or Maximin ever made known to each other, were sent by them in 1851 to Pius IX on the advice of Mgr. de Bruillard. It is unknown what impressions these mysterious revelations made on the pope, for on this point there were two versions diametrically opposed to each other. Maximin's secret is not known, for it was never published. Mélanie's was inserted in its entirety in brochure which she herself had printed in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the approval of the bishop of that town. A lively controversy followed as to whether the secret published in 1879 was identical with that communicated to Pius IX in 1851, or in its second form it was not merely a work of the imagination. The latter was the opinion of wise and prudent persons, who were persuaded that a distinction must be made between the two Mélanies, between the innocent and simple voyante of 1846 and the visionary of 1879, whose mind had been disturbed by reading apocalyptic books and the lives of illuminati. As Rome uttered no decision the strife was prolonged between the disputants. Most of the defenders of the text of 1879 suffered censure from their bishops. Maximin Giraud, after an unhappy and wandering life, returned to Corps, his native village, and died there a holy death (1 March, 1875). Mélanie Calvat ended a no less wandering life at Altamura, Italy (15 December, 1904).

LEON CLUGNET

Missionaries of La Salette

The Missionaries of La Salette were founded in 1852, at the shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, where some priests banded together to care for the numerous pilgrims frequenting the mountain. In 1858 these priests formed a little community with temporary constitutions, under the immediate charge of the Bishop of Grenoble. In 1876 Right Rev. Mgr Fava gave them more complete rules, and in May, 1890, the Institute was approved by Rome.

Finding it hard to recruit their number from the secular clergy, the fathers founded an "Apostolic school" or missionary college in 1876. After a six-year classical course in their novitiate, they were to go to the scholasticate in Rome, to complete their philosophical and theological course in the Gregorian University. In 1892 five of the missionaries arrived in the United States with fifteen students. Bishop McMahon of Hartford, Connecticut, welcomed them into his diocese, and they established themselves in the episcopal city, occupying the former bishop's residence on Collins Street. In 1895 they moved to new quarters at 85 New Park Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut, close to the church of Our Lady of Sorrows. Hitherto a mission church of the cathedral, it was made a parish and given in charge of the fathers, who began to tend it on Ascension Day of the same year. In 1894, having established themselves in the Springfield Diocese, the fathers received the French parish of St. Joseph, Fitchburg, Massachusetts, from Rev. Thomas Beaven. In 1895 Rt. Rev. Michael Tierney, successor to Bishop McMahon, requested the fathers to take charge of the mixed parish of St. James, Danielson, Conn. In 1901, at the suggestion of Bishop Beaven of Springfield, the Very Rev. Superior General sent a few students to Poland to prepare themselves for Polish parishes in the Springfield Diocese, and the parish at Ware and that of Westfield were given over to their care. in 1902 they were received into the Diocese of Sherbrooke, Canada, with a parish at Stanstead, Quebec, Canada, and also into the Archdiocese of New York, with a parish at Phoenicia, in Ulster County. At the request of Archbishop Langevin of St. Boniface, Canada, a few fathers were sent from the mother-house in Hartford to establish themselves in West Canada. They became a separate province with headquarters at Forget, Saskatchewan. They tended four flourishing parishes, Forget, Esteven, Ossa, and Weyburn. In 1909, the missionaries deeming their order sufficiently developed, owing to additional foundations in Belgium, Madagascar, Poland, and Brazil, the Very Rev. Superior General petitioned the Holy See to approve their constitutions. The request was granted 29 January, 1909. The students of the Apostolic schools are trained chiefly to combat the great crimes of the day, especially those denounced in the discourse of the Blessed Virgin at La Salette. The spirit of the community is that which pervades the whole apparition of Mary on the Mountain of La Salette--a spirit of prayer and sacrifice.

J. GUINET

René-Robert-Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle

Explorer, born at Rouen, 1643; died in Texas, 1687.

In his youth he displayed an unusual precocity in mathematics and a predilection for natural science; his outlook upon life was somewhat puritanical. Whether or not he was educated with a view to entering the Society of Jesus is a matter of doubt, though some religious order he must have subsequently joined, for to this fact is assigned the forfeiture of his estates. The career of a churchman was definitely abandoned, however, when, after receiving the feudal grant of a tract of land at La Chine on the St. Lawrence from the Sulpicians, seigneurs of Montreal--perhaps through the influence of a elder brother who was a member of the order at that place--he came to Canada as an adventurer and trader in 1666. For three years La Salle remained quietly upon his little estate, mastering Indian dialects and meditating on a southwest passage. Upon the latter quest he set out in 1669 with a party of Sulpicians, who, deeming that there was greater missionary work among the north-western tribes, soon abandoned the expedition. La salle's subsequent travels on this occasion are shrouded in an obscurity that will perhaps never be dispelled. Whether he was the first white man to gaze upon Niagara, whether he explored the Allegheny valley or the Ohio river, he seems not to have reached the Mississippi, Joliet's undisputed claim to that distinction during La Salle's residence in Canada being regarded, at present, as finally established. Indeed Joliet's announcement, some few years later, that the Grande Rivière flowed into the Gulf of Mexico perceptibly stimulated La Salle to fashion and carry out those schemes which must have been taking shape even in the novitiate of Rouen--dreams of acquiring a monopoly of the fur trade and of building up the empire of New France. The French doctrine that the discovery of a river gave an inchoate right to the land drained by its tributaries suggested to La Salle and Governor Frontenac a " plan to effect a military occupation of the whole Mississippi valley...by means of military posts which should control the communication and sway the policy of the Indian tribes", as well as present an impassable barrior to the English colonies. The money needed for such a plan drove La Salle to those attempts at a monopoly which engendered such persistent opposition, and which account, partly at least, for the failure of his plans.

A trip to France in the autumn of 1674 followed his erection of Fort Frontenac for the protection of the fur trade at the outset of Lake Ontario. The king gave him a grant of his fort and the adjacent territory, promised to garrison it at his own expense, and conferred upon him the rank of esquire. Upon his return, La Salle rebuilt the fort, launched upon the Niagara River the "Griffin", a forty-five ton schooner with five guns, in which, with Hennepin, a Franciscan, and the Neapolitan Henri de Tonty, he set sail in the autumn of 1678, passed over Lakes Erie and Huron, and reached the southern extremity of Lake Michigan. Here the gunboat was sent back, unlawfully laden with furs to appease La Salle's creditors, and was never heard from again. The expedition pushed on to the Illinois, where Fort Crevecoeur was built. After waiting through the winter for the return of the "Griffin", La Salle, leaving the faithful Tonty in charge of the fort, resolved to return one thousand miles on foot to Montreal, accompanied by four Frenchmen and an Indian guide. The sufferings of his famous retreat were borne with incredible fortitude, and he was returning with supplies when it was learned that the garrison at Fort Crevecoeur had mutinied, had driven Tonty into the wilderness, and were then cruising about Lake Ontario in the hope of murdering La Salle. The dauntless Frenchman pushed out at once upon the lake, captured the mutineers, sent them back in irons to the governor, and then went to the rescue of Tonty, whom he met at Mackinaw on his return trip after abandoning the search. For a brief space in 1682 La Salle's fate seems more propitious, when, on 9 April, we catch a glimpse of him planting the fleurs-de-lis on the banks of the Mississippi, and claiming for France the wide territory that it drained. But, five years later, in the wretched failure of an attempt to plant a colony at the mouth of the Mississippi, he was murdered by mutineers from ambush.

La Salle's schemes of empire and of trade were far too vast for his own generation to accomplish, though it was along the lines that he projected that France pursued her colonial policy in the New World in the eighteenth century until finally overthrown by the English in the French and Indian Wars.

JARVIS KEILEY

Ernst von Lasaulx

Scholar and philosopher, born at Coblenz, 16 March, 1805; died at Munich, 9 May, 1861. His father, Johann Claudius von Lasaulx, was a distinguised architect; his uncle, Johann Joseph Görres (q.v.), was the fiery champion of Catholic liberties; and the young Ernst became imbued with an enthusiam for the Catholic Faith and for liberty. He first studied at Bonn (1824-30), and later took up classical philology and philosophy at Munich, attaching himself in particular to Schelling, Görres, and Baader, and then spent four years travelling through Austria, Italy, Greece, and Palestine, visiting the places most famous in the history of civilization, both pagan and Christian. His voyage to Athens was made as a member of the suite of Prince Otto of Wittelsbach (Bavaria), who had been elected King of the Hellenes. On his return to his native land he took the doctor's degree at Kiel, in 1835, presenting a dissertation entitled "De mortis dominatu in veteres, commentatio theologica-philosophica", and was appointed dozent in classical philology at the University of Wurzburg, where he exercised a deep and far-reaching influence on the youth of the university. Meanwhile he married Julie Baader, daughter of the Munich philosopher, Franz Baader.

Upon the arrest (20 November, 1837) of Clemens August, Archbishop of Cologne, whose forcible detention in the fortress of Minden by the order of Prussian Government caused a great stir in Catholic circles both at home and abroad, Lasaulx wrote to his uncle, Görres, calling upon him to protest against the arbitrary act of the "military Government of Berlin against the Archbishop of Cologne". This was the impulse that was responsible for Görres's celebrated "Athanasius". At the same time Lasaulx himself issued the controversial pamphlet "Kritische Bemerkungen über die Kölner Sache", a bold attack on the Prussian Government and the diplomat Josias von Bunsen. In the autumn of 1844 Lasaulx was appointed professor of philology and aesthetics at the University of Munich, despite the vigorous efforts of the Würzburg senate to secure his continued services there. At Munich he quickly became famous as a magnetic and stimulating teacher. When his influence effected the downfall of the minister Abel, the senate of the University applauded his action, but King Louis, on the other hand, vented his displeasure by dismissing Lasaulx from office (28 February, 1847). Demonstrations on the part of the students followed, resulting in the dismissal of eight other members of the University teaching staff. In 1848 Lasaulx, with three of his former colleagues, was elected to the National Assembly at Frankfort, where he identified himself with the Conservative group and again and again eloquently defended the liberties of the Catholic Church among the intellectual elite of Germany.

King Maximilian II having at length yielded to the petition of the Munich students to reinstate Lasaulx and the other expelled professors (15 March, 1849), Lasaulx resumed his work as a philosophical writer. In the same year he was elected a member of the Bavarian Chamber of Deputies, where, until his death, his masterly ability in all political controversies found energetic expression. Soon after his death, four of his works were placed on the Index; it was found that in them he had erred on the side of effacing the distinction between the common human religious element in heathenism and the theological expression of Christian revelation. Several years earlier, however, he had declared that, should any errors be found in his works, he would freely submit to the judgment of the Church.

KARL HOEBER

Constantine Lascaris

Greek scholar from Constantinople; born 1434; died at Messina in 1501. Made a prisoner by the Turks on the fall of Constantinople, he probably stayed the greater part of seven years in Corfu; he made a visit to Rhodes where he acquired some manuscripts; finally came to Italy and settled at Milan as a copyist of manuscripts. His work on the eight parts of speech presented to Princess Hippolyta Sforza procured from her father a request to teach the princess Greek. Lascaris followd the princess to Naples when she married Alfonso II (1465). The following year he left for Greece, but the vessel stopping at Messina, he was urged to stay there, consented, and died there after many years, bequeathing to the city his seventy-six manuscripts. They remained at Messina until 1679, and were then moved first to Palermo and later to Spain, where they are now in the National Library of Madrid. Constantine Lascaris was above all a tutor and a transcriber of manuscripts. One of his pupils was the future Cardinal Bembo. His industry as a copyist was soon superseded by the art of printing. He was himself the author of the first book printed in Greek, a small grammer (Milan, 1476) entitled "Erotemata".

PAUL LEJAY

Janus Lascaris

Also called John; surnamed Rhyndacenus (from Rhyndacus, a country town in Asia Minor).

He was a noted Greek scholar, born about 1445; died at Rome in 1535. After the fall of Constantinople he was taken to Peloponnesus and to Crete. When still quite young he came to Venice, where Bessarion became his patron, and sent him to learn Latin at Padua. On the death of Bessarion, Lorenzo de' Medici welcomed him to Florence, where Lascaris gave Greek lectures on Thucydides, Demosthenes, Sophocles, and the Greek anthology. Twice Lorenzo sent him to Greece in quest of manuscripts. When he returned the second time (1492) he brought back about two hundred from Mount Athos. Meanwhile Lorenzo had passed away. Lascaris entered the service of France and was ambassador at Venice from 1503 to 1508, at which time he became a member of the Greek Academy of Aldus Manutius; but if the printer had the benefit of his advice, no Aldine work bears his name. He resided at Rome under Leo X, the first pope of the Medici family, from 1513 to 1518, returned under Clement VII in 1523, and Paul III in 1534. Meanwhile he had assisted Louis XII in forming the library of Blois, and when Francis I had it removed to Fontaine-bleau, Lascaris and Budé had charge of its organization. We owe to him a number of editiones principes among them the Greek anthology (1494), four plays of Euripides, Callimachus (about 1495), Apolloninus Rhodius, Lucian (1496), printed in Florence in Greek capitals with accents, and the scholia of Didymas (1517) and of Porphyrius (1518) on Homer, printed in Rome.

PAUL LEJAY

John Laski

John a Lasco.

Archbishop of Gnesen and Primate of Poland, b. at Lask, 1456; d. at Gnesen, 19 May, 1531. In 1482 he entered the service of the royal arch-chancellor Kurzowcki, who made him provost of Skalmirez and of the cathedral church in Posen, and canon of Krakow. In 1502 he became royal arch-secretary, in 1505 arch-chancellor, in 1509 coadjutor of Archbishop Boryszewski of Gnesesn, and, after the death of the latter in 1510, Archbishop of Gnesen and Primate of Poland, whereupon he resigned as arch-chancellor in 1511. In 1513 he took part in the Fifth General Council of the Lateran, when he delivered an oration in which he urged upon the pope to take measures against the Teutonic Knights, who had been openly and secretly intriguing against Poland ever since 1466, when it had taken West Prussia and Ermland from them and begun to exercise its suzerainty over East Prussia. during the progress of the Lateran Council, Leo X conferred upon Laski and his successors in the archiepiscopal See of Gnesen the title of legatus natus. The Bull conferring the title is dated 25 July, 1515, and is still preserved in the archives of the cathedral chapter of Gnesen (no. 625). It was reprinted in Korytowski's "Arcybiscupi Gnieznienscy", II (Posen, 1888), 662. Laski's elevation to the cardinalate by Pope Leo X is aid to have been prevented by King Sigismund. Archbishop Laski was a zealous upholder of ecclesiastical discipline within his archdiocese, and a strenuous opponent of Protestantism in Poland. To put a stop to various ecclesiastical abusues, he held two provincial synods at Piotrkow (1510, 12) and a diocesan synod of Gnesen (1513). The seven other provincial synods which he held were intended chiefly to stem the spread of Protestantism in Poland. Four of these were convened at Lencicz in the years 1522, 1523, 1525, and 1527, and three at Piotrkow in 1526, 1532, and 1533.

Many of the legislative measure passed at these synods are printed in the "Constitutiones synodorum metropolitanae ecclesiae gnesnesis" (Krakow, 1630). Most of the canons and decrees of the earlier synods Laski edited in his "Sanctiones ecclesiasticae tam expontificum decretis quam ex constitutionibus synodorum provinciae excerptae, in primis autem statuta in diversis provincialibus synodis a se sancita" (Krakow, 1525), in his "Statuta provincialia" (1512), and "Statuta provinciae Gnesnensis" (1527). After the marriage of King Sigismund of Poland with Barbara Zapolya, in 1512, Archbishop Laski entered into friendly relations with John Zaploya, a brother of Barbara and an aspirant to the crown of Hungary. He sent his nephew Jerome Laki to Hungary to assist Zapolya, with money and troops in his opposition against the rightful King Ferdinand of Hungary. If we maky believe his enemies (especially Cardinal Gattinara), he continued to support his nephew even after the latter allied himself with the Turkish Sultan Soliman with the purpose of marching upon Viennna. In 1530 he was cited to Rome by Clement VII to give an account of his actions. His departure was, however delayed by King Sigismund, and he died the following year after expressing his desire to resign his see. Besides collecting the synodal legislations mentioned above, he made a compilation of the most important laws of Poland while he was arch-chamcelor. The work is entitled "Commune inclyti Poloniae regni privilegiorum, constitutionum et indultuum", etc., and was jpublished at Cracow in 1506. His "Liber beneficiorum archidioces Gnesnesis" was by Korytowski (Gnesen, 1880-1).

ZEISSBERG, Johann Laski, Erzbischof von Gnesen, kund sein Testament (Vienna, 1874); HIRSCHBERG, J. Laki als Verbundeter des turkischen Sultans (Leinberg, 1879); BUKOWSKI, Dzieje reformaclyi w Polace (Krakow, 1883).

MICHAEL OTT

Baron Joseph Maria Christoph von Lassberg

A distinguished German antiquary, born at Donaueschingen, 10 April, 1770; died 15 March, 1855. He was descended from a pious Catholic family. His father was chief forester in the service of Prince von Fürstenberg. After a brief service in the army, he entered the University of Strasburg and later that of Freiburg im Br. to study law and economics, especially forestry. From 1789 he was in the service of Prince von Fürstenberg, becoming chief warden of the forests in 1804. Princess Elizabeth, who ruled the principality during the minority of her son Karl Egon, showed him marked favour. He became privy councillor in 1806, and accompanied her on her travels through Switzerland, Italy, and England. When the regency ended in 1817, Lassberg resigned his position and retired to privite life, residing first on his estate at Eppishusen in Thurgau, and from 1838 at Castle Meersburg on Lake Constance. He now devoted himself zealously to the study of German literature, and in the pursuit of these studies he collected a superb library of upwards of 12,000 books and 273 valuable manuscripts, among which was the codex of the "Nibelungenlied" (known as the Hohenems manuscript and commonly designated as C). After his death this library was presented to the town of Donasueschingen.

Lassberg was very hospitably inclined and many visitors were entertained at Castle Meersburg. Uhland, Lachmann, Gustav Schwab, and other distinguished men of letters were among his friends. He was twice married, his second wife being Maria Anna von Droste-Hülshoff, a sister of the famous poetess Annette (q.v.). His literary work consisted chiefly in editing medieval German poems, many of which were published under the pseudonym of Meister Sepp von Eppishusen. Especially noteworthy is the "Liedersaal", a collection of medieval German poems, chiefly of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, of miscellaneous content. It appeared at St. Gall in four volumes. In the fourth volume the above-mentioned Nibelungen manuscript was printed for the first time.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Orlandus de Lassus

(Original name, Roland de Lattre), composer, born at Mons, Hainault, Belgium, in 1520 (according to most biographers; but his epitaph gives 1532); died at Munich, 14 June, 1594. At the age of eight and a half years he was admitted as soprano to the choir of the church of St. Nicholas in his native city. He soon attracted general attention, both on account of his unusal musical talent and his beautiful voice; so much so that he was three times abducted. Twice his parents had him returned to the parental roof, but the third time they consented to allow him to take up his abode at St-Didier, the temporary residence of Ferdinand de Gonzaga, general in command of the army of Charles V and Viceroy od Sicily. At the end of the campaign in the Netherlands, Orlandus followed his patron to Milan and from there to Sicily. After the change of his voice Orlandus spent about three years at the court of the Marquess della Terza, at Naples. He next went to Rome, where he enjoyed the favour and hospitality, for about six months, of Cardinal Archbishop of Florence, who was then living there. Through the influence of this prince of the church, Orlandus obtained the position of choirmaster at St. John Lateran, in spite of his extreme youth and the fact that there were many capable musicians available. During his residence in Rome, Lassus completed his first volume of Masses for four voices, and a collection of motets for five voices, all of which he had published in Venice. After a sojourn of probably two years in Rome, Lassus, learning of the serious illness of his parents, hastened back to Belgium only to find that they had died. His native city Mons not offering him a suitable field of activity, he spent several years in travel through France and England and then settled at Antwerp for about two years. It was while here that Orlandus received an invitation from Albert V, Duke of Bavaria, not only to become the director of his court chapel, but also to recruit capable musicians for it in the Netherlands. While in the employment and under the protection of this art-loving prince, Lassus developed that phenomenal productivity as a composer which is unsurpassed in the history of music. For thirty-four years he remained active at Munich as composer and director, first under Albert V, and then under his son and successor, William V. During all this time he enjoyed not only the continued and sympathetic favour of his patrons and employers, but was also honoured by Pope Gregory XIII, who appointed him Knight of the Golden Spur; by Charles IX of France, who bestowed upon him the cross of the Order of Malta; and by Emperor Maximilian, who on 7 December, 1570, raised Lassus and his descendants to the nobility. The imperial document conferring the honour is remarkable, not only as showing the esteem in which the master was held by rulers and nations, but particularly as evidence of the lofty conception on the part of this monarch of the function of art in the social economy. Lassus's great and long-continued activity finally told on his mind and caused a depression and break-down, from which he at first rallied but never fully recovered.

Lassus was the heir to the centuries of preparation and development of the Netherland school, and was its greatest and also its last representative.

While with many of his contemporaries, even the most noted, such as Dufay, Okeghem, Obrecht, and Josquin des Prés, contrapuntal skill is often an end in itself, Lassus, being consummate master of every form of the art and possessing a powerful imagination, always aims at a lofty and truthful interpretation of the text before him. His genius is of a universal nature. His wide culture and the extensive travels of his youth had enabled him to absorb the distinguishing musical traits of every nationality. None of his contemporaries had such a well -defined judgment in the choice of the means of expression which best served his purpose. The lyric, epic, and dramatic elements are alternately in evidence in his work. But he would undoubtedly have been greatest in the dramatic style, had he lived at a later period. Although Lassus lived at the time of the Reformation, when the individual and secular spirit manifested itself more and more in music, and although he interpreted secular poems such as madrigals, chansons, and German lieder, the contents of which were sometimes rather free (as was not infrequently the case in those times), his distinction lies overwhelmingly in his works for the Church.

The diatonic Gregorian modes form the basis of his compositions, and most frequently his themes are taken from liturgical melodies. The number of works the master has left to posterity exceeds two thousand, in every possible form, and in combinations of from two to twelve voices. Many of them remain in manuscript, but the great majority have been printed at Venice, Munich, Nuremberg, Louvain, Antwerp, or Paris. Among his more famous works must be mentioned his setting of the seven penitential psalms, which for variety, depth, truth of expression, and elevation of conception are unsurpassed. Duke Albert showed his admiration for this work by having it written on parchment and bound in two folio volumes, which the noted painter Hans Mielich illustrated, at the command of the duke, in a most beautiful manner. These, with two other smaller volumes containing an analysis of Lassus's and Mielich's work by Samuel van Quickelberg, a contemporary, are preserved in the court library at Munich. Lassus left no fewer than fifty Masses of his composition. Some of these are built upon secular melodies, as was customary in his time, but the thematic material for most of them has been taken from the liturgical chant. In 1604, his two sons, Rudolph and Ferdinand, also musicians of note, published a collection of 516 motets, under the title of "Magnum opus musicum", which was followed in 1609 by "Jubilus B. Mariae Virginis", consisting of 100 settings of the Magnificat. The publication of a critical edition of Lassus's complete works in sixty volumes, prepared by Dr. Haberl and A. Sandberger, was begun 1894.

JOSEPH OTTEN

Marie Lataste

Born at Mimbaste near Dax, France, 21 February, 1822; died at Rennes, 10 May, 1847; was the youngest child of simple pious peasants. According to her own narrative, written under obedience, she was poor, lowly, country girl, knowing nothing but what her mother taught her; hence, in the natural order, all her learning consisted in being able to read, write, sew, and spin. Her knowledge in the supernatural order long embraced merely the principal truths of salvation. Little by little the light grew like a vast furnace on which wood is cast, and towards which a mighty wind blows from all sides. The Lord Jesus, the Light of the World, had been the light of her soul. He had brought her up as a mother does her child, with patience and perseverance; if she knew aught she owed it to Him, she had all from Him. A troublesome child, proud, ambitious, and self-contained, she was the constant subject of her mother's anxious prayer, and her first Communion, made in her twelfth year, was the turning point in her life. A strong impression of the Divine presence on the great day, and confirmation received soon after, strengthened her piety and virtue, which thenceforward never faltered. About a year after Marie saw at Mass, during the Elevation, a bright light which seemed to inflame her love for the Eucharistic Lord and to increase as that love increased. Soon, to prepare her for greater favours, she was cast into the crucible of severe interior trials and temptations, whence docility to her director brought her forth victorious. He allowed her to make a yearly vow of virginity, and the Blessed Sacrament became the central thought of her life. According to her own narrative, towards the end of 1839, when she was seventeen, she saw Christ on the altar. On the Epiphany, 1840, this was repeated, and for three whole years every time she assisted at Mass this grace was granted her. Almost daily she received from the lips of Jesus instructions forming a complete spiritual and doctrinal education. He explained in simple language the principal truths of faith; sometimes he showed her symbolical visions, or taught her in parables. He sent His Mother and angels to her; at times He reproached and humbled her. Her progress in virtue was rapid, her defects disappeared, and she exercised a happy influence on those who approached her. She did not suspect at first thar hers was a singular privilege, yet she never mentioned it except to her confessor.

In 1840 M. l'Abbé Pierre Darbins succeeded M. Farbos as curé of Mimbaste. By Divine command Marie revealed her soul to him. Much surprised, he tested his penitent by trying her obedience and humility; he found her wholly submissive. Then he asked the help of the director of the seminary of Dax. They agreed to order her to put in writing everything supernatural she had heard and seen in the past, and all she might hear and see in the future. In due time this was accomplished; but the true text has been so much interpolated by the editor that the "Works of Marie Lataste" are not considered authentic. The Divine Master had made known to her His will, that she should embrace religious life, and in the Society of the Sacred heart, recently founded and wholly unknown to her and her director. After many objections and delays, she obtained permission and left for Paris, 21 April, 1844, alone, under the guidance of Divine Providence. She was received at the Hôtel Biron by Madame de Boisbaudry, who had her examined by an experienced spiritual guide. She was admitted as laysister on 15 May. With great joy she entered upon this new life. Humility, charity, odedience, and fidelity to common life were her chief characteritics. Her sisters' testmony was : Sister Lataste does everything like every one else, yet no one does anything like her." Still a novice she was sent to Rennes, in the hope that change of air would improve her health. An active life succeeded the quiet of the noviceship; she was infirmarian, refectorian, portress, but her humble virtues shown the more brilliantly; children, strangers, as well as her superiors and her sisters, felt her hidden sanctity. Marie's vows had been postponed in the hope of an improvement in her health. But on Sunday, 9 May, she became suddenly so very ill that the end seemed near. She was allowed to pronounce her vows, just before receiving the last sacraments. Then the pent-up ardours of her soul burst forth in ecstatic joy until her death on 10 May, 1847, at the age of twenty-five. Her memory lives in benediction. Her remains have been secured from desecration and now repose at Roehampton near London.

ALICE POWER

Flaminius Annibali de Latera

Historian, born at Latera, near Viterbo, 23 November, 1733; died at Viterbo, 27 February, 1813. He received his first education from a priest, Paolo Ferranti, and at the age of sixteen entered the Order of Friars Minor Observants in the Roman Province, taking the habit at the convent of St. Bernardine at Orte, 23 January, 1750; a year later on the same day he made his solemn profession. Being in due time ordained priest, he passed his examinations as lector generalis (professor), and successively taught theology in various convents -- Viterbo, Fano, Velletri, and Rome. From 1790 to 1791 he was definitor general of the Roman Province . When the convents in Italy were supressed by Napoleon I in 1810, Annibali retired to Viterbo, and died there in a private residence.

De Latera during fifty years developed immense activity as a writer. Unfortunately he lived at a time when Franciscan history had just passed through the great and passionate Spader-Ringhieri and Lucci - Marczic controversies, which circumstances had a notable influence on his writings: instead of using his remarkable talents for constructive work, he wrote mostly with a polemical motive. Still his merits are great enough to secure him an honourable place in Fransciscan literature.

His chief works are:

• "Ad Bullarium Franciscanum a P. Hyacintho Sbaralea Ord. Min.Conv...editum, Supplementum" (Rome, 1780), dedicated to Pope Pius VI, by whose orders it was written to correct the Conventual interpretations of Sbaralea [see 'Archiv f. Litt. u. Kirchengeschichte", I (1885), 516-17.]
• "Manuale de' Frati Minori... con un appendice, o sia risposta all' autore (P. Sangallo, O. M. Con.) del Saggio compendioso della dottrina di Giustino Febbronio (Rome, 1776). This latter work occasioned great controversies, which partly took a violent and abusive form.
• "Dissertationes critico-historicae in quarum una Ser. Patriarcha Franciscus Tertii Ordinis institutor, in altera Indulgentiae Portiunculae veritas assertir et vindicatur (Rome, 1784).
• "Veritas impressiones Sacrorum Stimatum in corpore Seraphici S. Francisci Assisiensis..."(Rome, 1786).
• "La storia della Indulgenza concessa da Gesu Cristo...nella Chiesa della Portiuncula si dimostra vera..." (Rome, 1796). The last three books were written against rationalistic attacks of the time, concerning which see Pezzana, "Memorie degli Scrittori e Letterati Parmigiani", VI, pt. I, 127 (Parma, 1825) When the Benedictine Pujati had, by order of Scipio Ricci of unhappy memory, written against the traditional form of the Stations of the Cross, Annibali, with the Franciscans Affo and Tommasco da Cireglio, was charged to answer; he then wrote
• "La Pratica del pio Esercizio della Via Crucis...vendicata dalle obbiezioni di D. Giuseppe Ma Pujati, Monaco Casinese..." (Viterbo, 1783; 2nd ed., Viterbo, 1785).
• "La Difesa dell' antico metodo della Via Crucis e la Censura del nuovo..." (against the "Annali ecclesiastici" of Florence) (Viterbo, 1783). An important but little-known work is
• "Compendio della Storia degli Ordini religiosi esistensi (4 vols., Rome, 1790-91); 2nd ed. of the same with the title " Storia degli Ordini regolari...." (Naples, 1796).
• A life of St. Collette, in Italian (Rome, 1805; 2nd ed., Rome, 1807).
• Italian life of St. Hyacintha Mariscotti (Rome, 1805; 2nd ed., Rome, 1807).
• New edition of "F. Francisci Horantii Hispani (O. F. M.)... Locorum Catholicorum ...libri VII" (2 vols., Rome, 1795-96).
• Annibali worked at the reform of the Franciscan Breviary, 1784-85, and composed many new offices edited separately at Rome, 1785 (see "Archivum Franc. Hist.", I, Quaracchi, 1908, 45-49).
• An Italian hymn-book (Viterbo, 1772). (14) "Notizie storiche della Casa Farnese della fu Citta di Castro...coll' aggiunta di due Paesi Latera e Farnese" (in 2 parts, Montefiascone, 1817-18), which appeared after his death.

We omit some other works, as well as the anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets of the author.

LIVARIUS OLIGER

Christian Museum of Lateran

Established by Pius IX in 1854, in the Palazzo del Laterano erected by Sixtus V on the part of the site of the ancient Lateran palace destroyed by fire in 1308. In 1843 the "profane" Museum of the Lateran was founded by Gregory XVI, in whose pontificate also was mooted the idea of establishing a museum of Christian antiquities in the same edifice. Nothing of consequence, however, was accomplished until Pius IX, at the date noted, entrusted the task to the two famous archæologists, Father Marchi, S.J., and Giovanni Battista de Rossi. To Marchi was assigned the work of collecting and arranging the sculptured monuments of the early Christian ages, to de Rossi all that concerned ancient Christian inscriptions; a third department of the museum consisted of copies of some of the more important catacomb frescoes. The larger part of the material for the new foundation was drawn from the hall in the Vatican Library set apart by Benedict XIV, in 1750, as the nucleus of a Christian monuments from the Capitoline Museum, while many others were recovered from convents, chapels, sacristies, and private collections. Plaster casts were also supplied of certain especially interesting monuments that could not be removed from their original location. The result has been eminently satisfactory, so much so indeed that the Christian Museum of the Lateran contains today a collection of monuments the study of which is indispensable to a proper appreciation of the earlier ages of Christianity. The section devoted to early Christian epigraphy, classified by de Rossi, begins with a collection of inscriptions relating to the most ancient basilicas, baptisteries, etc.; then follow in order the Damasan inscriptions, inscriptions with consular dates, those containing allusions to dogma, to the hierarchy, civil matters, and accompanied with such symbols as the anchor, dove, and monogram. Still another section is occupied by monuments with inscriptions classified according to their topography. The most interesting, perhaps, of all the inscribed monuments of the museum is that containing the famous epitaph of Abercius, one fragment of which was presented to Leo XIII by the Sultan Abdul Hamid II, the other by Professor (now Sir William) Ramsay. The sculptured monuments include a fine collection of fourth and fifth century sacrophagi, the statue of St. Hippolytus, and an admirable third-century statue of the Good Shepherd. The third section of the museum consists of copies, not always accurate, of some of the most interesting paintings discovered in the Roman catacombs.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Saint John Lateran

THE BASILICA

This is the oldest, and ranks first among the four great "patriarchal" basilicas of Rome. The site was, in ancient times, occupied by the palace of the family of the Laterani. A member of this family, P. Sextius Lateranus, was the first plebian to attain the rank of consul. In the time of Nero, another member of the family, Plautius Lateranus, at the time consul designatus was accused of conspiracy against the emperor, and his goods were confiscated. Juvenal mentions the palace, and speaks of it as being of some magnificence, "regiæ ædes Lateranorum". Some few remains of the original buildings may still be traced in the city walls outside the Gate of St. John, and a large hall decorated with paintings was uncovered in the eighteenth century within the basilica itself, behind the Lancellotti Chapel. A few traces of older buildings also came to light during the excavations made in 1880, when the work of extending the apse was in progress, but nothing was then discovered of real value or importance. The palace came eventually into the hands of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, through his wife Fausta, and it is from her that it derived the name by which it was then sometimes called, "Domus Faustæ". Constantine must have given it to the Church in the time of Miltiades, not later than about 311, for we find a council against the Donatists meeting within its walls as early as 313. From that time onwards it was always the centre of Christian life within the city; the residence of the popes and the cathedral of Rome. The latter distinction it still holds, though it has long lost the former. Hence the proud title which may be read upon its walls, that it is "Omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater, et caput".

It seems probable, in spite of the tradition that Constantine helped in the work of building with his own hands, that there was not a new basilica erected at the Lateran, but that the work carried out at this period was limited to the adaptation, which perhaps involved the enlargement, of the already existing basilica or great hall of the palace. The words of St. Jerome "basilica quondam Laterani" (Ep. lxxiii, P.L., XXII, col. 692) seem to point in this direction, and it is also probable on other grounds. This original church was probably not of very large dimensions, but we have no reliable information on the subject. It was dedicated to the Saviour, "Basilica Salvatoris", the dedication to St. John being of later date, and due to a Benedictine monastery of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist which adjoined the basilica and where members were charged at one period with the duty of maintaining the services in the church. This later dedication to St. John has now in popular usage altogether superseded the original one. A great many donations from the popes and other benefactors to the basilica are recorded in the "Liber Pontificalis", and its splendour at an early period was such that it became known as the "Basilica Aurea", or Golden Church. This splendour drew upon it the attack of the Vandals, who stripped it of all its treasures. St. Leo the Great restored it about 460, and it was again restored by Hadrian I, but in 896 it was almost totally destroyed by an earthquake ("ab altari usque ad portas cecidit"). The damage was so extensive that it was difficult to trace in every case the lines of the old building, but these were in the main respected and the new building was of the same dimensions as the old. This second church lasted for four hundred years and was then burnt down. It was rebuilt by Clement V and John XXII, only to be burnt down once more in 1360, but again rebuilt by Urban V.

Through these various vicissitudes the basilica retained its ancient form, being divided by rows of columns into aisles, and having in front an atrium surrounded by colonnades with a fountain in the middle. The façade had three windows, and was embellished with a mosaic representing Christ as the Saviour of the world. The porticoes of the atrium were decorated with frescoes, probably not dating further back than the twelfth century, which commemorated the Roman fleet under Vespasian, the taking of Jerusalem, the Baptism of the Emperor Constantine and his "Donation" to the Church. Inside the basilica the columns no doubt ran, as in all other basilicas of the same date, the whole length of the church from east to west, but at one of the rebuildings, probably that which was carried out by Clement V, the feature of a transverse nave was introduced, imitated no doubt from the one which had been, long before this, added at S. Paolo fuori le Mura. It was probably at this time also that the church was enlarged. When the popes returned to Rome from their long absence at Avignon they found the city deserted and the churches almost in ruins. Great works were begun at the Lateran by Martin V and his successors. The palace, however, was never again used by them as a residence, the Vatican, which stands in a much drier and healthier position, being chosen in its place. It was not until the latter part of the seventeenth century that the church took its present appearance, in the tasteless restoration carried out by Innocent X, with Borromini for his architect. The ancient columns were now enclosed in huge pilasters, with gigantic statues in front. In consequence of this the church has entirely lost the appearance of an ancient basilica, and is completely altered in character.

Some portions of the older buildings still survive. Among these we may notice the pavement of medieval Cosmatesque work, and the statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, now in the cloisters. The graceful baldacchino over the high altar, which looks so utterly out of place in its present surroundings, dates from 1369. The stercoraria, or throne of red marble on which the popes sat, is now in the Vatican Museum. It owes its unsavoury name to the anthem sung at the ceremony of the papal enthronization, "De stercore erigeus pauperem". From the fifth century there were seven oratories surrounding the basilica. These before long were thrown into the actual church. The devotion of visiting these oratories, which held its ground all through the medieval period, gave rise to the similar devotion of the seven altars, still common in many churches of Rome and elsewhere. Between the basilica and the city wall there was in former times the great monastery, in which dwelt the community of monks whose duty it was to provide the services in the basilica. The only part of it which still survives is the cloister, surrounded by graceful columns of inlaid marble. They are of a style intermediate between the Romanesque proper and the Gothic, and are the work of Vassellectus and the Cosmati. The date of these beautiful cloisters is the early part of the thirteenth century.

The ancient apse, with mosaics of the fourth century, survived all the many changes and dangers of the Middle Ages, and was still to be seen very much in its original condition as late as 1878, when it was destroyed in order to provide a larger space for the ordinations and other pontifical functions which take place in this cathedral church of Rome. The original mosaics were, however, preserved with the greatest possible care and very great success, and were re­erected at the end of the new and deeper apse which had been provided. In these mosaics, as they now appear, the centre of the upper portion is occupied by the figure of Christ surrounded by nine angels. This figure is extremely ancient, and dates from the fifth, or it may be even the fourth century. It is possible even that it is the identical one which, as is told in ancient tradition, was manifested to the eyes of the worshippers on the occasion of the dedication of the church: "Imago Salvatoris infixa parietibus primum visibilis omni populo Romano apparuit" (Joan. Diac., "Lib. de Ecclesia Lat.", P.L. CXCIV, 1543-1560). If it is so, however, it has certainly been retouched. Below is seen the crux gammata, surmounted by a dove which symbolizes the Holy Spirit, and standing on a hill whence flow the four rivers of the Gospels, from whose waters stags and sheep come to drink. On either side are saints, looking towards the Cross. These last are thought to belong originally to the sixth century, though they were repaired and altered in the thirteenth by Nicholas IV, whose effigy may be seen prostrate at the feet of the Blessed Virgin. The river which runs below is more ancient still, and may be regarded as going back to Constantine and the first days of the basilica. The remaining mosaics of the apse are of the thirteenth century, and the signatures of the artists, Torriti and Camerino, may still be read upon them. Camerino was a Franciscan friar; perhaps Torriti was one also.

The pavement of the basilica dates from Martin V and the return of the popes to Rome from Avignon. Martin V was of the Colonna family, and the columns are their badge. The high altar, which formerly occupied the position customary in all ancient basilicas, in the centre of the chord of the apse, has now beyond it, owing to the successive enlargements of the church, the whole of the transverse nave and of the new choir. It has no saint buried beneath it, since it was not, as were almost all the other great churches of Rome, erected over the tomb of a martyr. It stands alone among all the altars of the Catholic world in being of wood and not of stone, and enclosing no relics of any kind. The reason for this peculiarity is that it is itself a relic of a most interesting kind, being the actual wooden altar upon which St. Peter is believed to have celebrated Mass during his residence in Rome. It was carefully preserved through all the years of persecution, and was brought by Constantine and Sylvester from St. Pudentiana's, where it had been kept till then, to become the principal altar of the cathedral church of Rome. It is now, of course, enclosed in a larger altar of stone and cased with marble, but the original wood can still be seen. A small portion was left at St. Pudentiana's in memory of its long connection with that church, and is still preserved there. Above the High Altar is the canopy or baldacchino already mentioned, a Gothic structure resting on four marble columns, and decorated with paintings by Barna of Siena. In the upper part of the baldacchino are preserved the heads of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the great treasure of the basilica, which until this shrine was prepared to receive them had always been kept in the "Sancta Sanctorum", the private chapel of the Lateran Palace adjoining. Behind the apse there formerly extended the "Leonine" portico; it is not known which pontiff gave it this name. At the entrance there was an inscription commemorating the dream of Innocent VIII, when he saw the church of the Lateran upheld by St. Francis of Assisi. On the opposite wall was hung the tabula magna, or catalogue of all the relics of the basilica, and also of the different chapels and the indulgences attached to them respectively. It is now in the archives of the basilica.

THE BAPTISTERY

The baptistery of the church, following the invariable rule of the first centuries of Christianity, was not an integral part of the church itself, but a separate and detached building, joined to the church by a colonnade, or at any rate in close proximity to it. The right to baptize was the peculiar privilege of the cathedral church, and here, as elsewhere, all were brought from all parts of the city to receive the sacrament. There is no reason to doubt the tradition which makes the existing baptistery, which altogether conforms to these conditions, the original baptistery of the church, and ascribes its foundation to Constantine. The whole style and appearance of the edifice bear out the claim made on its behalf. There is, however, much less ground for saying that it was here that the emperor was baptized by St. Sylvester. The building was originally entered from the opposite side from the present doorway, through the portico of St. Venantius. This is a vestibule or atrium, in which two large porphyry columns are still standing and was formerly approached by a colonnade of smaller porphyry columns leading from the church. The baptistery itself is an octagonal edifice with eight immense porphyry columns supporting an architrave on which are eight smaller columns, likewise of porphyry, which in their turn support the octagonal drums of the lantern. In the main the building has preserved its ancient form and characteristics, though it has been added to and adorned by many popes. Sixtus III carried out the first of these restorations and adornments, and his inscription recording the fact may still be seen on the architrave. Pope St. Hilary (461-468) raised the height, and also added the chapels round. Urban VIII and Innocent X repaired it in more recent times.

In the centre of the building one descends by several steps to the basin of green basalt which forms the actual baptismal font. There is no foundation for the idea that the Emperor Constantine was himself actually baptized in this font by Pope St. Sylvester. That is a confusion which has arisen from the fact that he was founder of the baptistery. But although he had embraced Christianity and had done so much for the advancement of the Church, the emperor, as a matter of fact, deferred the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism until the very end of his life, and was at last baptized, not by Sylvester, but by Eusebius, in whose diocese of Nicomedia he was then, after the foundation of Constantinople, permanently residing (Von Funk, "Manual of Church History", London, 1910, I, 118-119; Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", Paris, 1887, I, cix-cxx). The mosaics in the adjoining oratories are both ancient and interesting. Those in the oratory of St. John the Evangelist are of the fifth century, and are of the conventional style of that period, consisting of flowers and birds on a gold ground, also a Lamb with a cruciform nimbus on the vault. The corresponding mosaics of the chapel of St. John the Baptist disappeared in the seventeenth century, but we have a description of them in Panvinio. The mosaics in the chapel of St. Venantius (the ancient vestibule) are still extant, and are of considerable interest. They date from the seventh century, and a comparison between the workmanship of these mosaics and of those in the chapel of St. John offers an instructive lesson on the extent to which the arts had deteriorated between the fifth and the seventh centuries. The figures represent, for the most part, Dalmatian saints, and the whole decoration was originally designed as a memorial to Dalmatian martyrs, whose relics were brought here at the conclusion of the Istrian schism.

THE LATERAN PALACE

From the beginning of the fourth century, when it was given to the pope by Constantine, the palace of the Lateran was the principal residence of the popes, and continued so for about a thousand years. In the tenth century Sergius III restored it after a disastrous fire, and later on it was greatly embellished by Innocent III. This was the period of its greatest magnificence, when Dante speaks of it as beyond all human achievements. At this time the centre of the piazza in front, where now the obelisk stands, was occupied by the palace and tower of the Annibaldeschi. Between this palace and the basilica was the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, then believed to represent Constantine, which now is at the Capitol. The whole of the front of the palace was taken up with the "Aula Concilii", a magnificent hall with eleven apses, in which were held the various Councils of the Lateran during the medieval period. The fall of the palace from this position of glory was the result of the departure of the popes from Rome during the Avignon period. Two destructive fires, in 1307 and 1361 respectively, did irreparable harm, and although vast sums were sent from Avignon for the rebuilding, the palace never again attained its former splendour. When the popes returned to Rome they resided first at Santa Maria in Trastevere, then at Santa Maria Maggiore, and lastly fixed their residence at the Vatican. Sixtus V then destroyed what still remained of the ancient palace of the Lateran and erected the present much smaller edifice in its place.

An apse lined with mosaics and open to the air still preserves the memory of one of the most famous halls of the ancient palace, the "Triclinium" of Leo III, which was the state banqueting hall. The existing structure is not ancient, but it is possible that some portions of the original mosaics have been preserved. The subject is threefold. In the centre Christ gives their mission to the Apostles, on the left he gives the keys to St. Sylvester and the Labarum to Constantine, while on the right St. Peter gives the stole to Leo III and the standard to Charlemagne. The private rooms of the popes in the old palace were situated between this "Triclinium" and the city walls. The palace is now given up to the Pontifical Museum of Christian Antiquities.

For the history of the basilica, the student should consult primarily the two quarto volumes of the Liber Pontificalis, edited by Duchesne (Paris, 1887 sqq.). Other monographs are Joannes Diaconus, Liber de Ecclesia Lateranensi in P.L.; Alemanni, De Lateranensibus parietinis (Rome, 1625); Raspondi, De basilica et patriarchio Lateranensi (Rome, 1656); Crescimbeni and Baldeschi, Stato della S. Chiesa papale Lateranense nell' anno 1723 (Rome, 723); Severano, Le sette chiese di Roma; Ugonio, Historia delle Stazioni di Roma; Panvinio, De Septem urbis ecclesiis; Piazza, Stazioni di Roma. The latter four works were published in Rome in the sixteenth or seventeenth century.
Among recent books the best are: Armellini, Le chiese di Roma (Rome, 1891); Marucchi, Basiliques et Eglises de Rome (Rome, 1902); and in particular, de Fleury, Le Latran au moyen âge (Paris, 1877). There is a large nubmer of plans and manuscripts in the archives of the basilica. For special points consult also de Rossi, Musaici della chiese di Roma anteriori al secolo XV (Rome, 1872); de Montault, La grande pancarte de la basilique de Latran in Revue de l'art chrétien (Paris, 1886); Gerspach, La Mosaïque apsidale des Sancta Sanctorum du Latran in Gazette des beaux arts, 1880; Bartolini, Sopra l'antichissimo altare di legno in Roma (1852).

Arthur S. Barnes

Lateran Councils

A series of five important councils held at Rome from the twelfth to the sixteen century. From the reign of Constantine the Great until the removal of the papal Court to Avignon, the Lateran palace and basilica served the bishops of Rome as residence and cathedral. During this long period the popes had occasion to convoke a number of gerneral councils, and for this purpose they made choice of cities so situated as to reduce as much as possible the inconveniences which the bishops called to such assemblies must necessarily experience by reason of long and costly absence from their sees. Five of these councils were held in the Lateran palace, and are known as the First (1123), Second (1139), Third (1179), Fourth (1215), and Fifth Lateran Councils.

Other, non-ecumenical councils were held at the Lateran, among the best known being those in 649 against the Monothelite heresy, in 823, 864, 900, 1102, 1105, 1110, 1111, 1112, and 1116. In 1725, Benedict XIII called to the Lateran the bishops directly dependent on Rome as their metropolitan see, i.e. archbishops without suffragans, bishops immediately subject to the Holy See, and abbots exercising quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Seven sessions were held between 15 April and 29 May, and various regulations were promulgated concerning the duties of bishops and other pastors, concerning residence, ordinations, and the periods for the holding of synods. The chief objects were the suppression of Jansenism and the solemn confirmation of the Bull "Unigenitus," which was declared a rule of faith demanding the fullest obedience.

H. LECLERCQ

First Lateran Council (1123)

The Council of 1123 is reckoned in the series of ecumenical councils. It had been convoked in December, 1122, immediately after the Concordat of Worms, which agreement between pope and emperor had caused general satisfaction in the Church. It put a stop to the arbitrary conferring of ecclesiastical benefices by laymen, reestablished freedom of episcopal and abbatial elections, separated spiritual from temporal affairs, and ratified the principle that spiritual authority can emanate only from the Church; lastly it tacitly abolished the exorbitant claim of the emperors to interfere in papal elections. So deep was the emotion caused by this concordat, the first ever signed, that in many documents of the time, the year 1122 is mentioned as the beginning of a new era. For its more solemn confirmation and in conformity with the earnest desire of the Archbishop of Mainz, Callistus II convoked a council to which all the archbishops and bishops of the West were invited. Three hundred bishops and more than six hundred abbots assembled at Rome in March, 1123; Callistus II presided in person. Both originals (instrumenta) of the Concordat of Worms were read and ratified, and twenty-two disciplinary canons were promulgated, most of them reinforcements of previous conciliary decrees.

• Canons 3 and 11 forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to marry or to have concubines; it is also forbidden them to keep in their houses any women other than those sanctioned by the ancient canons. Marriages of clerics are null pleno jure, and those who have contracted them are subject to penance.
• Canon 6: Nullity of the ordinations performed by the heresiarch Burdinus (Antipope Gregory VIII) after his condemnation.
• Canon 11: Safeguard for the families and possessions of crusaders.
• Canon 14: Excommunication of laymen appropriating offerings made to the Church, and those who fortify churches as strongholds.
• Canon 16: Against those who molest pilgrims on their way to Rome.
• Canon 17: Abbots and religious are prohibited from admitting sinners to penance, visiting the sick, administering extreme unction, singing solemn and public Masses; they are obliged to obtain the holy chrism and holy oils from their respective bishops.

H. LECLERCQ

Second Lateran Council (1139)

The death of Pope Honorius II (February, 1130) was followed by a schism. Petrus Leonis (Pierleoni), under the name of Anacletus II, for a long time held in check the legitimate pope, Innocent II, who was supported by St. Bernard and St. Norbert. In 1135 Innocent II celebrated a Council at Pisa, and his cause gained steadily until, in January, 1138, the death of Anacletus helped largely to solve the difficulty. Nevertheless, to efface the last vestiges of the schism, to condemn various errors and reform abuses among clergy and people Innocent, in the month of April, 1139, convoked, at the Lateran, the tenth ecumenical council. Nearly a thousand prelates, from most of the Christian nations, assisted. The pope opened the council with a discourse, and deposed from their offices those who had been ordained and instituted by the antipope and by his chief partisans, Ægidius of Tusculum and Gerard of Angouleme. As Roger, King of Sicily, a partisan of Anacletus who had been reconciled with Innocent, persisted in maintaining in Southern Italy his schismatical attitude, he was excommunicated. The council likewise condemned the errors of the Petrobrusians and the Henricians, the followers of two active and dangerous heretics, Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia. The council promulgated against these heretics its twenty-third canon, a repetition of the third canon of the Council of Toulouse (1119) against the Manichaeans. Finally, the council drew up measures for the amendment of ecclesiastical morals and discipline that had grown lax during the schism. Twenty-eight canons pertinent to these matters reproduced in great part the decrees of the Council of Reims, in 1131, and the Council of Clermont, in 1130, whose enactments, frequently cited since then under the name of the Lateran Council, acquired thereby increase of authority.

• Canon 4: Injunction to bishops and ecclesiastics not to scandalize anyone by the colours. the shape, or extravagance of their garments, but to clothe themselves in a modest and well-regulated manner.
• Canons 6, 7, 11: Condemnation and repression of marriage and concubinage among priests, deacons, subdeacons, monks, and nuns.
• Canon 10: Excommunication of laymen who fail to Pay the tithes due the bishops, or who do not surrender to the latter the churches of which they retain possession, whether received from bishops, or obtained from princes or other persons.
• Canon 12 fixes the periods and the duration of the Truce of God.
• Canon 14: Prohibition, under pain of deprivation of Christian burial, of jousts and tournaments which jeopardize life.
• Canon 20: Kings and princes are to dispense justice in consultation with the bishops.
• Canon 25: No one must accept a benefice at the hands of a layman.
• Canon 27: Nuns are prohibited from singing the Divine Office in the same choir with monks or canons.
• Canon 28: No church must be left vacant more than three years from the death of the bishop; anathema is pronounced against those (secular) canons who exclude from episcopal election "persons of piety" -- i. e. regular canons or monks.

H. LECLERCQ

Third Lateran Council (1179)

The reign of Alexander III was one of the most laborious pontificates of the Middle Ages. Then, as in 1139, the object was to repair the evils caused by the schism of an antipope. Shortly after returning to Rome (12 March, 1178) and receiving from its inhabitants their oath of fidelity and certain indispensable guarantees, Alexander had the satisfaction of receiving the submission of the antipope Callistus III (John de Struma). The latter, besieged at Viterbo by Christian of Mainz, eventually yielded and, at Tusculum, made his submission to Pope Alexander (29 August, 1178), who received him with kindness and appointed him Governor of Beneventum. Some of his obstinate partisans sought to substitute a new antipope, and chose one Lando Sitino, under the name of Innocent III. For lack of support he soon gave up the struggle and was relegated to the monastery of La Cava. In September, 1178, the pope in agreement with an article of the Peace of Venice, convoked an ecumenical council at the Lateran for Lent of the following year and, with that object, sent legates to different countries. This was the eleventh of the ecumenical councils. It met in March, 1179. The pope presided, seated upon an elevated throne, surrounded by the cardinals, and by the prefects, senators, and consuls of Rome. The gathering numbered three hundred and two bishops, among them several Latin prelates of Eastern sees. There were in all nearly one thousand members. Nectarius, abbot of the Cabules, represented the Greeks. The East was represented by Archbishops William of Tyre and Heraclius of Caesarea, Prior Peter of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Bishop of Bethlehem. Spain sent nineteen bishops; Ireland, six; Scotland, only one- England, seven; France, fifty nine; Germany, seventeen- Denmark and Hungary, one each. The bishops of Ireland had at their head St. Laurence, Archbishop of Dublin. The pope consecrated, in the presence of the council, two English bishops, and two Scottish, one of whom had come to Rome with only one horse the other on foot. There was also present an Icelandic bishop who had no other revenue than the milk of three cows, and when one of these went dry his diocese furnished him with another.

Besides exterminating the remains of the schism the council undertook the condemnation of the Waldensian heresy and the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, which had been much relaxed. Three sessions were held, on 5, 14, and 19 March, in which twenty-seven canons were promulgated, the most important of which may be summarized as follows:

• Canon 1: To prevent schisms in future, only the cardinals should have the right to elect the pope, and two-thirds of their votes should be required for the validity of such election. If any candidate, after securing only one-third of the votes, should arrogate to himself the papal dignity, both he and his partisans should be excluded from the ecclesiastical order and excommunicated.
• Canon 2: Annulment of the ordinations performed by the heresiarchs Octavian and Guy of Crema, as well as those by John de Struma. Those who have received ecclesiastical dignities or benefices from these persons are deprived of the same; those who have freely sworn to adhere to the schism are declared suspended.
• Canon 3: It is forbidden to promote anyone to the episcopate before the age of thirty. Deaneries, archdeaconries, parochial charges, and other benefices involving the care of souls shall not be conferred upon anyone less than twenty-five years of age.
• Canon 4 regulates the retinue of members of the higher clergy, whose canonical visits were frequently ruinous to the rural priests. Thenceforward the train of an archbishop is not to include more than forty or fifty horses; that of a bishop, not more than twenty or thirty; that of an archdeacon, five or seven at the most- the dean is to have two.
• Canon 5 forbids the ordination of clerics not provided with an ecclesiastical title, i. e. means of proper support. If a bishop ordains a priest or a deacon without assigning him a certain title on which he can subsist, the bishop shall provide such cleric with means of liveli hood until he can assure him an ecclesiastical revenue that is, if the cleric cannot subsist on his patrimony alone.
• Canon 6 regulates the formalities of ecclesiastical sentences.
• Canon 7 forbids the exaction of a sum of money for the burial of the dead, the marriage benediction, and, in general, for the administration of the sacraments.
• Canon 8: The patrons of benefices shall nominate to such benefices within six months after the occurrence of a vacancy.
• Canon 9 recalls the military orders of the Templars and the Hospitallers to the observation of canonical regulations, from which the churches dependent on them are in no wise exempt.
• Canon 11 forbids clerics to receive women in their houses, or to frequent, without necessity, the monasteries of nuns.
• Canon 14 forbids laymen to transfer to other laymen the tithes which they possess, under pain of being debarred from the communion of the faithful and deprived of Christian burial.
• Canon 18 provides for the establishment in every cathedral church of a school for poor clerics.
• Canon 19: Excommunication aimed at those who levy contributions on churches and churchmen without the consent of the bishop and clergy.
• Canon 20 forbids tournaments.
• Canon 21 relates to the "Truce of God".
• Canon 23 relates to the organization of asylums for lepers.
• Canon 24 consists of a prohibition against furnishing the Saracens with material for the construction of their galleys.
• Canon 27 enjoins on princes the repression of heresy.

H. LECLERCQ

Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

From the commencement of his reign Innocent III had purposed to assemble an ecumenical council, but only towards the end of his pontificate could he realize this project, by the Bull of 19 April, 1213. The assembly was to take place in November, 1215. The council did in fact meet on 11 November, and its sessions were prolonged until the end of the month. The long interval between the convocation and the opening of the council as well as the prestige of the reigning pontiff, were responsible for the very large number of bishops who attended it, it is commonly cited in canon law as "the General Council of Lateran", without further qualification, or again, as "the Great Council". Innocent III found himself on this occasion surrounded by seventy-one patriarchs and metropolitans, including the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, four hundred and twelve bishops, and nine hundred abbots and priors. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were represented by delegates. Envoys appeared from Emperor Frederick II, from Henry Latin Emperor of Constantinople, from the Kings of France, England, Aragon, Hungary, Cyprus, and Jerusalem, and from other princes. The pope himself opened the council with an allocution the lofty views of which surpassed the orator's power of expression. He had desired, said the pope, to celebrate this Pasch before he died. He declared himself ready to drink the chalice of the Passion for the defence of the Catholic Faith, for the succour of the Holy Land, and to establish the liberty of the Church. After this discourse, followed by moral exhortation, the pope presented to the council seventy decrees or canons, already formulated, on the most important points of dogmatic and moral theology. Dogmas were defined points of discipline were decided, measures were drawn up against heretics, and, finally, the conditions of the next crusade were regulated.

The fathers of the council did little more than approve the seventy decrees presented to them; this approbation, nevertheless, sufficed to impart to the acts thus formulated and promulgated the value of ecumenical decrees. Most of them are somewhat lengthy and are divided into chapters. The following are the most important:

• Canon 1: Exposition of the Catholic Faith and of the dogma of Transubstantiation.
• Canon 2: Condemnation of the doctrines of Joachim of Flora and of Amaury.
• Canon 3: Procedure and penalties against heretics and their protectors.
• Canon 4: Exhortation to the Greeks to reunite with the Roman Church and accept its maxims, to the end that, according to the Gospel, there may be only one fold and only one shepherd.
• Canon 5: Proclamation of the papal primacy recognized by all antiquity. After the pope, primacy is attributed to the patriarchs in the following order: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. (It is enough to remind the reader how long an opposition preceded at Rome this recognition of Constantinople as second in rank among the patriarchal sees.)
• Canon 6: Provincial councils must be held annually for the reform of morals, especially those of the clergy.
• Canon 8: Procedure in regard to accusations against ecclesiastics. Until the French Revolution, this canon was of considerable importance in criminal law, not only ecclesiastical but even civil.
• Canon 9: Celebration of public worship in places where the inhabitants belong to nations following different rites.
• Canon 11 renews the ordinance of the council of 1179 on free schools for clerics in connexion with every cathedral.
• Canon 12: Abbots and priors are to hold their general chapter every three years.
• Canon 13 forbids the establishment of new religious orders, lest too great diversity bring confusion into the Church.
• Canons 14-17: Against the irregularities of the clergy -- e.g., incontinence, drunkenness, the chase, attendance at farces and histrionic exhibitions.
• Canon 18: Priests, deacons, and subdeacons are forbidden to perform surgical operations.
• Canon 19 forbids the blessing of water and hot iron for judicial tests or ordeals.
• Canon 21, the famous "Omnis utriusque sexus", which commands every Christian who has reached the years of discretion to confess all his, or her, sins at least once a year to his, or her, own (i.e. parish) priest. This canon did no more than confirm earlier legislation and custom, and has been often but wrongly, quoted as commanding for the first time the use of sacramental confession.
• Canon 22: Before prescribing for the sick, physicians shall be bound under pain of exclusion from the Church, to exhort their patients to call in a priest, and thus provide for their spiritual welfare.
• Canons 23-30 regulate ecclesiastical elections and the collation of benefices.
• Canons 26, 44, and 48: Ecclesiastical procedure.
• Canons 50-52: On marriage, impediments of relationship, publication of banns.
• Canons 78, 79: Jews and Moslems shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians. Christian princes must take measures to prevent blasphemies against Jesus Christ.

The council, moreover, made rules for the projected crusade, imposed a four years' peace on all Christian peoples and princes published indulgences, and enjoined the bishops to reconcile all enemies, The council confirmed the elevation of Frederick II to the German throne and took other important measures Its decrees were widely published in many provincial councils.

H. LECLERCQ

Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17)

When elected pope, Julius II promised under oath that he would soon convoke a general council. Time passed, however, and this promise was not fulfilled. Consequently, certain dissatisfied cardinals, urged, also, by Emperor Maximilian and Louis XII, convoked a council at Pisa and fixed 1 September, 1511, for its opening This event was delayed until 1 October. Four cardinals then met at Pisa provided with proxies from three absent cardinals. Several bishops and abbots were also there, as well as ambassadors from the King of France. Seven or eight sessions were held, in the last of which Pope Julius II was suspended, whereupon the prelates withdrew to Lyons. The pope hastened to oppose to this conciliabulum a more numerously attended council, which he convoked, by the Bull of 18 July, 1511, to assemble 19 April, 1512, in the church of St. John Lateran. The Bull was at once a canonical and a polemical document. In it the pope refuted in detail the reasons alleged by the cardinals for their Pisa conciliabulum. He declared that his conduct before his elevation to the pontificate was a pledge of his sincere desire for the celebration of the council; that since his elevation he had always sought opportunities for assembling it; that for this reason he had sought to reestablish peace among Christian princes; that the wars which had arisen against his will had no other object than the reestablishment of pontifical authority in the States of the Church. He then reproached the rebel cardinals with the irregularity of their onduct and the unseemliness of convoking the Universal Church independently of its head. He pointed out to them that the three months accorded by them for the assembly of all bishops at Pisa was too short, and that said city presented none of the advantages requisite for an assembly of such importance. Finally, he declared that no one should attach any significance to the act of the cardinals. The Bull was signed by twenty-one cardinals. The French victory of Ravenna (11 April, 1512) hindered the opening of the council before 3 May, on which day the fathers met in the Lateran Basilica. There were present fifteen cardinals, the Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, ten archbishops, fifty-six bishops, some abbots and gererals of religious orders, the ambassadors of Kings Ferdinand, and those of Venice and of Florence. Convoked by Julius II, the assembly survived him, was continued by Leo X, and held its twelfth, and last, session on 16 March, 1417. In the third session Matthew Lang, who had represented Maximilian at the Council of Tours, read an act by which that emperor repudiated all that had been done at Tours and at Pisa. In the fourth session the advocate of the council demanded the revocation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. In the eighth (17 December, 1513), an act of King Louis XII was read, disavowing the Council of Pisa and adhering to the Lateran Council. In the next session (5 March, 1514) the pope published four decrees:

• the first of these sanctions the institution of ontes pietatis, or pawn shops, under strict ecclesiastical supervision, for the purpose of aiding the necessitous poor on the most favourable terms;
• the second relates to ecclesiastical liberty and the episcopal dignity, and condemns certain abusive exemptions;
• the third forbids, under pain of excommunication, the printing of books without the permission of the ordinary of the diocese;
• the fourth orders a peremptory citation against the French in regard to the Pragmatic Sanction. The latter was solemnly revoked and condemned, and the concordat with Francis I approved, in the eleventh session (19 December, 1516).
• Finally, the council promulgated a decree prescribing war against the Turks and ordered the levying of tithes of all the benefices in Christendom for three years.

H. LECLERCQ

Ecclesiastical Latin

In the present instance these words are taken to mean the Latin we find in the official textbooks of the Church (the Bible and the Liturgy), as well as in the works of those Christian writers of the West who have undertaken to expound or defend Christian beliefs.

Characteristics

Ecclesiastical differs from classical Latin especially by the introduction of new idioms and new words. (In syntax and literary method, Christian writers are not different from other contemporary writers.) These characteristic differences are due to the origin and purpose of ecclesiastical Latin. Originally the Roman people spoke the old tongue of Latium known as prisca latinitas. In the third century B. C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments. This attempt was encouraged by the cultured classes in Rome, and it was to these classes that henceforth the poets, orators, historians, and literary coteries of Rome addressed themselves. Under the combined influence of this political and intellectual aristocracy was developed that classical Latin which has been preserved for us in greatest purity in the works of Caesar and of Cicero. The mass of the Roman populace in their native ruggedness remained aloof from this hellenizing influence and continued to speak the old tongue. Thus it came to pass that after the third century B. C. there existed side by side in Rome two languages, or rather two idioms: that of the literary circles or hellenists (sermo urbanus) and that of the illiterate (sermo vulgaris) and the more highly the former developed the greater grew the chasm between them. But in spite of all the efforts of the purists, the exigencies of daily life brought the writers of the cultured mode into continual touch with the uneducated populace, and constrained them to understand its speech and make it understand them in turn; so that they were obliged in conversation to employ words and expressions forming part of the vulgar tongue. Hence arose a third idiom, the sermo cotidianus, a medley of the two others, varying in the mixture of its ingredients with the various periods of time and the intelligence of those who used it.

Origins

Classical Latin did not long remain at the high level to which Cicero had raised it. The aristocracy, who alone spoke it, were decimated by proscription and civil war, and the families who rose in turn to social position were mainly of plebeian or foreign extraction, and in any case unaccustomed to the delicacy of the literary language. Thus the decadence of classical Latin began with the age of Augustus, and went on more rapidly as that age receded. As it forgot the classical distinction between the language of prose and that of poetry, literary Latin, spoken or written, began to borrow more and more freely from the popular speech. Now it was at this very time that the Church found herself called on to construct a Latin of her own and this in itself was one reason why her Latin should differ from the classical. There were two other reasons however: first of all the Gospel had to be spread by preaching, that is, by the spoken word moreover the heralds of the good tidings had to construct an idiom that would appeal, not alone to the literary classes, but to the whole people. Seeing that they sought to win the masses to the Faith, they had to come down to their level and employ a speech that was familiar to their listeners. St. Augustine says this very frankly to his hearers: "I often employ", he says, "words that are not Latin and I do so that you may understand me. Better that I should incur the blame of the grammarians than not be understood by the people" (In Psal. cxxxviii, 90). Strange though it may seem, it was not at Rome that the building up of ecclesiastical Latin began. Until the middle of the third century the Christian community at Rome was in the main a Greek speaking one. The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235. It was much the same in Gaul at Lyons and at Vienne, at all events until after the days of St. Irenaeus. In Africa, Greek was the chosen language of the clerics, to begin with, but Latin was the more familiar speech for the majority of the faithful, and it must have soon taken the lead in the Church, since Tertullian, who wrote some of his earlier works in Greek, ended by employing Latin only. And in this use he had been preceded by Pope Victor, who was also an African, and who, as St. Jerome assures, was the earliest Christian writer in the Latin language.

But even before these writers various local Churches must have seen the necessity of rendering into Latin the texts of the Old and New Testaments, the reading of which formed a main portion of the Liturgy. This necessity arose as soon as the Latin speaking faithful became numerous, and in all likelihood it was felt first in Africa. For a time improvised oral translations sufficed, but soon written translations were required. Such translations multiplied. "It is possible to enumerate", says St. Augustine, "those who have translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek, but not those who have translated them into Latin. In sooth in the early days of faith whoso possessed a Greek manuscript and thought he had some knowledge of both tongues was daring enough to undertake a translation" (De doct. christ., II, xi). From our present point of view the multiplicity of these translations, which were destined to have so great an influence on the formation of ecclesiastical Latin, helps to explain the many colloquialisms which it assimilated, and which are found even in the most famous of these texts, that of which St. Augustine said: "Among all translations the Itala is to be preferred, for its language is most accurate, and its expression the clearest" (De doct. christ., II, xv). While it is true that many renderings of this passage have been given, the generally accepted one, and the one we content ourselves with mentioning here, is that the Itala is the most important of the Biblical recensions from Italian sources, dating from the fourth century, used by St. Ambrose and the Italian authors of that day, which have been partially preserved to us in many manuscripts and are to be met with even in St. Augustine himself. With some slight modifications its version of the deuterocanonical works of the Old Testament was incorporated into St. Jerome's "Vulgate".

Elements from African Sources

But even in this respect Africa had been beforehand with Italy. As early as A. D. 180 mention is made in the Acts of the Scilltitan martyrs of a translation of the Gospels and of the Epistles of St. Paul. "In Tertullian's time", says Harnack, "there existed translations, if not of all the books of the Bible at least of the greater number of them." It is a fact. however, that none of them possessed any predominating authority, though a few were beginning to claim a certain respect. And thus we find Tertullian and St. Cyprian using those by preference, as appears from the concordance of their quotations. The interesting point in these translations made by many hands is that they form one of the principal elements of Church Latin: they make up, so to say, the popular contribution. This is to be seen in their disregard for complicated inflections, in their analytical tendencies, and in the alterations due to analogy. Pagan littérateurs, as Arnobius tells (Adv. nat., I, xlv-lix), complained that these texts were edited in a trivial and mean speech, in a vitiated and uncouth language.

But to the popular contribution the more cultivated Christians added their share in forming the Latin of the Church. If the ordinary Christian could translate the "Acts of St. Perpetua", the "Pastor" of Hermas the "Didache", and the "First Epistle" of Clement it took a scholar to put into Latin the "Acta Pauli" and St. Irenaeus's treatise "Adversus haereticos", as well as other works which seem to have been translated in the second and third century. It is not known to what country these translators belonged, but, in the case of original works, Africa leads the way with Tertullian, who has been rightly styled the creator of the language of the Church. Born at Carthage, he studied and perhaps taught rhetoric there: he studied law and acquired a vast erudition; he was converted to Christianity, raised to the priesthood, and brought to the service of the Faith an ardent zeal and a forceful eloquence to which the number and character of his works bear witness. He touched on every subject apologetics, polemics, dogma, discipline, exegesis. He had to express a host of ideas which the simple faith of the communities of the west had not yet grasped. With his fiery temperament, his doctrinal rigidness, and his disdain for literary canons, he never hesitated to use the pointed word, the everyday phrase. Hence the marvellous exactness of his style, its restless vigour and high relief, the loud tones as of words thrown impetuously together: hence, above all, a wealth of expressions and words, many of which came then for the first time into ecclesiastical Latin and have remained there ever since. Some of these are Greek words in Latin dress - baptisma, charisma, extasis, idolatria, prophetia, martyr, etc. -- some are given a Latin termination -- daemonium, allegorizare, Paracletus, etc. -- some are law terms or old Latin words used in a new sense -- ablutio, gratia, sacramentum, saeculum, persecutor, peccator. The greater part are entirely new, but are derived from Latin sources and regularly inflected according to the ordinary rules affecting analogous words -- annunciatio, concupiscentia, christianismus, coeaeternus, compatibilis, trinitas, vivificare, etc. Many of these new words (more than 850 of them) have died out, but a very large portion are still to be found in ecclesiastical use; they are mainly those that met the need of expressing strictly Christian ideas. Nor is it certain that all of these owe their origin to Tertullian, but before his time they are not to be met with in the texts that have come down to us, and very often it is he who has naturalized them in Christian terminology.

The part St. Cyprian played in this building of the language was less important. The famous Bishop of Carthage never lost that respect for classical tradition which he inherited from his education and his previous profession of rhetor; he preserved that concern for style which led him to the practice of the literary methods so dear to the rhetors of his day. His language shows this even when he is dealing with Christian topics. Apart from his rather cautious imitation of Tertullian's vocabulary, we find in his writings not more than sixty new words, a few Hellenisms -- apostata, gazophylacium -- a few popular words or phrases - magnalia, mammona -- or a few words formed by added inflections -- apostatare, clarificatio. In St. Augustine's case it was his sermons preached to the people that mainly contributed to ecclesiastical Latin, and present it to us at its best; for, in spite of his assertion that he cares nothing for the sneers of the grammarians, his youthful studies retained too strong a hold on him to permit of his departing from classical speech more than was strictly necessary. He was the first to find fault with the use of certain words common at the time, such as dolus for dolor, effloriet for florebit, ossum for os. The language he uses includes, besides a large part of classical Latin and the ecclesiastical Latin of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, borrowings from the popular speech of his day -- incantare, falsidicus, tantillus, cordatus -- and some new words or words in new meaning -- spiritualis, adorator, beatificus, aedificare, meaning to edify, inflatio, meaning pride, reatus, meaning guilt, etc. It is, we think, useless to pursue this inquiry into the realm of Christian inscriptions and the works of Victor of Vito, the last of these Latin writers, as we should only find a Latin peculiar to certain individuals rather than that adopted by any Christian communities. Nor shall we delay over Africanisms, i. e. characteristics peculiar to African writers. The very existence of these characteristics, formerly so strongly held by many philologists, is nowadays generally questioned. In the works of several of these African writers we find a pronounced love for emphasis, alliteration, and rhythm, but these are matters affecting style rather than vocabulary. The most that can be said is that the African writers take more account of Latin as it was spoken (sermo cotidianus) but this speech was no peculiarity of Africa.

St. Jerome's Contribution

After the African writers no author had such influence on the upbuilding of ecclesiastical Latin as St. Jerome had. His contribution came mainly along the lines of literary Latin. From his master, Donatus, he had received a grammatical instruction that made him the most literary and learned of the Fathers, and he always retained a love for correct diction, and an attraction towards Cicero. He prized good writing so highly that he grew angry whenever he was accused of a solecism; one-half of the words he uses are taken from Cicero and it has been computed that besides employing, as occasion required, the words introduced by earlier writers, he himself is responsible for three hundred and fifty new words in the vocabulary of ecclesiastical Latin; yet of this number there are hardly nine or ten that may fitly be considered as barbarisms on the score of not conforming to the general laws of Latin derivatives. "The remainder", says Goelzer, "were created by employing ordinary suffixes and were in harmony with the genius of the language." They are both accurately formed and useful words, expressing for the most part abstract qualities necessitated by the Christian religion and which hitherto had not existed in the Latin tongue, e. g., clericatus, impoenitentia, deitas, dualitas, glorificatio, corruptrix. At times, also, to supply new needs, he gives new meanings to old words: conditor, creator, redemptor, saviour of the world, predestinatio, communio, etc. Besides this enriching of the lexicon, St. Jerome rendered no less service to ecclesiastical Latin by his edition of the Vulgate. Whether he made his translation from the original text or adapted previous translations after correcting them he diminished, by that much, the authority of the many popular versions which could not fail to be prejudicial to the correctness of the language of the Church. By this very same act he popularized a number of Hebraisms and modes of speech -- vir desideriorum, filii iniquitatis, hortus voluptatis, inferioris a Daniele, inferior to Daniel -- which completed the shaping of the peculiar physiognomy of church Latin.

After St. Jerome's time ecclesiastical Latin may be said to be fully formed on the whole. If we trace the various steps of the process of producing it we find

• that the ecclesiastical rites and institutions were first of all known by Greek names, and that the early Christian writers in the Latin language took those words consecrated by usage and embodied them in their works either in toto (e. g., angelus, apostolus, ecclesia, evangelium, clerus, episcopus, martyr) or else translated them (e. g., verbum, persona, testamentum, gentilis). It sometimes even happened that words bodily incorporated were afterwards replaced by translations (e.g., chrisma by donum, hypostasis by substantia or persona, exomologesis by confessio, synodus by concilium).
• Latin words were created by derivations from existing Latin or Greek words by the addition of suffixes or prefixes, or by the combination of two or more words together (e. g., evangelizare, Incarnatio, consubstantialis, idololatria).
• At times words having a secular or profane meaning are employed without any modification in a new sense (e. g.. fidelis, depositio, scriptura, sacramentum, resurgere, etc.). With respect to its elements ecclesiastical Latin consists of spoken Latin (sermo cotidianus) shot through with a quantity of Greek words, a few primitive popular phrases, some new and normal accretions to the language, and, lastly various new meanings arising mainly from development or analogy.

With the exception of some Hebraic or Hellenist expressions popularized through Bible translations, the grammatical peculiarities to be met with in ecclesiastical Latin are not to be laid to the charge of Christianity; they are the result of an evolution through which the common language passed, and are to be met with among non-Christian writers. In the main the religious upheaval which was colouring all t he beliefs and customs of the Western world did not unsettle the language as much as might have been expected. Christian writers preserved the literary Latin of their day as the basis of their language, and if they added to it certain neologisms it must not be forgotten that the classical writers, Cicero, Lucretius, Seneca, etc., had before this to lament the poverty of Latin to express philosophical ideas, and had set the example of coining words. Why should later writers hesitate to say annunciatio, incarnatio, predestinatio, when Cicero had said monitio, debitio, prohibitio, and Livy, coercitio? Words like deitas, nativitas, trinitas are not more odd than autumnitas, olivitas, coined by Varro, and plebitas, which was used by the elder Cato.

Development in the Liturgy

Hardly had it been formed when church Latin had to undergo the shock of the invasion of the barbarians and the fall of the Empire of the West; it was a shock that gave the death-blow to literary Latin as well as to the Latin of everyday speech on which church Latin was waxing strong. Both underwent a series of changes that completely transformed them. Literary Latin became more and more debased; popular Latin evolved into the various Romance languages in the South, while in the North it gave way before the Germanic tongues. Church Latin alone lived, thanks to the religion of which it was the organ and with which its destinies were linked. True, it lost a portion of its sway; in popular preaching it gave way to the vernacular after the seventh century; but it could still claim the Liturgy and theology, and in these it served the purpose of a living language. In the liturgy ecclesiastical Latin shows its vitality by its fruitfulness. Africa is once more in the lead with St. Cyprian. Besides the singing of the Psalms and the readings in public from the Bible, which made up the main portion of the primitive liturgy and which we already know, it shows itself in set prayers in a love for rhythm, for well- balanced endings that were to remain for centuries during the Middle Ages the main characteristics of liturgical Latin. As the process of development went on, this love of harmony held sway over all prayers; they followed the rules of metre and prosody to begin with, but rhythmical cursus gained the upper-hand from the fourth to the seventh, and from the eleventh to the fifteenth, century.

As is well known, the cursus consists in a certain arrangement of words, accents, and sometimes whole phrases, whereby a pleasing modulated effect is produced. The prayer of the "Angelus" is the simplest example of this; it contains all three kinds of cursus that are to be met with in the prayers of the Missal and the Breviary:

• the cursus planus, "nostris infunde";
• the cursus tardus, "incarnationem cognovimus";
• the cursus velox, "gloriam perducamur." So great was their influence over the language that the cursus passed from the prayers of the liturgy into some of the sermons of St. Leo and a few others, to papal Bulls from the twelfth to the fifteenth century and into many Latin letters written during the Middle Ages.

Besides the prayers, hymns make up the most vital thing in the Liturgy. From St. Hilary of Poitiers, to whom St. Jerome attributes the earliest, down to Leo XIII, who composed many hymns, the number of hymn writers is very great, and their output, as we learn from recent research, is beyond computing. Suffice it to say that these hymns originated in popular rhythms founded on accent; as a rule they were modelled on classical metres, but gradually metre gave way to beat or number of syllables and accent. (See HYMNODY AND HYMNOLOGY.) Since the Renaissance, rhythm has again given way to metre; and many old hymns were even retouched, under Urban VIII, to bring then into line with the rules of classical prosody.

Besides this liturgy which we may style official, and which was made up of words of the Mass, of the Breviary, or of the Ritual, we may recall the wealth of literature dealing with a variety of historical detail such as the "Pereginatio ad Loca sancta" formerly attributed to Silvia, many collections of rubrics, ordines, sacramentaries, ordinaries, or other books of a religious bearing, of which so many have been edited of late years in England either by private individuals or by the Surtees' Society and the Bradshaw Society. But the most we can do is to mention the brilliant liturgical efflorescence.

Development in Theology

Wider and more varied is the field theology opens up for ecclesiastical Latin; so wide that we must restrict ourselves to pointing out the creative resources which the Latin we speak of has given proof of since the beginning of the study of speculative theology, i. e., from the writings of the earliest Fathers down to our own day. More than elsewhere, it has here shown how capable it is of expressing the most delicate shades of theological thought, or the keenest hairsplitting of decadent Scholasticism. Need we mention what it has done in this field? The expression it has created, the meanings it has conveyed are only too well known. Whereas the major part of these expressions were legitimate, were necessary and successful -- transsubstantio, forma, materia, individuum, accidens, appetitus -- there are only too many that show a wordy and empty formalirm, a deplorable indifference for the sobriety of expression and for the purity of the Latin tongue -- aseitas, futuritio, beatificativum, terminatio, actualitas, haecceitas, etc. It was by such words as these that the language of theology exposed itself to the jibes of Erasmus and Rabelais, and brought discredit on a study that was deserving of more consideration. With the Renaissance, men's minds became more difficult to satisfy, readers of cultured taste could not tolerate a language so foreign to the genius of the classical Latinity that had been revived. It became necessary even for renowned theologians like Melchior Cano in the preface to his "Loci Theologici", to raise their voices against the demands of their readers as well as against the carelessness and obscurity of former theologians. It may be laid down that about this time classic correctness began to find a place in theological as well as in liturgical Latin.

Present Position

Henceforth correctness was to be the characteristic of ecclesiastical Latin. To the terminology consecrated for the expression of the faith of the Catholic Church it now adds as a rule that grammatical accuracy which the Renaissance gave back to us. But in our own age, thanks to a variety of causes, some of which arise from the evolution of educational programmes, the Latin of the Church has lost in quantity what it has gained in quality. Until recently, Latin had retained its place in the Liturgy, as it was seen to point out and watch over, in the very bosom of the Church, that unity of belief in all places and throughout all times which is her birthright. In current practice, throughout the liturgy and in the devotional hymns that accompany the ritual, the vernacular alone may be used. But in the devotional hymns that accompany the ritual the vernacular alone is used, and these hymns are gradually replacing the liturgical hymns. All the official documents of the Church, Encyclicals, Bulls, Briefs, institutions of bishops, replies from the Roman Congregations, acts of provincial councils, are written in Latin. Within recent years, however, solemn Apostolic letters addressed to one or other nation have been in their own tongue, and various diplomatic documents have been drawn up in French or in Italian. In the training of the clergy, the necessity of discussing modern systems whether of exegesis or philosophy, has led almost everywhere to the use of the national tongue. Manuals of dogmatic and moral theology may be written in Latin, in Italy, Spain, and France, but often, save in the Roman universities, the oral explanation thereof is given in the vernacular. In German and English speaking countries most of the manuals are in their own tongue, and nearly always the explanation is in the same languages.

ANTOINE DEGERT

Latin Church

The word Church (ecclesia) is used in its first sense to express whole congregation of Catholic Christendom united in one Faith, obeying one hierarchy in communion with itself. This is the sense of Matthew 16:18; 18:17; Ephesians 5:25-27, and so on. It is in this sense that we speak of the Church without qualification, say that Christ founded one Church, and so on. But the word is constantly applied to the various individual elements of this union. As the whole is the Church, the universal Church, so are its parts the Churches of Corinth, Asia, France, etc. This second use of the word also occurs in the New Testament (Acts 15:41; II Corinthians 11:28; Apocalypse 1:4, 11, etc). Any portion then that forms a subsidiary unity in itself may be called a local Church. The smallest such portion is a diocese -- thus we speak of the Church of Paris, of Milan, of Seville. Above this again we group metropolitical provinces and national portions together as units, and speak of the Church of Africa, of Gaul, of Spain. The expression "Church of Rome", it should be noted, though commonly applied by non-Catholics to the whole Catholic body, can only be used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or possibly the province) of Rome, mother and mistress of all Churches. A German Catholic is not, strictly speaking, a member of the Church of Rome but of the Church of Cologne, or Munich-Freising, or whatever it may be, in union with and under the obedience of the Roman Church (although, no doubt, by a further extension Roman Church may be used as equivalent to Latin Church for the patriarchate).

The word is also used very commonly for the still greater portions that are united under their patriarchs, that is for the patriarchates. It is in this sense that we speak of the Latin Church. The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of the Catholic body which obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to the pope, not only in papal, but also in patriarchal matters. It is thus distinguished from the Eastern Churches (whether Catholic or Schismatic), which represent the other four patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and any fractions broken away from them. The Latin patriarchate has always been considerably the largest. Now, since the great part of Eastern Christendom has fallen into schism, since vast new lands have been colonized, conquered or (partly) converted by Latins (America, Australia, etc.), the Latin part of the Catholic Church looms so enormous as compared with the others that many people think that everyone in communion with the pope is a Latin. This error is fostered by the Anglican branch theory, which supposes the situation to be that the Eastern Church is no longer in communion with Rome. Against this we must always remember, and when necessary point out, that the constitution of the Catholic Church is still essentially what it was at the time of the Second Council of Nicaea (787; see also canon 21 of Constantinople IV in 869 in the "Corp. Jur. can.", dist. xxii, c. vii). Namely, there are still the five patriarchates, of which the Latin Church is only one, although so great a part of the Eastern ones have fallen away. The Eastern Churches, small as they are, still represent the old Catholic Christendom of the East in union with the pope, obeying him as pope, though not as their patriarch. All Latins are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Latins. The old frontier passed just east of Macedonia, Greece (Illyricum was afterwards claimed by Constantinople), and Crete, and cut Africa west of Egypt. All to the west of this was the Latin Church.

We must now add to Western Europe all the new lands occupied by Western Europeans, to make up the present enormous Latin patriarchate. Throughout this vast territory the pope reigns as patriarch, as well as by his supreme position as visible head of the whole Church with the exception of very small remnants of other uses (Milan, Toledo, and the Byzantines of Southern Italy), his Roman Rite is used throughout according to the general principle that rite follows the patriarchate, that local bishops use the rite of their patriarch. The medieval Western uses (Paris, Sarum and so on), of which people at one time made much for controversial purposes, were in no sense really independent rites, as are the remnants of the Gallican use at Milan and Toledo. These were only the Roman Rite with very slight local modifications. From this conception we see that the practical disappearance of the Gallican Rite, however much the archeologist may regret it, is justified by the general principle that rite should follow patriarchate. Uniformity of rite throughout Christendom has never been an ideal among Catholics; but uniformity in each patriarchate is. We see also that the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Anglicans, of a "Uniate" Anglican Church with its own rite and to some extent its own laws (for instance with a married clergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate. When Anglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to the pope, not only as head of the Church but also as patriarch. As part of the Latin Church England must submit to Latin canon law and the Roman Rite just as much as France or Germany. The comparison with Eastern Rite Catholics rests on a misconception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate. A Eastern Rite Catholic on the other hand is a Byzantine, or Armenian, or Maronite Catholic. But a person who is in schism with the Holy See is not, of course, admitted by Catholics to be any kind of Catholic at all.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Latin Literature in Early Christianity

The Latin language was not at first the literary and official organ of the Christian Church in the West. The Gospel was announced by preachers whose language was Greek, and these continued to use Greek, if not in their discourses, at least in their most important acts. Irenaeus, at Lyons, preached in Latin, or perhaps in the Celtic vernacular, but he refuted heresies in Greek. The Letter of the Church of Lyons concerning its martyrs is written in Greek; so at Rome, a century earlier, is that of Clement to the Corinthians. In both cases the language of those to whom the letters were addressed may have been designedly chosen; nevertheless, a document that may be called a domestic product of the Roman Church, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, was written in Greek. At Rome in the middle of the second century, Justin, a Palestinian philosopher, opened his school, and suffered martyrdom; Tatian wrote his "Apologia" in Greek at Rome in the third century; Hippolytus compiled his numerous works in Greek. And Greek is not only the language of books, but also of the Roman Christian inscriptions, the greater number of which, down to the third century were written in Greek. The most ancient Latin document emanating from the Roman Church is the correspondence of its clergy with Carthage during the vacancy of the Apostolic See following on the death of Pope Fabian (20 January, 250). One of the letters is the work of Novatian, the first Christian writer to use the Latin language at Rome. But even at this epoch, Greek is still the official language: the original epitaphs of the popes are still composed in Greek. We have those of Anterus, of Fabian, of Lucius, of Gaius, and the series brings us down to 296. That of Cornelius, which is in Latin, seems to be later than the third century. In Africa Latin was always the literary language of Christianity, although Punic was still used for preaching in the time of St. Augustine, and some even preached in the Berber language. These latter, however, had no literature; cultivated persons, as well as the cosmopolitan population of the seaports used Greek. The oldest Christian document of Africa, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, was translated into Greek, as were some of the works of Tertullian, perhaps by the author himself, and certainly with the object of securing for them a wider diffusion. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas, originally written in Latin, were translated into Greek. In Spain all the known documents are written in Latin, but they appear very late. The Acts of St. Fructuosus, a martyr under Valerian, are attributed by some critics to the third century. The first Latin Christian document to which a quite certain date can be assigned is a collection of the canons of the Council of Elvira, about 300.

Side by side with literary works, the Church produced writings necessary to her life. In this category must be placed the most ancient Christian documents written in Latin, the translations of the Bible made either in Africa or in Italy. Beginning with the second century, Latin translations of technical works written in Greek became numerous treatises on medicine, botany, mathematics, etc. These translations served a practical purpose, and were made by professionals; consequently they had no literary merit and aimed at an almost servile exactitude resulting in the retention of many peculiarities of the original. Hellenisms, a very questionable feature in the literary works of preceding centuries, were frequent in these translations. The early Latin versions of the Bible had the characteristics common to all texts of this group; Hellenisms abounded in them and even Semitisms filtered in through the Greek. In the fourth century, when St. Jerome made his new Latin version of the Scriptures, the partisans of the older versions to justify their opposition praised loudly the harsh fidelity of these inelegant translations (Augustine, "De doct. christ.", II, xv, in P. L., XXXIV 46). These versions no doubt exercised great influence upon the imagination and the style of Christian writers, but it was an influence rather of invention and inspiration than of expression. The incorrectness and barbarism of the Fathers have been much exaggerated: profounder knowledge of the Latin language and its history has shown that they used the language of their time, and that in this respect there is no difference worth mentioning between them and their pagan contemporaries. No doubt some of them were men of defective education, writers of incorrect prose and popular verse, but there have been such in every age; the author of the "Bellum Hispaniae", the historian Justinus, Vitruvius, are profane authors who cared little for purity or elegance of style. Tertullian, the Christian author most frequently accused of barbarism, for his time, is by no means incorrect. He possesses strong creative power, and his freedom is mostly in the matter of vocabulary; he either invents new words or uses old ones in very novel ways. His style is bold; his imagination and his passion light it up with figures at times incoherent and in bad taste; but his syntax contains, it may be said almost no innovations. He multiplies constructions as yet rare and adds new constructions, but he always respects the genius of the language. His work contains no Semitisms, and the Hellenisms which his critics have pointed out in it are neither frequent nor without warrant in the usage of his day. This, of course, does not apply to his express or implicit citations from the Bible. At the other extreme, chronologically, of Latin Christian literary development, a pope like Gelasius gives evidence of considerable classical culture; his language is novel chiefly in its choice of words, but many of these neoterisms were in his time no longer new and had their origin in the technical usage of the Church and the Roman law.

In the historical development of Christian Latin literature three periods may be distinguished:

• that of the Apologists, lasting until the fourth century,
• that of the Fathers of the Church (the fourth century); and
• the Gallo-Roman period.

The first period is characterized by its dominant tone of apology, or defence of the Christian religion. In fact, most of the earliest Christian writers wrote apologies, e.g. Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius. In face of paganism and the Roman State they plead the cause of Christianity, and they do it each according to his character, and each with his own line of arguments.

• Minucius Felix represents, in a way, the transition from the traditional philosopher of the cultured classes to the popular preaching of Christianity and in this approaches closely to some of the Greek apologists converts from philosophy to Christianity, e.g. Justin, seeking at the same time to harmonize their inherited mental culture with their faith. Even the dialogue form they use is meant to retain the reader in that philosophic world with which Plato and Cicero had familiarized him.
• Tertullian, perhaps identical with the jurisconsult mentioned in the "Digest" of Justinian lifts out boldest arguments of a legal order and examines the juridical bases of the persecution.
• Arnobius, rhetorician and philosopher, is first and foremost a product of the school; he exhibits the resources of amplification and displays the erudition of a scholiast.
• Lactantius is a philosopher, only more profoundly penetrated by Christianity than were the earlier apologists. He is also very particular about the maintenance of social order, good government, and the State. His writings are well adapted to a society that has recently been shaken by a long period of anarchy and is in process of reconstruction.

In this way the early Christian Latin literature presents all the varieties of apology. There are here mentioned only those apologies which formally present themselves as such, to them should be added some of St. Cyprian's works -- the treatise on idols, and "Ad Donatum", the letter to Demetrianus, works which attack special weaknesses of polytheism, the vices of pagan society, or discuss the calamities of Rome.

These writers do not confine their activity to controversy with the pagans. The extent and variety of the works of Tertullian and St. Cyprian are well known. At Rome, Novatian touches, in his treatises, on questions which more particularly interest the faithful, their religious life or their beliefs. Victorinus of Pettau, in the mountains of Styria, introduced biblical exegesis into Latin literature, and began that series of commentaries on the Apocalypse which so influenced the imagination, and echoed so powerfully among the artists and writers, of the Middle Ages. The same visions were embodied in the verses of Commodianus, the first Christian poet, but in a second work he took his place among the apologists and combatted paganism. In their other works St. Cyprian and Tertullian kept always in view the apologetic interest; indeed, this is the most noteworthy trait of the early Christian Latin literature. We may call attention here to another characteristic: many Latin writers of this time, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, perhaps Commodianus, were Africans, for which peculiarity two causes may be assigned. On the one hand, Gaul and Italy had long employed the Greek Language, while Spain was backward, and Christianity developed there but feebly at this period. On the other hand, Africa had become a centre of profane literature; Apuleius, the greatest profane writer of the age, was an African; Carthage possessed a celebrated school which is called in one inscription by the same name, studium, which was afterwards applied to the medieval universities. There is no doubt the second was the more potent cause.

The second period of Christian literature covers broadly speaking, the fourth century -- i.e. from the Edict of Milan (313) to the death of St. Jerome (420). It was then that the great writers of the Church flourished, those known permanently as "the Fathers", both West and East. Though the term patristic belongs to the whole period here under consideration, as contrasted with the term scholastic applied to the Middle Ages, it may nevertheless be restricted to the period we are now describing. Literary productiveness was no longer the almost exclusive privilege of one country; it was spread throughout all the Roman West. Notwithstanding this diffusion, all the Latin writers are closely related; there are no national schools, the writers and their works are all caught up in the general current of church history. There is truly a Christian West, all parts of which possess nearly the same importance, and are closely united in spite of differences of climate and temperament. And this West is beginning to stand off from the Greek East, which tends to follow its own particular path. The causes of Western cohesion were various but it was principally rooted in community of interests and the similarity of questions arising immediately after the peace of the Church. At the beginning of the fourth century Christological problems agitated the Church. The West came to the aid of the orthodox communities of the East, but knew little of Arianism until the Teutonic invasions. When the conflict concerning the use of the basilicas at Milan arose, the Arians do not appear as the people of Milan: they are Goths (Ambrose Ep. xii. 12, in P. L., XVI., 997). In the fourth century the great personages of the West are champions of the faith of Nicaea: Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Phoebadius of Agen, Ambrose, Augustine. Nevertheless the West has errors of its own:

• Novatianism, a legacy from the preceding age;
• Donatism in Africa;
• Manichaeism, which came from the East, but developed chiefly in Africa and Gaul;
• Priscillianism. akin to Manichaeism, and the firstfruits of Spanish mysticism.

Manichaeism has a complex character, and, in truth, appears to be a distinct religion. All other errors of the West have a bearing on discipline or morals, on practical life and do not arise from intellectual speculation. Even in the Manichaean controversy moral questions occupy a large place. Moreover, the characteristic and most important heresy of the Latin countries bears upon a problem of Christian psychology and life the reconciliation of human liberty with the action of Divine grace. This problem, raised by Pelagius, was solved by Augustine. Another characteristic of this period is the universality of the gifts and the activity displayed by its greatest writers: Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine are in turn moralists, historians, and orators; Ambrose and Augustine are poets; Augustine is the universal genius, not only of his own time but of the Latin Church -- one of the greatest men of antiquity, to whom Harnack, without exaggeration, has found none comparable in ancient history except Plato. In him Christianity reached one of the highest peaks of human thought.

This second period may be again subdivided into three generations.

• First, the reign of Constantine after the peace of the Church (313-37), when Juvencus composed the Gospel History (Historia Evangelica) in verse; from the preceding period he had inherited the influence of Hosius of Cordova.
• Second, the time between the death of Constantine and the accession of Theodosius (337-79). In this generation apologetic assumes an aggressive tone with Firmicus Maternus and appeals to the secular arm against paganism; Christianity, by many held responsible for the gathering misfortunes of the empire, is defended by Augustine in "The City of God"; Ambrose and Prudentius protest against the retention of paganism in official ceremonies; great bishops like Hilary of Poitiers, Zeno of Verona, Optatus of Mileve, Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Vercelli, take part in the controversies of the day; Marius Victorinus combines the erudition of a philologian with the subtlety of a theologian.
• The third generation was that of St. Jerome, under Theodosius and his son (380-420), a generation rich in intellect -- Ambrose, Prudentius, Sulpicius Severus, Rufinus, Jerome, Paulinus of Nola, Augustine, the secondary poets Proba, Damasus, Cyprian; the Spanish theologians Pacianus and Gregory of Elvira; Philastrius of Brescia and Phoebadius of Agen. The long-lived Augustine overlapped this period, at the same time by the sheer force of genius he is both the last great thinker of antiquity in the West and the great thinker of the Middle Ages.

Early Christian literature in the West may be regarded as ending with the accession of Theodoric (408). Thenceforth until the Carlovingian renascence there arises in the various barbarian kingdoms a literature which has for its chief object- the education of the new-comers and the transmission of some of the ancient culture into their new civilization. This brings us to the last of our three periods? which may conveniently be called the Gallo-Roman, and comprises about two generations, from 420 to 493. It is dominated by one school, that of Lérins, but already the splintering of the old social and political unity is at hand in the new barbarian nationalities rooted on provincial soil. In Augustine's old age, and after his death, a few disciples and partisans of his teachings remain: Orosius, a Spaniard; Prosper of Aquitaine, a Gallo-Roman; Marius Mercator, an African. Later Victor Vitensis tells the story of the Vandal persecution, in him Roman Africa, overrun by barbarians furnishes almost the only writer of the second half of the century. To the list of African authors must be added the names of two bishops of Mauretania mentioned by Gennadius--Victor and Voconius. In Gaul a pleiad of writers and theologians develops at Lérins or within the radius of that monastery's influence -- Cassian, Honoratus, Eucherius of Lyons, Vincent of Lérins, Hilary of Arles, Valerian of Cemelium, Salvianus, Faustus of Riez, Gennadius. Here we might mention Arnobius the Younger, and the author of the "Praedestinatus". No literary movement in the West, before Charlemagne, was so important or so prolonged. Gaul was then truly the scene of manifold intellectual activity; in addition to the writers of Lérins. that country reckons one polygrapher, Sidonius Apollinaris, one philosopher, Claudian Mamertus, several poets, Claudius Marius Victor, Prosper, Orientius. Paulinus of Pella, Paulinus of Périgueux, perhaps also Caelius Sedulius. Against this array Italy can offer only two preachers, St. Peter Chrysologus and Maximus of Turin, and one great pope, Leo I, still greater by his deeds than by his writings, whose name recalls a new influence of the Church of Rome on the intellectual movement of the time, but a juridical rather than a literary influence. Early in the fifth century Innocent I appears to have been occupied with a first compilation of the canon law. He and his successors intervene in ecclesiastical affairs with letters, some of which have the size and scope of veritable treatises. Spain is still poorer than Italy, even counting Orosius (already mentioned among the disciples of Augustine) and the chronicler Hydatius. The island peoples, which in the preceding period had produced the heresiarch Pelagius, deserve mention at this date also for the works attributed to St. Patrick.

A first general characteristic of Christian literature, common to both East and West, is the space it devotes to bibliographical questions, and the importance they assume. This fact is explained by the very origins of Christianity: it is a religion not of one book but of a collection of books, the date, source, authenticity, and canonicity of which are matters which it is important to determine. In Eusebius's "History of the Church" it is obvious with what care he pursues the inquiry as to the books of Scripture cited and recognized by his Christian predecessors. In this way there grows up a habit of classifying documents and references, and of describing in prefaces the nature of the several books. The Bible is not the only object of these minute studies; every important and complex work attracts the attention of editors. Let it suffice to recall the formation of the collection of St. Cyprian's letters and treatises, a more or less official catalogue of which, the "Cheltenham Catalogue ", was drawn up in 359, after a lengthy elaboration, the successive stages of which are still traceable in several manuscripts. Questions of authenticity play a large part in the dissensions of St. Jerome and Rufinus. Apocryphal writings, fabricated in the interest of heresy, engendered controversies between the Church and the heretical sects. Another illustration of the same literary interest is to be found in the inquiry, instituted at the end of the fourth century as to the Canons of Sardica, called Canons of Nicaea. The "Retractationes" of St. Augustine is a work unique in the history of ancient bibliography, not to speak of its psychological interest, a peculiar quality of all Christian literature in the West.

In part, therefore, Christian Latin literature naturally assumes a character of immediate utility. Catalogues are drawn up, lists of bishops, lists of martyrs (Depositiones episcoporum et martyrum), catalogues of cemeteries, later on church inventories, "Provinciales", or lists of dioceses according to countries. Besides these archive documents, in which we recognise an imitation of Roman bureaucratic customs, certain literary genres bear the same stamp. The accounts of pilgrimages have as much of the guide-book as of the narrative in them. History had already been reduced to a number of stereotyped scenes by the profane masters, and had been incorporated, at Alexandria, in that elementary literature which condensed all knowledge into a minimum of dry formula. The "Chronicle" of St. Jerome, really only a continuation of that of Eusebius, is in turn continued by a series of special writers, and even a Sulpicius Severus betrays the influence of the new form of chronicle. While in these departments of literature the West but imitates the East, it follows at the same time its own practical tendencies. Indeed, the Latin writers make no pretence to originality, they take their materials from their Eastern brethren. Five of them, Hilary, Jerome Ruffinus, Cassian and Marius Mercator, have been described as hellenizing Westerns. St. Ambrose is generally considered an authentic representative of the Latin mind, and this is true of the bent of his genius and of his exercise of authority as the head of a Church; but no one, perhaps, translated more frequently from the Greek writers, or did it with more spirit or more care. It is an acknowledged fact that his exegesis is taken from St. Basil's "Hexaemeron" and from a series of treatises on Genesis by Philo. The same holds good in respect to his dogmatic or mystical treatises: the "De mysteriis", written in his last years, before 397, is largely taken from Cyril of Jerusalem and a treatise of Didymus of Alexandria published a little before 381, while the "De Spiritu Sancto", written before Easter, 381, is a compilation from Athanasius, Basil, Didymus, and Epiphanius, from a recension of the "Catechesis" of Cyril made after 360, and from some theological discourses which had been delivered by Gregory of Nazianzus less than a twelvemonth previously (380). St. Augustine is less erudite; his learning, if not his philosophy, is more Latin than Greek. But it is the strength of his genius which makes him the most original of the Latin Fathers.

One influence, however, no Christian writer in the West escaped, that of the literary school and the literary tradition From the beginning similarities of style with Fronto and Apuleius appear numerous and distinctly perceptible in Minucius Felix, Tertullian and Zeno of Verona; owing, perhaps, to the fact that all writers, sacred and profane, adopted then the same fashions, particularly imitation of the old Latin writers. To its traditional character also, early Christian Latin literature owes two characteristics more peculiarly its own: it is oratorical, and it is moral. From remote antiquity there had existed a moral literature, more exactly a preaching, which brought certain truths within the reach of the masses, and by the character of its audience was compelled to employ certain modes of expression. On this common ground the Cynic and the Stoic philosophies had met since the third century before Christ. From the still extant remains of Teles and Bion of Borysthenes we can form some idea of this style of preaching. From this source the satire of Horace borrows some of its themes. This Cynico-Stoic morality finds expression also in the Greek of Musonius, Epictetus, and some of Plutarch's treatises, likewise in the Latin of Seneca's letters and opuscula. Its decidedly oratorical character it owes to the fact that with the beginning of the Christian era rhetoric became the sole form of literary culture and of teaching. This tradition was perpetuated by the Fathers. It furnished them the forms most needed for their work of instruction: the letter, developed into a brief treati se or reasoned exposition of opinion in the correspondence of Seneca with Lucilius; the treatise in the shape of a discourse or as Seneca again calls it a dialogus; lastly, the sermon itself, in all its varieties of conference, funeral oration, and homily. Indeed, homily (homilia) is a technical term of the Cynic and Stoic moralists. And the aforesaid literary tradition not only dominates the method of exposition, but also furnished some of the themes developed, commonplaces of popular morality modified and adapted, but still recognizable. Without repudiating this indebtedness of Christian literature to pagan literary form, one cannot help seeing in it a double character, oratorical and moral, the peculiar stamp of Roman genius. This explains the constant tone of exhortation which makes most works of ecclesiastical writers so monotonous and tiresome. Exegesis borrows from Greek and Jewish literature the system of allegory, but it lends to these parables a moralizing and edifying turn. Hagiography finds its models in biographies like those of Plutarch, but always accentuates their panegyrical and moral tone. Some compensation is to be found in the autobiographical writings, the personal letters, memoirs, and confessions. In the "Confessions" of St. Augustine we have a work the value of which is unique in the literature of all time.

Although its oratorical methods are chosen with an eye to the character of its public, there is nothing popular in the form of Christian Latin literature, nothing even corresponding to the freedom of the primitive translations of the Bible. In prose, the work of Lucifer of Cagliari stands almost alone, and reveals the aforesaid rhetorical influence almost as much as it does the writer's incorrectness. The Christian poets might have wandered somewhat more freely from the beaten path; nevertheless, they were content to imitate classical poetry in an age when prosody owing to the changes in pronunciation, had ceased to be a living thing. Juvencus was more typical than Prudentius. The verses of the Christian poets are as artificial as those of good scholars in our own time. Commodianus, out of sheer ignorance, supplies the defects of prosody with the tonic accent. Indeed, a new type of rhythm, based on accent, was about to develop from the new pronunciation; St. Augustine gives an example of it in his "psalmus abecedarius." It may therefore be said that from the point of view of literary history the work of the Latin Christian writers is little more than a survival and a prolongation of the early profane literature of Rome. It counts among its celebrities some gifted writers and one of the noblest geniuses that humanity has produced, St. Augustine.

PAUL LEJAY

Latin Literature in Christianity (Sixth to Twentieth Century)

During the Middle Ages the so-called church Latin was to a great extent the language of poetry, and it was only on the advent of the Renaissance that classical Latin revived and flourished in the writings of the neo-Latinists as it does even today though to a more modest extent. To present to the reader an account of Latin poetry in a manner at once methodical and clear is not an easy task; a strict adherence to chronology interferes with clearness of treatment, and an arrangement according to the different kinds of poetry would demand a repeated handling of some of the poets. However, the latter method is preferable because it enables us to trace the historical development of this literature.

A. The Latin Drama

Both in its inception and its subsequent development Latin dramatic poetry displays a peculiar character. "In no domain of literature", says W. Creizenach in the opening sentence of his well-known work on the history of the drama "do the Middle Ages show so complete a suspension of the tradition of classical antiquity as in the drama." Terence was indeed read and taught in the schools of the Middle Ages, but the true dramatic art of the Roman poet was misunderstood. Nowhere do we find evidence that any of his comedies were placed on the stage in schools or elsewhere; for this an adequate conception of classical stagecraft was wanting. The very knowledge of the metres of Terence was lost in the Middle Ages, and, just as the difference between comedy and tragedy was misunderstood, so also the difference between these and other kinds of poetical composition was no longer understood. It is thus clear why we can speak of imitations of the Roman metre only in rare and completely isolated cases, for example, in the case of the nun Hroswitha of Gandersheim in the tenth century. But even she shared the mistaken views of her age concerning the comedies of Terence, having no idea that these works were written for the stage nor indeed any conception of the dramatic art. Her imitations therefore can be regarded only as literary dramas on spiritual subjects, which exercised no influence whatever on the subsequent development of the drama. Two centuries later we find an example of how Plautus fared at the hands of his poetical imitators. The fact that, like Seneca, Plautus is scarcely ever mentioned among the school-texts of the Middle Ages makes it easier to understand how at the close of the twelfth century Vitalis of Blois came to recast the "Amphitruo" and the "Querulus", a later sequel to the "Aulularia", into satirical epic poems.

That the drama might therefore never have developed in the Middle Ages were it not for the effective stimulus supplied by the ecclesiastical liturgy is quite conceivable. Liturgy began by assuming more solemn forms and finally gave rise to the religious drama which was at first naturally composed in the liturgical Latin language, but subsequently degenerated into a mixture of Latin and the vernacular until it finally assumed an entirely vernacular form. The origin of the drama may be traced to the so-called Easter celebrations which came into life when the strictly ecclesiastical liturgy as developed into a dramatic scene by the introduction of hymns and sequences in a dialogue form. A further step in the development was reached when narration in John, xx, 4 sqq., was translated into action and the Apostles Peter and John were represented as hastening to the tomb of the risen Saviour. This form appears in a Paschal celebration at St. Lambrecht and another at Augsburg, both dating back to the twelfth century. This expansion of the Easter celebration by the introduction of scenes participated in by the Apostles spread from Germany over Holland and Italy, but seems to have found a less sympathetic reception in France. The third and final step in the development of the Easter celebrations was the inclusion of the apparition of the risen Christ. Among others a Nuremberg antiphonary of the thirteenth century contains all three scenes, joined together so as to give unity of action, thus possessing the character of a little drama. Of such Paschal celebrations, which still formed a part of the ecclesiastical liturgy, 224 have been already discovered: 159 in Germany, 52 in France, and the remainder in Italy, Spain, and Holland. The taste for dramatic representations, awakened in the people by the Easter celebrations, was fostered by the clergy, and by bringing out the human side of such characters as Pilate, Judas, the Jews, and the soldiers, a true drama was gradually created.

That the Easter plays were originally composed in Latin is proved by numerous still existing examples, such as those of "Benediktbeuren", "Klosterneuburg ", and the "Mystery of Tours"; gradually, however, passages in the vernacular were introduced, and finally this alone was made use of. Passion-plays were first produced in connection with the Easter plays but soon developed into independent dramas, generally in the mother-tongue. As late as 1537 the passion-play "Christus Xylonicus" was written in Latin by Barthélemy de Loches of Orléans. As the Easter plays developed from the Easter celebrations, so Christmas plays developed from the ecclesiastical celebrations at Christmas. In these the preparatory season of Advent also was symbolized in the predictions of the Prophets. Similarly the plays of the Three Kings originated in connection with the Feast of the Epiphany; there the person of Herod and the Massacre of the Innocents are the materials for a very effective drama. It was but natural that all the plays dealing with the Christmas season should be brought together into a connected whole or cycle, beginning with the play of the Shepherds, continuing in that of the Three Kings, and ending with the Massacre of the Innocents. That this combination of plays actually existed we have abundant manuscript evidence, particularly famous is the Freising cycle.

The transition to the so-called eschatological plays -- the climax of the history of the Redemption -- was easy. Two such plays enjoy a special celebrity, "The Wise and Foolish Virgins", which appeared in France in the twelfth century, and "The Appearance and Disappearance of Antichrist, written by a German poet about 1160. The latter, which is also entitled "The Roman Emperor of the German Nation and Antichrist", has also been regarded as an Easter play, because the arrival of Antichrist was expected at Easter. The second title agrees better with the contents of the play. The poet, who must have been a learned scholar, drew his inspiration from the politico-religious constitution of the Roman Empire as it existed in the golden period of Frederick Barbarossa, and from the Crusades. This ambitious play with its minute directions for representation is divided into two main actions -- the realization of a Christian world empire under the German nation, and the doings of Antichrist and his final overthrow by the Kingdom of Christ. The unity and conception of the two parts is indicated by the fact that the nations appearing in the first part suggest to the spectator what will be their attitude toward Antichrist. The drama was intended to convey the impression that the German people alone could fulfil the world-wide office of the Roman Empire and that the Church needed such a protector.

The extension of the ecclesiastical plays by the introduction of purely worldly elements led gradually to the disappearance of spiritual influence, the decay of which may also be gathered from the gradual adoption of the vernacular for these plays. While the first bloom of the neo-Latin drama is thus attributable to the influence of the Church, its second era of prosperity was purely secular in character and began with the labours of the so-called Humanists in Italy, who called into life the literary drama. Numerous as they were, we do not meet with a single genuine dramatist among them; still many sporadic attempts at play-writing were made by them. The pagan classics were naturally adopted as model -- Seneca for tragedy as is shown b the plays of Mussato, Loschi, or Dati, and especially the "Progne" of Corraro. On the other hand Plautus and Terence found more numerous imitators, whose works did not degenerate into ribaldry, as is seen from the attempts of Poggio, Beccadelli, Bruni, Fidelfo, etc. These humanistic attempts attained a measure of success in the school drama. A beginning was made with the production of the ancient dramas in the original text; such productions were introduced into the curriculum of the Liège school of the Hieronomites and they are occasionally mentioned at Vienna, Rostock, and Louvain. A permanent school-stage was erected in Strasburg by the Protestant rector John Stunn, who wished that "all the comedies of Plautus and Terence should be produced if possible, within half a year."

The second step in the development was the imitation of the classical drama, which may be traced to Wimpfeling's "Stylpho"; produced for the first time at Heidelberg in 1470, this play was still produced in 1505, a proof of its great popularity. A glorification and defence of classical studies was found in the comedy of "Codrus" by Kerkmeister, master of the Münster grammar school. The contrast between humanistic studies and medieval methods, which does not come into prominence in Wimpfeling's "Stylpho", forms here the main theme. Into the same category falls a comedy by Bebel, demonstrating the superiority of humanistic culture over medieval learning. Into these plays important current events are introduced, such as the war of Charles VII against Naples, the Turkish peril, the political situation after the Battle of Guinegate (1513), etc. The best-known of these dialogue writers were Jacob Locher, Johann von Kitzcher, and Hetwann Schottenius Hessus.

Another hybrid class of drama was the allegorical festival plays, which were fitted out as show-pieces after the fashion of the Italian mask comedies. A brilliant example of this class is the "Ludus Diana" in which Conrad Celtes (1501) panagyrizes the pre-eminence of the emperor in the chase. Similar to that of the festival plays was the development of the so-called moralities in the Netherlands schools of rhetoric. These represented the strife between the good and the bad principles (virtus et voluptas) for the soul of man, e. g., Locher's Spectaculum de judicio Paridis" or the well-known dramatized version of the "Choice of Hercules . Side by side with these semi-dramatic plays proceeded the attempts to follow more closely the ancient dramatic form in the school drama with its varied contents. Reuchlin with his three-act comedy, which treats as subject the wonderful skull of Sergius may be regarded as the real founder of the school drama. With "Henno, his second and still more famous drama, the humanistic comedy became naturalized in Germany. The great master of this art is unquestionably George Macropedius (i. e., Langhveldt) with his three farces "Aluta (1535), Andriska" (1537), and "Bassarus" (1540). A further development led to the religious school drama, which generally drew its subject-matter from Holy Writ. To further his own objects Luther had counselled the dramatization of Biblical subjects, and tales from the Bible were thus by free treatment of the incidents made to mirror the conditions of the time while containing occasional satirical sallies. Among the numerous writers of this class must be mentioned before all as the pioneer, the Netherlander Wilhelm Graphäus (Willem van de Voltldergroft), who became a Protestant: his much-discussed Acolastus" (the story of the prodigal son), which follows the Protestant tendency of representing the uselessness of good works and justification by faith alone, was reprinted at least forty-seven times in various countries between 1529 and 1585, frequently translated, and produced everywhere.

This species of drama was cultivated by the Catholics also, who introduced greater variety of subject matter by including lives of the saints. Thus Cornelius Crocus wrote a "St. Joseph in Egypt", Petrus Papeus "[Good?] Samaritan", and George Holonius several martyr-plays. The founder of the school drama in Germany was Sixt Birk (Xistus Betulius): his "Susanna", "Judith", and "Eva" have primarily an educative aim, but are coupled with Protestant tendencies. His example was followed by a fair number of imitators: by George Buchanan (1582), a Scotchman, wrote Jephthe" and "Baptistes" and the bellicose Naogeorgus treats with still more bitterness the differences between Catholics and Protestants in his "Hamanus", "Jeremias", and "Judas Iscariot". Among the polemical dramatists on the Catholic side Cornelius Laurimanus and Andreas Fabricius must be mentioned.

Although the number of the Biblical school dramas was not small, it was far surpassed by the number of the moralities. As has been said, these originated in the Netherlands and it was the Maastricht priest Christian Ischyrius (Sterck), who freely adapted the famous English morality "Everyman". This is the dramatized and widely circulated Ars moriendi and represents the importance of a good preparation for death. The same subject in a somewhat more detailed form is treated by Macropedius in his "Hecastus" (1538). The conclusion of the drama is an exposition of justification by faith in the merits of Christ. This inclination of the Catholic poet towards Luther's teaching found great applause among Protestants, and fostered the development of polemico-satirical sectarian plays, as Naogeorgus's "Mercator" (1539) shows. The Catholic standpoint also found its exposition in the moralities, for example in the Miles Christianus" of Laurimanus (1575), the "Euripus" of the Minorite Levin Brecht, the Pornius" of Hannardus Gamerius the "Evangelicus fluctuans" (1569) of Andreas Fabricius, who had composed his "Religio patiens" three years earlier in the service of the Counter-Reformation. Still more bitter now grew the polemics in the dramas, which borrowed their material from contemporary history. The most notorious of this class is the "Pamachius" of the pope hater Thomas Naogeorgus, who found many imitators.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century materials derived from ancient popular legends and history first came into greater vogue, and gradually led to the Latin historical drama, of which we find numerous examples at the famous representations given at the Strasburg academy under its founder Sturm. This example found ready imitation, especially wherever the influence of the English comedy-writers had made itself felt. In this way Latin drama enjoyed a period of prosperity everywhere until the seventeenth century. The best known dramatic poet of the latter half of the sixteenth century was the unfortunate Nicodemus Frischlin. Examples of every kind of school drama may be found among his works: "Dido" (1581), "Venus" (1584), and "Helvetiogermani" (1588), owe their subjects to the ancient classical period; "Rebecca" (1576), "Susanna (1577), his incomplete Christianized drama of "Ruth", after the manner of Terence, the "Marriage of Cana", and a Prologue to Joseph" treat Biblical topics; German legend is represented by Hildegardis" the wife of Charlemagne, whose fate is copied from that of St. Geneviève; of a polemico-satirical nature are Priscianus vapulans (1578), a mockery of medieval Latin, and Phasma (1580), in which the sectarian spirit of the age is scourged. A play of an entirely original character is his Julius redivivus": Cicero and Caesar ascend from the lower world to Germany, and express their wonder at German discoveries (gunpowder, printing). All these attempts at a Latin school drama, in so far as they served educational purposes, were most zealously welcomed in the schools of the regular orders (especially those of the Jesuits), and cultivated with great success. Thus the purely external side of the dramatic art developed from the crudest of beginnings to the brilliant settings of the so-called ludi caesarii. With the suppression of the Society of Jesus the school drama came to a rapid end, and no serious attempt has been since made to revive it and restore it to its former position. However from time to time new plays have been produced both in Europe and America, and the "St. John Damascene", written by Father Harzheim of the Society of Jesus is worthy to take its place among the best productions of the Jesuit dramatists.

B. Latin Lyrical Poetry

This division of Latin poetry falls naturally into two classes: secular and religious. The former includes the poems of itinerant scholars and the Humanists, the latter hymnody. The development of vagrant scholars (clerici vagi) is connected with the foundation of the universities, as students wandered about to visit these newly founded institutions of learning. From the middle of the twelfth century imperial privileges protected these traveling scholars. The majority intended to devote themselves to theology, but comparatively few reached orders. The remainder found their callings as amanuenses or tutors in noble families, or degenerated into loose-living goliards or into wandering scholars who became a veritable plague during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. as they wandered, begging, from place to place, demanded hospitality in monasteries and castles and like the wandering minstrels paid with their songs, jugglery, buffoonery, and tales. Proud of their scholarly attainments, they used Latin in their poetical compositions. and thus arose a special literature, the goliardic poetry. Of this two great collections are still extant, the "Benediktbeuren" collection and the so-called Harleian manuscript (no. 978) at Cambridge. The arrangement of "Carmina burana", as the first publisher, Schmeller, named them, was upon a uniform plan, according to which they were divided into serious comic, and dramatic pieces. Songs celebrate the spring and the winter, in which sentiments of love also find expression, follow one another in great variety. Together with these are pious hymns of enthusiasm for the Crusades or of praise for the Blessed Virgin. We also find the most riotous drinking-songs, often of a loose, erotic nature, nor are diatribes of a satirical nature wanting: these soured and dissolute, though educated, tramps delighted especially in lampoons against the pope, bishops. and nobles, inveighing with bitter sarcasm against the avarice, ambition and incontinence of the clergy. In this Professor Schönbach sees the influence of the Catharists.

Concerning the composers of this extensive literature nothing can be stated with certainty. The poems were in a certain sense regarded as folk-songs, that is as common property and international in the full sense of the word. Some representative poets are indeed mentioned, e.g., Golias, Primas, Archipoeta, but these are merely assumed names. Particularly famous among the poems is the "Confessio Goliae" which was referred to the Archipoeta, and may be regarded as the prototype of the goliardic songs: strophes 12-17 (Meum est propositam in taberna mori) are even today sung as a drinking-song in German student circles. The identity of the Archipoeta has been the subject of much investigation, but so far without success. Paris was an important centre of these itinerant poets, particularly in the time of Abelard (1079-1142), and it was probably thence that they derived the name of goliards, Abelard having been called Golias by St. Bernard. From Paris their poetry passed to England and Germany, but in Italy it found little favour. At a later period, when the goliardic songs had become known everywhere, the origin of their title appears to have grown obscure, and thus emerged a Bishop Golias -- a name referred to the Latin gula -- to whom a parody on the Apocalypse and biting satires on the pope were ascribed. There even appeared poets as filius or puer or discipulus de familia Goliae, and frequent mention is made of a goliardic order with the titles of abbot, prior, etc. Apart from their satirical attitude towards ecclesiastical life, the goliards showed their free and at times heretical views in their parodies of religious hymns, their irreverence in adapting ecclesiastical melodies to secular texts. and their use of metaphors and expressions from church hymns in their loose verses.

In outward form the poetry of the goliards resembled the ecclesiastical sequences, rhyme being combined with an easily sung rhythm and the verses being joined into strophes. Singularly rapid in its development, its decay was no less sudden. The cause of its decline is traceable partly to the conditions of the time and partly to the character of the goliardic poets. In a burlesque edict of 1265 the goliards were compared to bats -- neither quadrupeds nor birds. This was indeed a not inapt comparison, for their unfortunate begging rendered them odious to clergy and laity alike. Forgetting their higher educational parts, they found it necessary to ally themselves more and more closely with the strolling players and thus became subject to the ecclesiastical censures repeatedly decreed by synods and councils against these wandering musicians. Thus, regarded virtually as outlaws, they are heard of no more in France after the thirteenth century, although then are referred to in the synods of Germany until the following century. Together with the poets gradually disappeared their songs, and only a few are preserved in the Kommersbücher of the student world. Yet the influence of their poetry on the secular German lyric, and perhaps also on the outer form of religious poetry, was both stimulating and permanent. In this fact lies their principal literary importance and they are valuable as illustrations of the literary culture of the time.

Quite distinct in subject and form is the lyric poetry of the humanistic period, the era of the revival of classical learning. The work of a few scattered poets, it could not attain the popularity won by the goliardic poetry, even had its form not been exclusively imitation of ancient classical versification. From the beginning of the sixteenth century the Catholic humanist, Vida, had been engaged among other works on the composition of odes, elegies, and hymns: he belonged to the poetae urbani of the Medici period of Leo X, many of whom wrote lyrical, in addition to their epical, pieces. Johannes Dantiscus, who died in 1548 as Bishop of Ermland, composed thirty religious hymns after the fashion of the older ones in the Breviary, without any trace of classical imitation. Even the renowned Nicolaus Copernicus composed seven odes embodying the beautiful Christian truths associated with Advent and Christmas. Among the Humanists of France, John Salmon (Salmonius Macrinus) was named the French Horace, and among the numerous other names those of Erixius with his "Carmina" (1519) and Théodore de Bèze with his "Poemata" (1548) deserve special mention. In Belgium and the Netherlands Johannes Secundus (Jan Nicolai Everaerts, d. 1536) was conspicuous as a classical poet. From Holland Latin poetry found an entrance also into the Northern Empire under the patronage of Queen Christina, while even Iceland had its representative in the Protestant Bishop Sveinsson (1605-74), who among other works published a rich collection of poems to the Blessed Virgin in the most varied ancient classical metres.

As in the domain of drama, so also in that of lyrical poetry, Humanism showed itself most fruitful in Germany, particularly in connection with the dissemination of the new doctrine of Luther. "Thus among the neo-Latinist poets we meet a large number of preachers, school-rectors, university and grammar school professors who translated the Psalms into Horatian metres, converted ecclesiastical and edifying songs of every type into the most divine ancient strophes, and finally, an immeasurable number of occasional poems, celebrated in verse princes and potentates, religious and secular festivals, the consecration of churches, christenings, marriage, interments, installations, occasions of public rejoicing and calamity" (Baumgartner). The Jesuits were as distinguished for their fruitful activity in the field of lyrical poetry as in the school drama. With Sarbiewski (q. v.), the Polish Horace, were associated by Urban VIII for the revision of the old hymn in the Breviary Famian Strada, Tarquinius Galuzzi, Hieronymus Petrucci and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. In addition to Balde (q. v.) there were among the German Jesuit poets a notable number of lyricists. Of the many names we may mention Jacob Masen, Nicola Avancini, Adam Widl, and John Bissel, who must be numbered among the best-known imitators of Horace. In the Netherlands, France, Italy, England, Portugal and Spain, their number was not smaller, nor their achievements of less value. For example the Dutch Hosschius (de Hossche, 1596-1669) excels both Balde and Sarbiewski in purity of language and smoothness of verse. Simon Rettenbacher (163-1706), the Benedictine imitator of Balde, whose lyrics show a true poetic gift, also deserves a place among the neo-Latinist writers of odes. The nineteenth century added but one name to the list of Latin lyricists, that of Leo XIII, whose poems evince an intimate knowledge of ancient classical literature. The other trend of neo-Latinist lyric poetry embraces religious hymnody. "The whole career of ecclesiastical and devotional hymnody from its cradle to the present day may be divided into three natural periods, of which the first is the most important, the second the longest and the third the most insignificant." Such is the division of Latin ecclesiastical hymnody (q. v.) given by the greatest authority, the late Father Guido Dreves formerly a member of the Society of Jesus.

C. The neo-Latin Epic

The epic forms, as is natural, the largest part of our inheritance of Christian Latin poetry. As a lucid treatment according to any regular division of the subject-matter is difficult, we shall content ourselves with a chronological sketch of it. The foundation of the Benedictine Order was in every respect an event of prime importance. The Benedictines advanced the interests of culture, not only to supply the needs of life, but also to embellish it. Thus among the earliest companions of St. Benedict we already find a poet, Marcus of Monte Cassino, who in his distich sang the praises of the deceased founder of his order. During the sixth century, while the foundations of a rich literature were being thus laid the culture formerly so flourishing in Northern Africa had almost died out. The imperial governor, Flavius Cresconius Corippus, and Bishop Verecundus were still regarded as poets of some merit: but the former lacked poetic inspiration, the latter, poetic form. Among the Visigoths in Spain, however, we find true poets, e. g., St. Eugenius II with his version of the Hexaemeron. In Gaul in the sixth century flourished the most celebrated poet of his age, Venantius Fortunatus. Most original is his "Epithalamium" on the marriage of Sigebert I of Austrasia to the Visigothic princess Brunehaut, Christian thought being clothed in ancient mythological forms. About 250 more or less extensive poems of Venantius are extant, including a "Life of St. Martin" in more than two thousand hexameter verses. Most of his composition are occasional poems. In addition to his well-known hymns "Vexilla regis" and "Pange lingua", his elegies treating of the tragical fate of the family of Radegundis found the greatest appreciation. About the same period there sprang up in the British Isles a rich harvest of Latin culture One of the most eminent poets is St. Aldhelm, a scion of the royal house of Wessex: his great work "De laudibus virginum", containing 3000 verses, attained a wide renown which it long enjoyed. The Venerable Bede also cultivated Latin poetry, writing a eulogy of St. Cuthbert in 976 hexameters.

Ireland transmitted the true Faith, together with higher culture, to Germany. The earliest pioneers were Saints Columbanus and Gall: the former is credited with some poems, the latter founded Saint-Gall. The real apostle of Germany, St. Boniface, left behind some hundreds of didactic verses. The seeds sown by this saint flourished and spread under the energetic Charlemagne, who succeeded without neglecting his extensive affairs of state, in making his Court a Round Table of Science and Art, at which Latin was the colloquial speech. The soul of this learned circle was Alcuin, who showed his knowledge of classical antiquity in two great epic poems, the "Life of St. Willibrord" and the history of his native York. In command of language and skill of versification as well as in the number of poems transmitted to posterity, Theodulf the Goth surpassed all members of the Round Table. Movements similar to that at Charlemagne's Court are observed in the contemporary monastic schools of Fulda, Reichenau, and Saint-Gall. It will suffice to mention a few of the chief names from the multitude of poets. Walafrid Strabo's "De visionibus Wettini", containing about 1000 hexameters, is justly regarded as the precursor of Dante's "Divine Comedy". His verses on the equestrian statue of Theodoric, "Versus de imagine tetrici", are of literary importance, because he represents the king as a tyrant hating God and man. Highly interesting also for the art of gardening is his great poem Hortulus", in which he describes the monastery garden with its various herbs, etc. Contemporary with Walafrid and characterized by the same spirit were the poets Ernoldas, Nigellus, Ermenrich, Sedulius Scottus, etc. As a "real gem from the treasury of old manuscripts" F. Rückert describes the elegy on Hathumod, the first Abbess of Gandersheim written by the Benedictine Father Agius. From the same monk of Corwey we have the poem "On the translation of St. Liborius" and a poetical biography of Charlemagne. A peculiar work was written by Albert Odo of Cluny under the title "Occupatio": it is an epico-didactic poem against pride and debauchery, which he demonstrates to be the chief vices in the history of the world.

The golden age of Saint-Gall begins with the end of the ninth century, after which opens the epoch of the four famous Notkers and the five not less renowned Ekkehards. The first Ekkehard is the author of the well-known "Waltharius" which Ekkehard IV revised. About the time when the "Waltharius" was revised, there appeared another epic poem "Ruodlieb" -- a romance in Latin hexameters by an unknown author, describing the adventurous fate of the hero -- which is unfortunately only partly extant. The name of the poet who in 1175 composed in Latin hexameters the first "animal" epic, "Ecbasis cuius dam captivi per tropologiam", is also unknown. The frame-work of the poem is the story of a monk mho runs away from the monastery but is brought back again under the form of a calf. The "Fable of the Bees" forms the "animal" epic in which the enmity of the wolf and fox is the central point. In the twelfth century this "animal" epic received an extension probably from Magister Nivardus of Flanders under the title "Ysengrimus" or "Renardus vulpes": from the poem thus extended an extract was made later and this is the last product of the animal" epic in the thirteenth century. Like Charlemagne Otto the Great (936-73) sought to make his Court the centre of science, art, and literature. The most brilliant representative of this period is the nun Hroswitha, pupil of the emperor's niece Gerberga. It was in the epic that she achieved her first poetic successes: these were her well-known "Legends", which were followed by two long epic poems in praise of the imperial house (see HROSWITHA) .

The chroniclers and historians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries but seldom use verse in their narratives, their stories being intended above all else for strictly historical purposes. Histories in verse however, were not wanting. Thus Flodoard records in legendary fashion almost the whole ecclesiastical history of the first ten centuries. Walter of Speyer wrote during the same period the first Legend of St. Christopher", and an unknown poet composed "The Epic of the Saxon War" (of Henry IV). Other poets wrote on the Crusades, Walter of Châtillon even ventured on an "Alexandreis", while Hildebert produced a " Historia Mahumetis" in verse.

The Humanists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are characterized by a closer approach to ancient classical form. Marbod (d. 1123) was a scholarly poet, and left behind a considerable number of legends and didactic aphorisms. His younger contemporary Hildebert of Tours also wrote a fair number of religious poems: more important are the two "Roman Elegies", in which he treats of the remains of ancient Rome and the sufferings of the papal capital under Paschal II. Most artistic in its conception and execution, is his fragment "Liber mathematicus", in which the tragical complications caused by the superstitious fear arising from an unfavourable horoscope are depicted. That the medieval Scholastics could combine theological knowledge with humanistic culture may be seen from the works of the two scholars John of Salisbury and Alanus de Insulis. That the influence of this humanistic culture was unfortunately not always for good, the notorious prurient narratives of Matthew of Vendôme prove. In the days of the goliards there were also poets who depicted in verse contemporary events. Thus the achievements of Barbarossa were sung by no less than three poets.

Humanism attained its full bloom in the era of the Renaissance, which began in Italy. Dante gives strong evidence of this movement, as does even more strongly Francesco Petrarch, whose epic "Africa" enjoyed wide renown. Giovanni Boccaccio, a contemporary of the preceding, belongs rather to Italian literature, although he also cultivated Latin poetry. The humanistic movement found favourable reception and encouragement everywhere. In Florence there sprang up about the Augustinian monk, Luigi Marsigli (d. 1394), a kind of literary academy for the cultivation of ancient literature while in the following century the city of the Medici developed into the literary centre of all Italy. Most representatives of the new movement preserved their close connection with the Church, although a few isolated forerunners of the great revolt of the sixteenth century already made their appearance. The seeds of this religious revolution were sown by the lampoons and libidinous poems of such men as Poggio Bracciolini, Antonio Beccadelli and Lorenzo Valla. Maffeo Vegio on the other hand followed the purely humanistic direction of the true Renaissance; he added a thirteenth book to Virgil's "Aeneid", making the poem conclude with the death of Aeneas. He also composed poetic versions of the "Death of Astyanax" and " The Golden Fleece", and still later composed a "Life of St. Anthony . An epic eulogizing the elder Hunyadi was begun by the Hungarian Janus Pannonius, but unfortunately left unfinished. A legendary poem of an entirely original character is the "Josephina", written in twelve cantos by John Gerson, the learned chancellor of the University of Paris. It reminds us of a similar poem by Hroswitha, though the apocryphal narratives taken from the so-called Gospel of St. James are marked by greater depth. Humanism was planted in Germany by Petrarch during his residence there as ambassador to Charles IV, with whom he corresponded after his departure. The interest in humanistic studies was also spread by Aeneas Silvius at the Council of Basle.

As in Italy, the movement rapidly developed everywhere, evincing at first a religious tendency but afterwards becoming hostile to the Church. In the century preceding the "Reformation", indeed, the foremost representatives of Humanism remained true to the ancient Faith. Conrad Celtes, although his four Books of "Amores" are a reflection of his dissolute life sang later of Catholic truths and the lives of the saints. Similarly Willibald Pirkheimer (d. 1528) among many others, notwithstanding his satire "Eccius desolatus", remained faithful to the Church. On the other hand Esoban Hessus, Crotus Rubeanus, and above all Ulrich von Hutten espoused the cause of the new doctrine in their highly satirical writings. A somewhat protean character was displayed by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, whose early works include hymns to Christ and the Virgin Mary. "Laus stultitia", a satire on all the estates after the fashion of Brant's "Narrenschiff", was written in seven day to cheer his sick friend, Thomas More. In England especially at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the humanistic movement developed along the same lines as in Germany. The first direction was given to the movement mainly by Thomas More, whose "Utopia" (1515) is world renowned. In Italy the Renaissance movement continued into the sixteenth century. Sadolet's poem on "The Laocoon Group" is known throughout the literary world, while his epic on the heroic death of Caius Curtius is equally finished. Not less famous is Vida s "Christiad ": he also wrote didactic poems on "Silk-worms" and "Chess". Among the more important works of this period must also be included Jacopo Sannazaro with his classically finished epic "De partu Virginis", at which he laboured for twenty years. His Naenia" on the death of Christ also merits every praise. The example of Vida and Sannazaro spurred numerous other poets to undertake extensive epical works, of which none attained the excellence of their models.

In other countries also the new literary movement continued, although it produced richer fruit in the field of dramatic and lyric poetry than in epic poetry. The singular attempt of Laurenz Rhodomannus to compose a "Legend of Luther" in opposition to the Catholic legend deserves mention on account of its peculiarity. Among the works of the dramatists we also meet with more or less ambitious attempts at epic verse. This is especially true of the dramatists of the Society of Jesus. J. Masen's "Sarcotis", for example enjoys a certain fame as the proto-type of Milton's "Paradise Lost" and Vondel's "Lucifer". Biedermann and Avancini also composed small epic narratives. Balde produced many epical works, his "Batrachomyomachia" is an allegorical treatment of the Thirty Years' War, and his "Obsequies of Tilly bring to light many interesting particulars concerning the great general. He also celebrated in verse the heroic death of Dampierre and Bouquois. Not least among his works is his "Urania Victrix". But, instead of accumulating further names, let us bring forward just a few of the more important poems: the "Puer Jesus" of Tommaso Ceva must be placed in the front rank of idyllic compositions; the "Life of Mary" (2086 distichs) of the Brazilian missionary, Venerable Joseph de Anchieta, is a model for similar works. During the nineteenth century the Latin epic more or less centred around the endowment of the rich native of Amsterdam, Jacob Henry Hoeufft, who founded a competitive prize for Latin poetry. Peter Esseiva, a Swiss, is the best-known prize winner: he celebrated in beautiful classical verse and brilliant Latin such modern inventions as the railroad, etc., and also treated strictly religious and light topics (e. g., in "The Flood", "The Grievances of an Old Maid") . Leo XIII was the last writer who wrote short epical poems in addition to his odes. Baumgartner, the author of "Weltliteratur", assigns to Latin Christian poetry the well-merited praise: "It still contains creative suggestions and offers the noblest of intellectual enjoyment."

N. SCHEID

Classical Latin Literature in the Church

I. Early Period

This article deals only with the relations of the classical literature, chiefly Latin, to the Catholic Church. When Christianity at first appeared in Rome the instruction of youth was largely confined to the study of poets and historians, chief among whom at a very early date appear Horace and Virgil. Until the peace of the Church, early in the fourth century, the value and use of classical studies were, of course, not even questioned. The new converts to Christianity brought with them such mental cultivation as they had received while pagans. Their knowledge of mythology and ancient traditions they used as a means of attacking paganism; their acquirements as orators and writers were placed at the service of their new Faith. They could not conceive how a thorough education could be obtained under conditions other than those under which they had grown up. Tertullian forbade Christians to teach, but admitted that school attendance by Christian pupils was unavoidable (De idol., 10). In fact, his rigorous views were not carried out even so far as the prohibition of teaching is concerned. Arnobius taught rhetoric, and was very proud of having numerous Christian colleagues (Adv. nat., II, 4). One of his disciples was Lactantius, himself a rhetorician and imperial professor at Nicomedia. Among the martyrs, we meet with school teachers like Cassianus (Prudent., "Perist.", 9) whom his pupils stabbed to death with a stylus; Gorgonis, another humble teacher, whose epitaph in the Roman catacombs dates from the third century (De Rossi, "Roma Sotterranea", II, 810). During the fourth century however, there sprang up an opposition between profane literature and the Bible. This opposition is condensed in the accepted translation, dating from St. Jerome, of Psalm lxx, 15-16, "Quoniam non cognovi litteraturam, introibo in potentias Domini; Domine memorabor justitiae tuae solius". One of the variants of the Greek text (grammatias for pragmatias) was perpetuated in this translation. The opposition between Divine justice, i.e., the Law and literature became gradually an accepted Christian idea.

The persecution of Julian led Christian writers to express more definitely their views on the subject. It produced little effect in the West. However, Marius Victorinus, one of the most distinguished professors in Rome, chose "to give up the idle talk of the school rather than dens the Word of God" (Augustine "Conf.", VIII, 5). Thenceforth, Christians studied more closely and more appreciatively their own literature, i.e., the Biblical writings. St Jerome discovers therein a Horace, a Catullus, an Alcaeus (Epist. 30). In his "De doctrina christiana" St. Augustine shows how the Scriptures could be turned to account for the study of eloquence; he analyses periods of the Prophet Amos, of St. Paul, and shows excellent examples of rhetorical figures in the Pauline Epistles (Doctr. chr., IV, 6-7). The Church, therefore, it seemed ought to have given up the study of pagan literature. She did not do so. St. Augustine suggested his method only to those who wished to become priests, and even for these he did mean to make it obligatory. Men of less marked ability were to use the ordinary method of instruction. The "De doctrina christiana" was written in the year 427, at which time his advancing age and the increasing strictness of monastic life might have inclined Augustine to a rigorous solution. St. Jerome's scruples and the dream he relates in one of his letters are quite well known. In this dream he saw angels scourging him and saying: "Thou art not a Christian, thou art a Ciceronian" (Epist. 25). He finds fault with ecclesiastics who find too keen a pleasure in the reading of Virgil; he adds, nevertheless, that youths are indeed compelled to study him (Epist. 21). In his quarrel with Rufinus he declares that he has not read the profane authors since he left school, "but I admit that I read them while there. Must I then drink the waters of Lethe that I may forget?" (Adv. Ruf., I, 30).

In defending himself the first figure that occurs to him is taken from mythology. What these eminent men desired was not so much the separation but the combination of the treasures of profane literature and of Christian truth. St. Jerome recalls the precept of Deuteronomy: "If you desire to marry a captive, you must first shave her head and eyebrows, shave the hair on her body and cut her nails, so must it be done with profane literature, after having removed all that was earthly and idolatrous, unite with her and make her fruitful for the Lord" (Epist. 83). St. Augustine uses another Biblical allegory. For him, the Christian who seeks his knowledge in the pagan authors resembles the Israelites who despoil the Egyptians of their treasures in order to build the tabernacle of God. As to St. Ambrose, he has no doubts whatever. He quotes quite freely from Seneca, Virgil, and the "Consolatio" of Servius Sulpicius. He accepts the earlier view handed down from the Hebrew apologists to their Christian successors, viz., that whatever is good in the literature of antiquity comes from the Sacred Books. Pythagoras was a Jew or, at least, had read Moses. The pagan poets owe their flashes of wisdom to David and Job. Tatian, following earlier Jews had learnedly confirmed this view, and it recurs, more or less developed, in the other Christian apologists. In the West Minucius Felix gathered carefully into his "Octavius" whatever seemed to show harmony by tween the new doctrine and ancient learning. This was a convenient argument and served more than one purpose.

But this concession presupposed that pagan studies were subordinate to Christian truth, the "Hebraica veritas". In the second book of his "De doctrina christiana", St. Augustine explains how pagan classics lead to a more perfect apprehension of the Scriptures, and are indeed an introduction to them. In this sense St. Jerome, in a letter to Magnus, professor of eloquence at Rome, recommends the use of profane authors; profane literature is a captive (Epist. 85). Indeed, men neither dared nor were able to do without classical teaching. Rhetoric continued to inspire a kind of timid reverence. The panegyrists, for example, do not trouble themselves about the emperor's religion, but addressed him as pagans would a pagan and draw their literary embellishments from mythology. Theodosius himself did not dare to exclude pagan authors from the school. A professor like Ausonius pursued the same methods as his pagan predecessors. Ennodius, deacon of Milan under Theodoric and later Bishop of Pavia, inveighed against the impious person who carried a statue of Minerva to a disorderly house, and himself under pretext of an "epithalamium" wrote light and trivial verses. It is true that Christian society at the time of the barbarian invasions repudiated mythology and ancient culture, but it did not venture to completely banish them. In the meantime the public schools of antiquity were gradually closed. Private teaching took their place but even that formed its pupils, e.g. Sidonius Apollinaris, according to the traditional method. Christian asceticism, however, developed a strong feeling against secular studies. As early as the fourth century St. Martin of Tours finds that men have better things to do than study. There are lettered monks at Lérins, but their scholarship is a relic of their early education, not acquired after their monastic profession. The Rule of St. Benedict prescribes reading, it is true, but only sacred reading. Gregory the Great condemns the study of literature so far as bishops are concerned. Isidore of Seville condenes all ancient culture into a few data gathered into his withered herbarium known as the "Origines", just enough to prevent all further study in the original sources. Cassiodorus alone shows a far wider range and makes possible a deeper and broader study of letters. His encyclopedic grasp of human knowledge links him with the best literary tradition of pagan antiquity. He planned a close union of secular and sacred science whence ought to issue a complete and truly Christian method of teaching. Unfortunately the invasions of the barbarians followed and the Institutiones of Cassiodorus remained a mere project.

II. Medieval Period

At this period, i.e. about the middle of the sixth century, the first indication of classical culture were seen in Britain and a little later, towards the close of the century, in Ireland. Thenceforth a growing literary movement appears in these islands. The Irish, at first scholars and then teachers, create a culture which the Anglo-Saxons develop. This culture places profane literature and science at the service of theology and exegesis. They seem to have devoted themselves chiefly to grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics. Whence did the Irish monks draw the material of their learning? It is quite unlikely that manuscripts had been brought to the island between 350 and 450, to bring about very much later a literary renaissance. The small ecclesiastical schools almost everywhere preserved elementary teaching, reading and writing. But Irish scholarship went far beyond that. During the sixth and seventh centuries, manuscripts were still being copied in continental Europe. The writing of this period is uncial or semi-uncial. Even after eliminating fifth- century manuscripts there still remains a fair number of manuscripts in this style of writing. We find among these profane works practically useful writings, glossaries, treatises on land-surveying, medicine, the veterinary art, juridical commentaries. On the other hand, the numerous ecclesiastical manuscripts prove the persistence of certain scholarly traditions. The continuations of sacred studies sufficed to bring about the Carlovingian revival. It was likewise a purely ecclesiastical culture which in their turn the Irish brought back to the continent in the sixth and seventh centuries. The chief aim of these Irish monks was to preserve and develop religious life; for literature as such they did nothing. When we examine closely the scattered items of information, especially the hagiological indications, their importance is peculiarly lessened, for we find that the teaching in gouestion generally concerns Scripture or theology. Even St. Columbanus does not seem to have organized literary studies in his monasteries. The Irish monks had a personal culture which they did not make any effort to diffuse, for which remarkable fact two general reasons may be given. The times were too barbarous and the Church of Gaul had too long a road to travel to meet the Church of Ireland. Moreover, the disciples of the Irish were men enamoured of ascetic mortification, who shunned an evil world and sought a life of prayer and penance. For such minds, beauty of language and verbal rhythm were frivolous attractions. Then, too, the material equipment of the Irish religious establishments in Gaul scarcely admitted any other study than that of the Scriptures. Generally these establishments were but a group of huts surrounding a small chapel.

Thus, until Charlemagne and Alcuin, intellectual life was confined to Great Britain and Ireland. It revised in Gaul with the eighth century, when the classic Latin literature was again studied with ardour This is not the place to treat of the Carlovingian renaissance nor to attempt the history of the schools and studies of the Middle Ages. It sill be sufficient to point out a few facts. The study of classical texts for their own sake was at that period very uncommon. The pagan authors were read as secondary to Scripture and theology. Even towards the close of his life, Alcuin forbade his monks to read Virgil. Statius is the favourite poet, and, ere long, Ovid whose licentiousness is glossed over by allegorical interpretation. Mediocre abstracts and compilations, products of academic decadence, appear among the books frequently read, e.g. Homerus latinus (Ilias latina), Dictys, Dares, the distichs ascribed to Cato. Cicero is almost overlooked, and two distinct personages are made of Tullius and Cicero. However, until the thirteenth century the authors read and known are not a few in number. At the close of the twelfth century, in the early years of the University of Paris, the principal known authors are: Statius, Virgil, Lucian, Juvenal, Horace Ovid (with exception of the erotic poems and the satires), Sallust, Cicero, Martial, Petronius (judged as combining useful information and dangerous passages) Symmachus, Solinus, Sidonius Suetonius, Quintus Curtius, Justin (known as Trogus Pompeius), Livy, the two Senecas (including the tragedies), Donatus Priscian, Boethius, Quintilian, Euclid, Ptolemy. In the thirteenth century the influence of Aristotle restricted the field of reading.

There are, however, a few real Humanists among the medieval writers. Einhard (770-840), Rabanus Maurus (776-856), the ablest scholar of his time, and Walafrid Strabo (809-849) are men of extensive and disinterested learning. Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferrières (805-862), in his quest for Latin manuscripts labours as zealously as any scholar of the fifteenth century. At a later period Latin literature is more or less felicitously represented by such men as Remigius of Auxerre (d. 908), Gerbert (later Pope Sylvester II d. 1003), Liutprand of Cremona (d. about 972), John of Salisbury (1110-1180), Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264), Roger Bacon (d. 1294) . Naturally enough medieval Latin poetry drew its inspiration from Latin poetry. Among the imitations must be mentioned the works of Hroswitha (or Roswitha), Abbess of Gandersheim (close of the tenth century), whom Virgil, Prudentius, and Sedulius inspired to celebrate the acts of Otho the Great. She is of particular interest in the history of the survival of Latin literature, because of her comedies after the manner of Terence. It has been said that she wished to cause the pagan author to be totally forgotten, but so base a purpose is not reconcilable with her known simplicity of character. A certain facility in the dialogue and clearness of style do not offset the lack of ideas in her writings, they exhibit only too clearly the fate of classical culture in the Middle Ages. Hroswitha imitates Terence, indeed but without understanding him, and in a ridiculous manner. The poems on actual life of Hugh of Orléans known as "Primas" or "Archipoeta" are far superior and betray genuine talent as well as an intelligent grasp of Horace.

During the Middle Ages the Church preserved secular literature by harboring and copying its works in monasteries, where valuable libraries existed as early as the ninth century:

• in Italy, at Monte Casino (founded in 529), and at Bobbio founded in 612 by Columbanus);
• in Germany at Saint Gall (614), Reichenau (794), Fulda (744), Lorsch (763), Hersfeld (768), Corvey (822), Hirschau (8430);
• in France at St. Martin's of Tours (founded in 372, but later restored), Fleury or Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire (620), Ferrières (630), Corbie (662), Cluny (910).

The reforms of Cluny and later of Clairvaux were not favourable to studies, as the chief aim of the reformers was to combat the secular spirit and re-establish strict religious observances. This influence is in harmony with the tendencies of scholasticism. Consequently, from the twelfth century and especially the thirteenth, the copying of manuscripts became a secular business, a source of gain. The following is a list of the most ancient or most useful manuscripts of the Latin classics for the Middle Ages:

• Eighth-ninth centuries: Cicero's Orations, Horace, the philosopher Seneca, Martial.
• Ninth century: Terence, Lucretius, Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Ovid, Lucan, Valerius-Maximus, Columella, Persius, Lucan, the philosopher Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Quintus Curtius, the Thebaid of Statius, Silius Italicus, Pliny the Younger, Juvenal, Tacitus, Suetonius, Florus, Claudian.
• Ninth-Tenth centuries: Persius, Quintus Curtius, Caesar, Cicero, Horace, Livy, Phaedrus, Persius, Lucan, the philosopher Seneca, Valerius Flaccus, Martial, Justin, Ammianus Marcellinus.
• Tenth century: Caesar Catullus, Cicero, Sallust, Lio, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, Quintus Curtius, Pliny the Elder, Quintilian Statius, Juvenal.
• Eleventh century: Caesar, Sallust Livy, Ovid, Tacitus, Apuleius.
• Thirteenth century: Cornelius Nepos, Propertius, Varro, "De lingua latina".

This list, however, furnishes only incomplete information. An author like Quintus Curtius is represented by numerous manuscripts in every century; another, like Lucretius, was not copied anew between the ninth century and the Renaissance. Moreover, it was customary to compile manuscripts of epitomes and anthologies, some of which have preserved the only extant fragments of ancient authors. The teaching of grammar was very deficient; this may, perhaps account for the backwardness of philological science in the Middle Ages. Latin grammar is reduced to an abridgment of Donatius, supplemented by the meagre commentaries of the teacher, and replaced since the thirteenth century by the "Doctrinale" of Alexander de Villedieu (de Villa Dei).

III. The Renaissance

The Renaissance brought to light the hidden treasures of the Middle Ages. Prior to this period classical culture had been an individual, isolated fact. From the fourteenth century on it became collective and social. The attitude of the Church toward this movement is too important to be treated within the brief limits of this article (see HUMANISM; RENAISSANCE; LEO X; PIUS II; etc). As to Latin studies, in particular, the Church continued to influence very actively their development At the beginning of the modern era Latin was the court language of sovereigns, notably of the Italian chanceries. The Roman curia ranks with Florence and Naples, among the first for the eminence, fame, and grace of its Latinists. Poggio was a papal secretary. Bembo and Sadoleto became cardinals. Schools and universities son yielded to the influence of the Humanists. (see HUMANISM). In France, the Netherlands, and Germany the study of the ancient classics was more or less openly influenced by tendencies hostile to the Church and Christianity. But the Jesuits soon made Latin the basis of their teaching, organized the same in a systematic way and introduced compulsory and daily construing of Cicero. The newly founded Louvain University (1426) became a centre of Latin studies owing chiefly to the Ecole du I, is founded in 1437 and especially to the Ecole des Trois Langues (Greek Latin, Hebrew), opened in 1517. It was at the Ecole du Lis that Jan van Pauteran (Despauterius) taught, the author of a Latin grammar destined to survive two centuries, but unfortunately too clearly dependent on Alexander de Villedieu's above-mentioned "Doctrinale". In the seventeenth century Port Royal introduced a few reforms in the method of teaching, substituted French for Latin in the recitations, and added to the programme of studies. But the general lines of education remained the same.

In the nineteenth century, classical philology revived as a historical science. The men who brought about this progress were mainly Germans, Dutch, and English. The Catholic Church had no share in this labour until towards the close of the century. In the middle of the nineteenth century sprang up in France a controversy of a pedagogical nature, concerning the use of the Latin classics in Christian schools. Abbé Gaume insisted that Christians, especially future priests, should obtain their literary training from the reading and interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, and he went so far as to call classical education the canker-worm (ver rongeur) of modern society. Dupanloup, superior of the Paris seminary of Notre Dame des Champs, later Bishop of Orléans, took up the defence of the classical authors whereupon there broke out a long polemical controversy which belongs to the history of Catholic Liberalism. Louis Veuillot answered Dupanloup, but the Holy See was silent and the French bishops did not alter the curriculum of their "petits séminaires" or preparatory schools for the clergy. Veuillot withdrew from the discussion in 1852. Dübner edited a collection of patristic texts graded as to serve all Christian schools from the elementary to the upper classes. Less positive attempts were made to introduce selections from the principal ecclesiastical writers of Christian antiquity (Nourisson, for the state lycées and colleges; Monier for the Catholic colleges). In Belgium Guillaume urged the simultaneous comparative study of a Christian and a pagan author. Both in Belgium and France the traditional use of the pagan authors has held its own in most educational houses, in this respect, the Jesuit schools and the government institutions do not differ. In recent times attacks have been aimed, not merely at pagan authors, but in general at all mental training in Latin. The leaders of this new opposition are on the one hand the so-called "practical" men, i. e., representatives of the natural and applied sciences, and on the other declared adversaries of the Catholic Church, many of whom hold the opinion that the study of Latin makes men more ready to receive the teachings of Faith. Once again therefore, the destinies of the Church and of the Latin classics are brought into connection. On this subject see the various articles of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA concerning schools, studies, education, the history of philology, etc.

PAUL LEJAY

Brunetto Latini

Florentine philosopher and statesman, born at Florence, c. 1210; the son of Buonaccorso Latini, died 1294.

A notary by profession. Brunetto shared in the revolution of 1250, by which the Ghibelline power in Florence was overthrown, and a Guelph democratic government established In 1260, he was sent by the Commune as ambassador to Alfonso X of Castile, to implore his aid against King Manfred and the Ghibellines, and he has left us in his "Tesoretto", (II, 27-50), a dramatic account of how, on his return journey, he met a scholar from Bologna who told him that the Guelphs had been defeated at Montaperti and expelled from Florence. Brunetto took refuge at Paris, where a generous fellow-countryman enabled him to pursue his studies while carrying on his profession of notary. To this unnamed friend he now dedicated his "Trésor". After the Guelph triumph of 1266 and the establishment of a new democratic constitution, Brunetto returned to Florence, where he held various offices, including that of secretary to the Commune, took an active and honoured part in Florentine politics, and was influential in the counsels of the Republic. Himself a man of great eloquence, he introduced the art of oratory and the systematic study of political science into Florentine public life. He was buried in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore. Among the individuals who had come under his influence was the young Dante Alighieri, and, in one of the most pathetic episodes of the "Inferno" (canto XV) Dante finds the sage, who had taught him "how man makes himself eternal", among the sinners against nature.

Brunetto's chief work, "Li Livres dou Trésor" is a kind of encyclopedia in which he "treats of all things that pertain to mortals". It was written in French prose during his exile, and translated into Italian by a contemporary, Bono Giamboni. Mainly a compilation from St. Isidore of Seville and other writers, it includes compendiums of Aristotle's "Ethics" and Cicero's treatise on rhetoric. The most interesting portion is the last, "On the Government of Cities", in which the author deals with the political life of his own times. The "Tesoretto", written before the "Trésor", is an allegorical didactic poem in Italian, which undoubtedly influenced Dante. Brunetto finds himself astray in a wood, speaks with Nature in her secret places, reaches the realm of the Virtues, wanders into the flowery meadow of Love, from which he is delivered by Ovid. He confesses his sins to a friar and resolves to amend his life, after which he ascends Olympus and begins to hold converse with Ptolemy. It has recently been shown that the "Tesoretto" was probably dedicated to Guido Guerra, the Florentine soldier and politician who shares Brunetto's terrible fate in Dante's Inferno. Brunetto also wrote the "Favolello", a pleasant letter in Italian verse to Rustico di Filippo on friends and friendship. The other poems ascribed to him, with the possible exception of one canzone, are spurious.

EDMUND G. GARDNER

La Trappe

This celebrated abbey of the Order of Reformed Cistercians is built in a solitary valley surrounded by forests, and watered by numerous streams which form, in the vicinity, a number of beautiful lakes. The location is eighty-four miles from Paris, and nine miles from the little town of Mortagne in the Department of Orne and the Diocese of Séez, within the ancient Province of Normandy. At its beginning it was only a small chapel, built in 1122 in pursuance of a vow made by Rotrou II, Count of Perche, who, a few years afterwards, constructed a monastery adjoining, to which he invited the religious of Breuil-Benoit, an abbey belonging to the Order of Savigny, then in great renown for fervour and holi-ness; and in 1140 the monastery of La Trappe was erected into an abbey. In 1147 Savigny, with all its affiliated monasteries, was united to the Order of Cîteaux, and from this time forth La Trappe was a Cistercian abbey, immediately depending on the Abbot of Clairvaux. During several centuries La Trappe remained in obscurity and, as it were, lost in the vast multitude of monasteries that claimed Cîteaux for their mother. But in the course of the fif-teenth century La Trappe, on account of its geograph-ical situation, became a prey to the English troops during the wars between France and England, and in the sixteenth century, it, like all the other monasteries, had the misfortune to be given "in commen-dam"; after this the religious had nothing further to preserve than the mournful ruins of a glorious past.

However, the hour was soon to come when the monastery was to have a bright return to its primitive fervour. The author of this reform was de Rancé, fourteenth commendatory Abbot of La Trappe, who as regular abbot, employed all his zeal in this great enterprise, the noble traditions of the holy founders of C\îteaux being again enforced. The good odour of sanctity of the inhabitants of La Trappe soon made the monastery celebrated amongst all Christian nations. On 13 February, 1790, a decree of the Government was directed against the religious orders of France, and the Abbey of La Trappe was suppressed; but the religious, who had taken the road to exile under their abbot, Dom Augustin de Lestrange, were one day to see the doors reopen to them. In 1815, the abbey, which had been sold as national property, was repurchased by Dom Augustin, but on their return the Trappists found nothing besides ruin; they rebuilt their monastery on the foundations of the old one, and on 30 August, 1832, the new church was solemnly consecrated by the Bishop of Séez. In 1880 the Trappists were again expelled; they, however soon returned to the great joy and satisfaction of the working classes and the poor. Under the able administration of the present abbot, Dom Etienne Salasc, the forty-fifth abbot since the foundation and the fourteenth since the reform of de Rancé, the monastery has been entirely rebuilt: the new church, which is greatly admired, was consecrated on 30 August, 1895. The different congregations of Trappists are now united in a single order, the official name being the "Order of Reformed Cistercians", but for a long time they will continue to be known by their popular name of "Trappists" (see CISTERCIANS).

Bossuet was a frequent visitor at La Trappe, in order to spend a few days in retreat with his friend the Abbot de Rancé; James II of England, when a refugee in France, went there to look for consolation. Dom Mabillon, after his long quarrels with de Rancé visited him there to make peace with him. The Count of Artois, afterwards Charles X, spent several days at the abbey; and in 1847 Louis Philippe wished likewise to visit this celebrated monastery. Amongst those who have contributed to the glory of the abbey in modern times we will only mention Father Robert known to the world as Dr. Debreyne, one of the most renowned physicians of France, and held in high repute for his numerous medico-theological works.

EDMOND M. OBRECT

Pierre-André Latreille

A prominent French zoologist; born at Brives, 29 November, 1762; died in Paris, 6 February, 1833. Left destitute by his parents in 1778, the boy found benefactors in Paris, and was adopted by the Abbé Haüy, the famous mineralogist. He studied theology and was ordained priest in 1786, after which he retired to Brives and spent his leisure in the study of entomology. In 1788 he returned to Paris, where he lived till driven out by the Revolution. Although not a pastor, he was arrested with several other priests, sentenced to transportation, and sent in a cart to Bordeaux in the summer of 1792. Before the vessel sailed, however, Latreille made the acquaintance of a physician, a fellow - prisoner, who had obtained a specimen of the rare beetle, Necrobia ruficollis. It was through this discovery that Latreille became acquainted with the naturalist, Bory de Saint-Vincent, who obtained his release.

He was again arrested in 1797 as an émigré, but was once more saved by influential friends. In 1799 he was placed in charge of the entomological department of the Museum of Natural History in Paris, and was elected a Member of the Academy in 1814. In 1829 he was appointed professor of entomology to succeed Lamarck. From 1796 to 1833 he published a great number of works on natural history. He was the real founder of modern entomology.

His lesser treatises and articles for various encyclopedias are too numerous for detailed mention here; details of them will be found in "Biographie générale", XXIX, and in Carus-Engelmann, "Bibliotheca zool.", II (Leipzig, 1861). In his "Précis des caractères génériques des Insectes" (Brives, 1795), and "Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum" (4 vols., Paris, 1806-09), Latreille added very largely to the number of known genera, and he rendered an incomparable service to science by grouping the genera into families, which are treated in the complete work "Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des Crutaces et Insectes" (14 vols., Paris, 1802-05). But his two most conspicuous writings on this subject of natural classification are; "Considérations sur l'ordre naturel des animaux" (Paris, 1810), and "Familles naturelles du règne animal" (Paris, 1825). His last work was "Cours d' Entomologie" (2 vols., Paris, 1831-33).

J.H. ROMPEL

Latria

Latria (latreia) in classical Greek originally meant "the state of a hired servant" (Aesch., "Prom.", 966), and so service generally. It is used especially for Divine service (Plato, "Apol.", 23 B). In Christian literature it came to have a technical sense for the supreme honour due to His servants, the angels and saints. This latter was styled "dulia". Etymologically, however, there is no reason why latria should be preferred to designate supreme honour; and indeed the two words were often used indiscriminately. The distinction is due to St. Augustine, who says: "Latria . . . ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum" (De Civ. Dei, X, i). (See ADORATION; WORSHIP.)

T. B. SCANNELL

Lauda Sion

The opening words (used as a title of the sequence composed by St. Thomas Aquinas, about the year 1264, for the Mass of Corpus Christi. That the sequence was written for the Mass is evidenced by the sixth stanza:

Dies enim solemnis agitur
In qua mensæ prima recolitur
Hujus institutio.

("for on this solemn day is again celebrated the first institution of the Supper"). The authorship of the sequence was once attributed to St. Bonaventure; and Gerbert, in his "De cantu et musica sacra", declaring it redolent of the style and rhythmic sweetness characteristic of the verse of this saint, moots the question whether the composition of the Mass of the feast should not be ascribed to him, and of the Office to St. Thomas. The fact that another Office had been composed for the local feast established by a synodal decree of the Bishop of Liège in 1246 also led some writers to contest the ascription to St. Thomas. His authorship has been proved, however, beyond question, thanks to Martine (De antiq. rit. eccl., IV, xxx), by the dissertation of Noël Alexandre, which leaves no doubt (minimum dubitandi scrupulum) in the matter. There is also a clear declaration (referred to by Cardinal Thomasius) of the authorship of St. Thomas, in a Constitution issued by Sixtus IV (1471-1484), and to be found in the third tome of the "Bullarium novissimum Fratrum Prædicatorum". In content the great sequence, which is partly epic, but mostly didactic and lyric in character, summons all to endless praise of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar (lines 1-15); assigns the reason for the commemoration of its institution (lines 16-30); gives in detail the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament (lines 31-62): "Dogma datur Christianis", etc.; shows the fulfillment of ancient types (lines 63-70): "Ecce panis angelorum", etc.; prays the Good Shepherd to feed and guard us here and make us sharers of the Heavenly Table hereafter (lines 71-80): "Bone pastor, panis vere" etc. Throughout the long poem the rhythmic flow is easy and natural, and, strange to say, especially so in the most didactic of the stanzas, despite a scrupulous theological accuracy in both thought and phrase. The saint "writes with the full panoply under his singing-robes"; but always the melody is perfect, the condensation of phrase is of crystalline clearness, the unction is abundant and, in the closing stanzas, of compelling sweetness. A more detailed description of the content of the "Lauda Sion" is not necessary here, since both Latin text and English version are given in the Baltimore "Manual of Prayers", p. 632.

In form, the sequence follows the rhythmic and stanzaic build of Adam of St. Victor's "Laudes crucis attollanus", which is given by present-day hymnologists as the type selected by St. Thomas for the "Lauda Sion". Thus the opening stanzas of both sequences have the form:

which is continued through five stanzas. In the sixth stanza the form changes in the "Lauda Sion" to: "Dies enim solemnis agitur" etc., as quoted above; and in the "Laudes crucis" to the identical (numerical) rhythms of:

Both sequences then revert to the first form for the next stanza, while in the following stanza both alter the form to:

in which all three lines are in the same rhythm. Both again revert to the first form, the "Lauda Sion" having ten such stanzas, the "Laudes crucis" twelve. We next come to a beautiful stanzaic feature of the sequences of Adam, which is imitated by the "Lauda Sion". The stanzaic forms thus far noticed have comprised three verses or lines. But now, as if the fervour of his theme had at length begun to carry the poet beyond his narrow stanzaic limits, the lines multiply in each stanza. Thus, the following four stanzas in both sequences have a form which, as it has in various ways become notable in the "Lauda Sion", may be given here in the text of one of its stanzas:

Finally, both sequences close with two stanzas having each five lines, as illustrated by the penultimate stanza of the "Lauda Sion":

It is clear from the above detailed comparison of the two sequences that St. Thomas, following the form of the "Laudes crucis" throughout all its rhythmic and stanzaic variations, composed a sequence which could be sung to a chant already in existence; but it is not a necessary inference from this fact that St. Thomas directly used the "Laudes crucis" as his model. In form the two sequences are indeed identical (except, as already noted, that one has two stanzas more than the other). But identity of form is also found in the "Lauda Sion" and Adam's Easter sequence, "Zyma vetus expurgetur", which Clichtoveus rightly styles "admodium divina", and whose spirit and occasional phraseology approximate much more closely to those of the "Lauda Sion". This is especially notable in the sixth stanza, where the first peculiar change of rhythm occurs, and where in both sequences the application of the theme to the feast-day is made directly and formally. Thus (in "Lauda Sion"): "Dies enim solemnis agitur", etc.; and (in "Zyma vetus"): "Hæc est dies quam fecit Dominus" (This is the day which the Lord hath made). It may well be surmised that Adam desired to include this famous liturgical text in his Easter sequence of "Zyma vetus expurgetur", even at the expense of altering the rhythm with which he had begun his poem; and St. Thomas, copying exactly the new rhythmic form thus introduced, copied also the spirit and pungency of its text. The same thing is not true, however, of the corresponding stanza of the "Laudes crucis", which gives us merely similarity of form and not of content or of spirit. Other verbal correspondences between the "Zyma vetus" and the "Lauda Sion" are observable in the closing stanzas. It may be said, then, that the "Lauda Sion" owes not only its poetic form, but much also of its spirit and fire, and not a little even of its phraseology, to various sequences of Adam, whom Guèranger styles "le plus grand poète du moyen áge". Thus, for instance, the two lines (rhythmically variant from the type set in the first stanza) of the "Lauda Sion":

were directly borrowed from another Easter sequence of Adam's, Ecce dies celebris, in which occurs the double stanza:

while the "Pascha novum Christus est" of the Easter sequence of Adam, and the "Paranymphi novæ legis Ad amplexum novi Regis" of his sequence of the Apostles, find a strong echo in the "Novum pascha novæ legis" of the "Lauda Sion".

The plainsong melody of the "Lauda Sion" includes the seventh and eighth modes. Its purest form is found in the recently issued Vatican edition of the Roman Gradual. Its authorship is not known; and, accordingly, the surmise of W. S. Rockstro that the text-authors of the five sequences still retained in the Roman Missal probably wrote the melodies also (and therefore that St. Thomas wrote the melody of the "Lauda Sion"), and the conviction of a writer in the "Irish Ecclesiastical Record", August, 1888 (St. Thomas as a Musician), to the same effect, are incorrect. Shall we suppose that Adam of St. Victor composed the melody? The supposition, which would of course date the melody in the twelfth century, is not an improbable one. Possibly it is of older date; but the peculiar changes of rhythm suggest that the melody was composed either by Adam or by some fellow-monk of St. Victor's Abbey; and the most notable rhythmic change is, as has been remarked above, the inclusion of the intractable liturgical text: "Hæc dies quam fecit Dominus" -- a change demanding a melody appropriate to itself. Since the melody dates back at least to the twelfth century, it is clear that the "local tradition" ascribing its composition to Pope Urban IV (d. 1264), who had established the feast-day and had charged St. Thomas with the composition of the Office, is not well-based: "Contemporary writers of Urban IV speak of the beauty and harmony of his voice and of his taste for music and the Gregorian chant; and, according to a local tradition, the music of the Office of the Blessed Sacrament -- a composition as grave, warm, penetrating, splendid as the celestial harmonies -- was the work of Urban IV" (Cruls, "The Blessed Sacrament"; tr., Preston, p. 76). In addition to the exquisite plainsong melody mention should be made of Palestrina's settings of the "Lauda Sion", two for eight voices (the better known of which follows somewhat closely the plainsong melody), and one for four voices; and also of the noble setting of Mendelssohn.

The "Lauda Sion" is one of the five sequences (out of the thousand which have come down to us from the Middle Ages) still retained in the Roman Missal. Each of the five has its own special beauty; but the "Lauda Sion" is peculiar in its combination of rhythmic flow, dogmatic precision, phraseal condensation. It has been translated, either in whole or in part, upwards of twenty times into English verse; and a selection from it, the "Ecce panis angelorum", has received some ten additional versions. Amongst Catholic versions are those of Southwell, Crashaw, Husenbeth, Beste, Oakeley, Caswall, Wallace, Aylward, Wacherbarth, Henry. Non-Catholic versions modify the meaning where it is too aggressively dogmatic and precise. E. C. Benedict, however, in his "Hymn of Hildebert", etc., gives a literal translation into verse, but declares that it is to be understood in a Protestant sense. On the other hand, as the editor of "Duffield's Latin Hymns" very sensibly remarks, certain stanzas express "the doctrine of transubstantiation so distinctly, that one must have gone as far as Dr. Pusey, who avowed that he held "all Roman doctrine", before using these words in a non-natural sense." The admiration tacitly bestowed on the sequence by its frequent translation, either wholly or in part, by non-Catholic pens, found its best expression in the eloquent Latin eulogy of Daniel (Thesaurus Hymnologicus, II, p. 88), when, speaking of the hymns of the Mass and Office of Curpus Christi, he says: "The Angelic Doctor took a single theme for his singing, one filled with excellence and divinity and, indeed, angelic, that is, one celebrated and adored by the very angels. Thomas was the greatest singer of the venerable Sacrament. Neither is it to be believed that he did this without the inbreathing of God (quem non sine numinis afflatu cecinisse credas), nor shall we be surprised that, having so wondrously, not to say uniquely, absolved this one spiritual and wholly heavenly theme, he should thenceforward sing no more. One only offspring was his -- but it was a lion (Peperit semel, sed leonem)."

      Kayser, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Erklärung der alten Kirchenhymnen, II (Paderborn and Münster, 1886), 77; Julian, Dictionary of Hymnology (New York, 1882), s. v. for references to MSS. and translations; Dreves and Blume, Analecta Hymnica (Leipzig), x, 123; xxxvii, 58; xxxix, 226, 229; xl, 311; xlii, 104, 151, for poems founded on the Lauda Sion, and xxxvii, 269 (no. 312) for a sequence in honour of St. Thomas Aquinas, beginning Lauda Sion increatam; Ecclesiastical Review, IV, 443, for text and translation, notes and comment.

H.T. Henry

Lauds

In the Roman Liturgy of today Lauds designates an office composed of psalms and canticles, usually recited after Matins.

I. THE TERM LAUDS AND THE HOUR OF THE OFFICE

The word Lauds (i.e. praises) explains the particular character of this office, the end of which is to praise God. All the Canonical Hours have, of course, the same object, but Lauds may be said to have this characteristic par excellence. The name is certainly derived from the three last psalms in the office (148, 149, 150), in all of which the word laudate is repeated frequently, and to such an extent that originally the word Lauds designated not, as it does nowadays, the whole office, but only the end, that is to say, these three psalms with the conclusion. The title Ainoi (praises) has been retained in Greek. St. Benedict also employs this term to designate the last three psalms; post haec [viz, the canticle] sequantur Laudes (Regula, cap. xiii). In the fifth and sixth centuries the Office of the Lauds was called Matutinum, which has now become the special name of another office, the Night Office or Vigils, a term no longer used (see MATINS). Little by little the title Lauds was applied to the whole office, and supplanted the name of Matins. In the ancient authors, however, from the fourth to the sixth or seventh century, the names Matutinum, Laudes matutinae, or Matutini hymni, are used to designate the office of daybreak or dawn, the Office of Matins retaining its name of Vigils. The reason of this confusion of names is, perhaps, that originally Matins and Lauds formed but a single office, the Night Office terminating only at dawn.

In the liturgy, the word Lauds has two other meanings: It sometimes signifies the alleluia of the Mass; thus a Council of Toledo (IV Council, c. xii) formally pronounced: "Lauds are sung after the Epistle and before the Gospel" (for this interpretation compare Mabillon, "De Liturgia gall.", I, iv). St. Isidore says: "Laudes, hoc est, Alleluia, canere" (De div. offic., xiii). The word Lauds also designates the public acclamations which were sung or shouted at the accession of princes, a custom which was for a long time observed in the Christian Church on certain occasions.

II. THE OFFICE IN VARIOUS LITURGIES

In the actual Roman Liturgy, Lauds are composed of four psalms with antiphons (in reality there are usually seven, but, following the ordinary rules, psalms without the Gloria and antiphon are not counted separately), a Canticle, Capitulum, Hymn, Versicle, the Benedictus with Antiphon, Oratio, or Collect, and, on certain days, the Preces, or Prayers and Versicles. The psalms, unlike those of Matins and Vespers, are not taken in the order of the Psalter, but are chosen in accordance with special rules without reference to their position in the Psalter. Thus the psalm "Miserere mei Deus" (Ps. 1) is said every day on which a feast does not occur. The psalms "Deus, Deus meus" (Ps. lxii) and "Deus misereatur nostri et benedicat nobis" (Ps. lxii) and "Deus misereatur nostri et benedicat nobis" (Ps. lxvi), and finally the last three psalms, "Laudate Dominum de coelis", "Cantate Domino canticum novum", and "Laudate Dominum in sanctis ejus" (Pss. cxlviii-cl), are recited every day without exception. As we have remarked, it is from these last that this office derives its name. It will be noticed that, in general, the other psalms used at Lauds have also been chosen for special reasons, because one or other of their verses contains an allusion either to the break of day, or to the Resurrection of Christ, or to the prayer of the morning which, as we shall presently point out, are the raison d'être of this office. Such are the verses; "Deus Deus meus ad te de luce vigilo"; "Deus misereatur nostri. . .illuminet vultum suum super nos"; "mane astabo tibi et videbo"; "Emitte lucem tuum et veritatem tuam"; "Exitus matutinum et vespere delectabis"; "Mane sicut herba transeat, mane floreat et transeat"; "Ad annuntiandum mane misericordiam tuam", etc. Another characteristic of this office are the canticles which take place between the psalms lxii-lxvi and the last three psalms. This collection of seven canticles from the Old Testament (Canticle "Benedicite", Canticle of Isaias, Canticle of Ezechias, Canticle of Anne, the two Canticles of Moses, the Canticle of Habacuc) is celebrated, and is almost in agreement with that of the Eastern Church. St. Benedict borrowed it from the Roman Church and, having designed the plan of the Office of Lauds in accordance with that of the Church of Rome, prescribed a special canticle for each day: "Canticum unumquodque die suo ex prophetis, sicut psallit Ecclesia Romana, dicatur" (Reg., xiii).

To these canticles the Roman Liturgy adds, as the finale to this office, that of Zachary, "Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel", which is recited every day and which is also a canticle to the Light, viz. Christ: "Illuminare his qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent". The hymns of Lauds, which in the Roman Church were only added later, also form an interesting collection; they generally celebrate the break of day, the Resurrection of Christ, and the spiritual light which He has made to shine on earth. They are very ancient compositions, and are probably anterior to Saint Benedict. In the Ambrosian Office, and also in the Mozarabic, Lauds retain a few of the principal elements of the Roman Lauds -- the Benedictus, canticles from the Old Testament, and the psalms cxlviii, cxlix, cl, arranged, however, in a different order (cf. Dom G. Morin, op. cit. in bibliography). In the Benedictine Liturgy, the Office of Lauds resembles the Roman Lauds very closely, not only in its use of the canticles which St. Benedict admits, as we have already remarked, but also in its general construction. The Greek office corresponding to that of Lauds is the orthos, which also signifies "morning"; its composition is different, but it nevertheless retains a few elements of the Western Lauds -- notably the canticles and the three psalms, cxlviii-cl, which in the Greek Liturgy bear the name Ainoi or Praises, corresponding to the Latin word Laudes (cf. "Dict. d'archeol. chret. et de lit.", s.v. Ainoi; "Horologion", Rome, 1876, p. 55).

III. LAUDS IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN AGES AND THEIR ORIGIN

Lauds, or, to speak more precisely, the Morning Office or Office of Aurora corresponding to Lauds, is incontestably one of the most ancient offices and can be traced back to Apostolic times. In the sixth century St. Benedict gives us a very detailed description of them in his Rule (chap. xii and xiii): the psalms (almost identical with those of the Roman Liturgy), the canticle, the last three psalms, the capitulum, hymn, versicle, the canticle Benedictus, and the concluding part. St. Columbanus and the Irish documents give us only very vague information on the Office of Lauds (cf. "Regula S. Columbani", c. vii, "De cursu psalmorum" in P. L., LXXX, 212). An effort has been made to reconstruct it in accordance with the Antiphonary of Bangor, but this document, in our opinion, gives us but an extract, and not the complete office (cf. Cabrol in "Dict. d'archéol. et de lit.", s. v. Bangor, Antiphonaire de). St. Gregory of Tours also makes several allusions to this office, which he calls Matutini hymni; he give us, as its constitutive parts, psalm 1, the Benedicite, the three psalms, cxlviii-cl, and the veriscles ("Hist. Francorum", II, vii, in P. L., LXXI, 201, 256, 1034 etc. Cf. Bäumer-Biron, "Hist. du brev. Rom.", I, 229-30). At an earlier period than that of the fifth and fourth centuries, we find various descriptions of the Morning Office in Cassian, in Melania the Younger, in the "Peregrinatio Ætheriae", St. John Chrysostom, St. Hilary, Eusebius (Bäumer-Biron, op. cit., I, 81, 114, 134, 140, 150-68, 208, 210).

Naturally, in proportion as we advance, greater varieties of the form of the Office are found in the different Christian provinces. The general features, however, remain the same; it is the office of the dawn (Aurora), the office of sunrise, the morning office, the morning praises, the office of cock-crow (Gallicinium, ad galli cantus), the office of the Resurrection of Christ. Nowhere better than at Jerusalem, in the "Peregrinatio Ætheriae", does this office, celebrated at the very tomb of Christ, preserve its local colour. The author calls it hymni matutinales; it is considered the principal office of the day. There the liturgy displays all its pomps; the bishop used to be present with all his clergy, the office being celebrated around the Grotto of the Holy Sepulchre itself; after the psalms and canticles had been sung, the litanies were chanted, and the bishop then blessed the people. (Cf. Dom Cabrol, "Etude sur la Peregrinatio Silviae, les Eglises de Jerusalem, la discipline et la liturgie au IVX siecle", Paris, 1895, pp. 39, 40. For the East cf. "De Virginitate", xx, in P G., XXVIII, 275.) Lastly, we again find the first traces of Lauds in the third, and even in the second, century in the Canons of Hippolytus, in St. Cyprian, and even in the Apostolic Fathers, so much so that Bäumer does not hesitate to assert that Lauds together with Vespers are the most ancient office, and owe their origin to the Apostles (Bäumer-Biron, op. cit., I, 58; cf. 56, 57, 64, 72 etc.).

IV. SYMBOLISM AND REASON OF THIS OFFICE

It is easy to conclude from the preceding what were the motives which gave rise to this office, and what its signification is. For a Christian the first thought which should present itself to the mind in the morning, is the thought of God; the first act of his day should be a prayer. The first gleam of dawn recalls to our minds that Christ is the true Light, that He comes to dispel spiritual darkness, and to reign over the world. It was at dawn that Christ rose from the tomb, Conqueror of Death and of the Night. It is this thought of His Resurrection which gives to this office its whole signification. Lastly, this tranquil hour, before day has commenced, and man has again plunged into the torrent of cares, is the most favourable to contemplation and prayer. Liturgically, the elements of Lauds have been most harmoniously combined, and it has preserved its significance better than other Hours.

BONA, De Divinia Psalmodia, v. in Opp. Omnia (Antwerp, 1677), pp. 705 sqq.; Commentarius historicus in Romanum Breviarium (Venice, 1724), 102; PROBST, Brevier u. Breviergebet (Tubingen, 1868), p. 146, 173, 184, 188; IDEM, Lehre u. Gebet in den drei ersten Jahrh. (Tubingen, 1871); BAUMER, Hist. du breviaire, French tr. BIRON, I (Paris, 1905), 58, 164, etc.; BATIFROL, Hist. du brev. Romain (Paris, 1893), 22 sqq.; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1904), 448-9; HOTHAM in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. Office, The Divine; SCUDAMORE, ibid., s. v. Hours of Prayer; MORIN, Les Laudes du dimanche du IVX au VIIX siecle, in Revue Benedictine (1889), 301-4; BINGHAM, Works (Oxford, 1855), IV, 342, 548, etc. See Also BREVIARY; HOURS, CANONICAL; VIGILS, MATINS.

F. CABROL

Laura

The Greek word laura is employed by writers from the end of the fifth century to distinguish the monasteries of Palestine of the semi-eremitical type. The word signifies a narrow way or passage, and in later times the quarter of a town. We find it used in Alexandria for the different portions of the city grouped around the principal churches; and this latter sense of the word is in conformity with what we know of the Palestine laura, which was a group of hermitages surrounding a church.

Although the term laura has been almost exclusively used with regard to Palestine, the type of monastery which it designated existed, not only there, but in Syria and Mesopotamia; in Gaul; in Italy; and among the Celtic monks. The type of life led therein might be described as something midway between purely eremitical inaugurated by St. Paul the first hermit- and purely cenobitical life. The monk lived alone though depended on a superior, and was bound only to the common life on Saturdays and Sundays, when all met in church for the solemn Eucharistic Liturgy. This central church was the origin of what was afterwards called the coenobium or house of the imperfect, or of "children". There the future solitary was to pass the time of his probation, and to it he might have to return if he had not the strength for the full rigour of the solitary life. The laura of palestine were originated by St. Chariton, who died about 350. He founded the laura of Pharan, to the northeast of Jerusalem and that of Douka, northeast of Jericho. But most of the lauras in the vicinity of Jerusalem owed their existence to a Cappadocian named Sabas. In 483 he founded the monastery which still bears his name, Mar Saba. It stands on the west bank of Cedron and was once known as the Great Laura. We know that in 814 the Laura of Pharan was still flourishing, and it appears that on Mount Athos this type of life was followed till late in the tenth century. It gave way, however, to the cenobitic, and no monastery now extant can be said really to resemble the ancient lauras.

R. URBAN BUTTER

Pierre-Sébastien Laurentie

French publicist; b. at Houga, in the Department of Gers, France, 21 January, 1793; d. 9 February, 1876. He went to Paris in the early part of 1817, and on 17 June of the same year entered the famous pious and charitable association known as "La Congrégation". Through the patronage of the Royalist writer Michaud, Laurentie became connected with the editorial staff of "La Quotidienne", in 1818; and in 1823 he was appointed Chief Inspector of Schools (inspecteur géréral des études), with the functions of which office he was able to combine his work as a publicist. His earliest writings won for him a great reputation. They were: "De l'éloquence publique et de son influence" (1819); "Etudes littéraires et morales sur les historiens latins" (1822); "De la justice au XIXe siècle" (1822); "Introduction à la philosophie" (1826); "Considérations sur les constitutions démocratiques" (1826). The complaint was made against the last-named of these works, that it was aimed at the Villele Ministry, and censured its legislation in regard to the press. This charge, together with the attacks on the Ministry which appeared in "La Quotidienne" and the fact of Laurentie's friendly relations with Lamennais, led to Laurentie's dismissal from the office of Chief Inspector of Schools (5 November, 1826). "La Quotidienne" supported the Martignac Ministry until it issued the decrees of 16 June, 1828, against the Jesuits, and the petits séminaires. Laurentie vigorously opposed these decrees. He purchased the old Benedictine college of Ponlevoy, which had existed for more than seven centuries and which, with the colleges of Juilly, Sorèze, and Vendôme, Napoleon had permitted to continue in existence side by side with the university. Laurentie's plan was to take advantage of this exceptional official authorization (which constituted a breach in the wall of the state university monopoly) to insure the prosperous existence of one independent educational institution. His work, "Sur l'étude et l'enseignement des lettres", published in 1828, was understood to embody the programme which he proposed to follow at Ponlevoy.

After 1830, Laurentie, defeated politically, devoted all his efforts as a publicist to three great causes: (1) freedom of education; (2) Legitimism; (3) the defence of religion. (1) For the first of these, we may mention his "Lettres sur l'éducation" (1835-37), his "Lettres sur la liberté d'enseignement" (1844), and the part he played, in 1849 and 1850, in regard to the commission which prepared the Falloux Law; also his treatise, "L'Esprit chrétien dans les études" (1852), his book on "Les Crimes de l'éducation française" (1872), and his successful efforts for freedom of higher education (1875). (2) In support of the second of these causes he wrote the pamphlet, "De la légitimité et de l'usurpation" (1830), the book "De la révolution en Europe" (1834), "De la démocratie et des périls de la société" (1849), "La Papauté" (1852), "Les Rois et le Pape" (1860), "Rome et le Pape" (1860), "Rome" (1861), "Le Pape et le Czar" (1862), "L'Athéisme social et l'Eglise, schisme du monde nouveau" (1869). Inspire d by the same cause, Laurentie also contributed, under the Monarchy of July, to "Le Rénovateur" and "La Quotidienne". Again, between 1848 and 1876, the battle for the principle of Legitimism went on day after day in the columns of the Royalist "L'Union", and in connection with this campaign Laurentie's "Histoire des ducs d'Orléans" was published in 1832, handling the Orleans family with great severity, and followed by the ten volumes of his "Histoire de France" (1841-55), a kind of historical illustration of his political doctrines. (3) As early as 1836 Laurentie conceived the idea, in defence of religion, of a Catholic encyclopedia which he prefaced with a Catholic theory of the sciences. In 1862 he published a pamphlet attacking scientific atheism. His "Histoire de l'Empire Romain" (1862) is an apology for infant Christianity, and his "Philosophie de la prière" (1864) contains the outpouring of a devout soul.

As an octogenarian, Laurentie was the confidant of the Comte de Chambord, whose rights he daily championed in "L'Union". His "Souvenirs", left unfinished at his death, were published by his grandson in 1893. "He was an honour to his party and to the press", wrote Louis Veuillot. From the beginning to the end of his career he was an anti-Gallican monarchist, never seeking in his theory of the Throne and the Altar a means of making the Altar subservient to the Throne, but advocating the liberty of the Church and of education.

LAURENTIE, Souvenirs inedits (Paris, 1893); GRANDMAISON, La Congregation, 1801-1830 (Paris, 1889), 209-74; VEUILLOT, Derniers melanges, III (Paris, 1909), 82,83

GEORGES GOYAU

Lausanne and Geneva

Diocese of Lausanne and Geneva (Lausannensis et Genevensis).

Diocese in Switzerland, immediately subject to the Holy See.

I. LAUSANNE

According to the most recent investigations, particularly those of Marius Besson, the origin of the See of Lausanne can be traced to the ancient See of Windisch (Vindonissa). Bubulcus, the first Bishop of Windisch, appeared at the imperial Synod of Epao in Burgundy, in 517 (Maassen, "Concilia ævi merov." in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Leg.", III, I, Hanover, 1893, 15-30). The second and last known Bishop of Windisch was Gramatius (Grammatius), who signed the decrees of the Synod of Clermont in 535 (Maassen, 1. c., pp. 65-71) of Orléans, 541 (Maassen, 1. c., 86-99), and that of Orléans, 549 (Maassen 1. c., 99-112). Hitherto it has generally been believed that shortly after this the see was transferred from Windisch to Constance. Besson has made it probable that, between 549 and 585, the see was divided and the real seat of the bishops of Windisch transferred to Avenches (Aventicum), while the eastern part of the diocese was united with Constance. According to the Synod of Mâcon, 585 (Maassen, 1. c., 163-73), St. Marius seems to have been the first resident Bishop of Avenches. The Chartularium of Lausanne (ed. G. Waitz in "Mon. Germ.: Scriptores", XXIV, Hanover, 1879, 794; also in "Mémoires et documents pull, par la Société de la Suisse Romande", VI, Lausanne, 1851, 29) affirms that St. Marius was born in the Diocese of Autun about 530, was consecrated Bishop of Avenches in May, 574, and died 31 December, 594. (For his epitaph in verse, formerly in the church of St. Thyrsius at Lausanne, see "Mon. Germ.: Script.", XXIV, 795.) To him we are indebted for a valuable addition (455-581) to the Chronicle of St. Prosper of Aquitaine (P. L. LXXII, 793-802; also in "Mon. Germ.: Auctores Antiquissimi", XI, Berlin, 1894,232-39). The See of Avenches may have been transferred to Lausanne by Marius, or possibly not before 610.

Lausanne was originally a suffragan of Lyons (certainly about the seventh century), later of Besançon, from which it was detached by the French Concordat of 1801. In medieval times the diocese extended from the Aar, near Soleure, to the northern end of the Valley of St. Imier, thence along the Doubs and the ridge of the Jura to where the Aubonne flows into the Lake of Geneva, and thence along the north of the lake to Villeneuve whence the boundary-line followed the watershed between Rhône and Aar to the Grimsel, and down the Aar to Attiswil. Thus the diocese included the town of Soleure and part of its territory that part of the Canton of Berne which lay on the left bank of the River Aar, also Biel, the Valley of St. Imier, Jougne, and Les Longevilles in the Franche-Comté, the counties of Neuchâtel and Valangin, the greater part of the Canton de Vaud, the Canton of Fribourg, the county of Gruyère, and most of the Bernese Oberland. The present Diocese of Lausanne includes the Cantons of Fribourg, Vaud, and Neuchâtel.

Of the bishops who in the seventh century succeeded St. Marius almost nothing is known. Between 594 and 800 only three bishops are known: Arricus, present at the Council of Chalon-sur-Saône (Maassen, 1. c., 208-14), Protasius, elected about 651, and Chilmegisilus, about 670. From the time of Charlemagne until the end of the ninth century the following bishops of Lausanne are mentioned: Udalricus (Ulrich), a contemporary of Charlemagne; Fredarius (about 814); David (827-50), slain in combat with one of the lords of Degerfelden; Hartmann (851-78); Hieronymus (879-92). The most distinguished among the subsequent bishops are: Heinrich von Lenzburg (d. 1019), who rebuilt the cathedral in 1000; Hugo (1019-37), a son of Rudolf III of Burgundy, in 1037 proclaimed the "Peace of God"; Burkart von Oltingen (1057-89), one of the most devoted adherents of Henry IV, with whom he was banished, and made the pilgrimage to Canossa; Guido von Merlen (1130-44), a correspondent of St. Bernard; St. Amadeus of Hauterive, a Cistercian (1144-59), who wrote homilies in honour of the Blessed Virgin (P. L., CLXXXVIII, 1277-1348); Boniface, much venerated (1231-39), formerly a master in the University of Paris and head of the cathedral school at Cologne, resigned because of physical ill-treatment, afterwards auxiliary bishop in Brabant (see Ratzinger in "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach", L, 1896, 10-23, 139-57); the Benedictine Louis de la Palud (1432-40), who took part in the Councils of Constance (1414), Pavia-Siena (1423), Basle (1431--) and at the last-named was chosen, in January, 1432, Bishop of Lausanne, against Jean de Prangins, the chapter's choice; Palud was later vice-chamberlain of the conclave whence Amadeus VIII of Savoy emerged as the antipope, Felix V, by whom he was made a cardinal; George of Saluzzo, who published synodical constitutions for the reform of the clergy; Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere (1472-76), who in 1503 ascended the papal throne as Julius II.

Meanwhile the bishops of Lausanne, who had been Counts of Vaud since the time of Rudolf III of Burgundy (1011), and until 1218 subject only to imperial authority, were in 1270 made princes of the Holy Roman Empire, but their temporal power only extended over a small part of the diocese, namely over the city and district of Lausanne, as well as a few towns and villages in the Cantons of Vaud and Fribourg; on the other hand, the bishops possessed many feoffees among the most distinguished of the patrician families of Western Switzerland. The guardians of the ecclesiastical property (advocati, avoués) of the see were originally the counts of Genevois, then the lords of Gerenstein, the dukes of Zähringin, the of Kyburg, lastly, the counts (later dukes) of Savoy. These guardians, whose only duty originally was the protection of the diocese, enlarged their jurisdiction at the expense of the diocesan rights and even filled the episcopal see with members of their families. Wearisome quarrels resulted, during which the city of Lausanne, with the aid of Berne and Fribourg, acquired new rights, and gradually freed itself from episcopal suzerainty. When Bishop Sebastian de Montfaucon (1517-60) took sides with the Duke of Savoy in a battle against Berne, the Bernese used this as a pretext to seize the city of Lausanne. On 31 March, 1536, Hans Franz Nägeli entered Lausanne as conqueror, abolished Catholicism, and began a religious revolution. The bishop was obliged to fly, the ecclesiastical treasure was taken to Berne, the cathedral chapter was dissolved (and never re-established), while the cathedral was given over to Protestantism. Bishop Sebastian died an exile in 1560, and his three successors were likewise exiles. It was only in 1610, under Bishop Johann VII of Watteville, that the see was provisionally re-established at Fribourg, where it has since remained. The Cantons of Vaud, Neuchâtel, and Berne, were entirely lost to the See of Lausanne by the Reformation. By the French Constitution Civile du Clergé (1790) the Parishes of the French Jura fell to the Diocese of Belley, and this was confirmed by the Concordat of 1801. In 1814 the parishes of Soleure, in 1828 those of the Bernese Jura, and in 1864 also that district of Berne on the left bank of the Aar were attached to the See of Basle. In compensation, Pius VII assigned, in a papal brief of 20 September, 1819, the city of Geneva and twenty parishes belonging to the old Diocese of Geneva (which in 1815 had become Swiss) to the See of Lausanne. The bishop (in 1815 Petrus Tohias Yenni) retained his residence at Fribourg, and since 1821 has borne the title and arms of the Bishops of Lausanne and Geneva. His vicar general resides at Geneva, and is always parish priest of that city.

II. GENEVA

Geneva (Genava of Geneva, also Janua and Genua), capital of the Swiss canton of the same name situated where the Rhône issues from the Lake of Geneva (Lacus Lemanus), first appears in history as a border town, fortified against the Helvetians, which the Romans took in 120 B.C. In A.D. 443 it was taken by Burgundy, and with the latter fell to the Franks in 534. In 888 the town was part of the new Kingdom of Burgundy, and with it was taken over in 1033 by the German Emperor. According to legendary accounts found in the works of Gregorio Leti ("Historia Genevrena", Amsterdam, 1686) and Besson ("Memoires pour l'histoire ecclésiastique des diocèses de Genève, Tantaise, Aoste et Maurienne", Nancy, 1739; new ed. Moutiers, 1871), Geneva was Christianised by Dionysius Areopagita and Paracodus, two of the seventy-two disciples, in the time of Domitian; Dionysius went thence to Paris, and Paracodus became the first Bishop of Geneva. The legend, however, is fictitious, as is that which makes St. Lazarus the first Bishop of Geneva, an error arising out of the similarity between the Latin names Genara (Geneva) and Genua (Genoa, in Italy). The so-called "Catalogue de St. Pierre", which gives St. Diogenus (Diogenes) as the first Bishop of Geneva, is untrustworthy. A letter of St. Eucherius to Salvius makes it almost certain that St. Isaac (c. 400) was the first bishop. In 440 St. Salonius appears as Bishop of Geneva; he was a son of St. Eucherius, to whom the latter dedicated his Instructiones'; he took part. in the Councils of Orange (441), Vaison (442), and Aries (about 455), and is supposed to be the author of two small commentaries, "In parabolas Salomonis", and on Ecclesisastis (published in P. L., LII, 967 sqq., 993 sqq. as works of an otherwise unknown bishop, Salonius of Vienne). Little is known about the following Bishops Theoplastus (about 475), to whom St. Sidonius Apollinaris addressed a letter; Dormitianus (before 500), under whom the Burgundian Princess Sedeleuba, a sister of Queen Clotilda, had the remains of the martyr and St. Victor of Soleure transferred to Geneva, where she built a basilica in his honour; St.. Maximus (about 512-41), a friend of Avitus, Archbishop of Vienne and Cyprian of Toulon, with whom he was in correspondence (Wawra in "Tubinger Theolog. Quartalschrift", LXXXV, 1905, 576-594). Bishop Pappulus sent the priest Thoribiusas his substitute to the Synod of Orléans (541). Bishop Salonius II is only known from the signatures of the Synods of Lyons (570) and Paris (573), and Bishop Cariatto, installed by King Guntram in 584, was present at the two Synods of Valence and Macon in 585.

From the beginning the See of Geneva was a suffragan of Vienne. The bishops of Geneva had been princes of the Holy Roman Empire since 1154, but, had to maintain a long struggle for their independence against the guardians (advocari) of the see, the counts of Geneva and, later, the counts of Savoy. In 1290 the latter obtained the right of installing the vice-dominus of the diocese -- the official who exercised minor jurisdiction in the town in the bishop's name. In 1387 Bishop Adhémar Fabry granted the town its great charter, the basis of its communal selfgovernment, which every bishop on his accession was expected to confirm. When the line of the count of Geneva became extinct, in 1394, and the House of Savoy came into possession of their territory, assuming, after 1416, the title of Duke, the new dynasty sought by every means to bring the city of Geneva under their power, particularly by elevating members of their own family to the episcopal see. The city protected itself by union with the Swiss Federation (Eidgenossenschaft), uniting itself, in 1526, with Berne and Fribourg. The Reformation plunged Geneva into new entanglements: while Berne favoured the introduction of the new teaching, and demanded liberty of preaching for the Reformers Farel and Froment, Catholic Fibourg, in 1511, renounced its allegiance with Geneva. Calvin went to Geneva in 1536 and began systematically to preach his doctrine there. By his theocratic "Reign of Terror" he succeeded in forcing himself upon Geneva as absolute ruler, and converted the city into a Protestant. Rome, as early as 1532 the bishop had been obliged to leave his residence, never to return; in 1536 he fixed his see at Gex, in 1535 at Annecy. The Apostolic zeal and devotion of St. Francis de Sales, who was Bishop of Geneva from 1602 to 1621, restored to Catholicism a large part of the diocese.

Formerly the Diocese of Geneva extended well into Savoy, as far as Mont Cenis and the Great St. Bernard. Nyon, also, often erroneously considered a separate diocese, belonged to Geneva. "Under Charlemagne Taraittaise was detached from Geneva and became a separate diocese. Before the Reformation the See of Geneva ruled over 8 chapters, 423 parishes, 9 abbeys, and 68 priories. In 1802 the diocese was united with that of Chambéry. At the Congress of Vienna the territory of Geneva was extended to cover 15 Savoyard and 6 French parishes, with more than 16,000 Catholics; at the same time it was admitted to the Swiss Federation. The Congress expressly provided -- and the same proviso was included in the Treaty of Turin (16 March, 1816) -- that in these territories transferred to Geneva the Catholic religion was to be protected, and that no changes were to he made in existing conditions without agreement with the Holy See. Pius VII next (1819) united the city of Geneva and 20 parishes with the Diocese of Lausanne, while the rest of the ancient Diocese of Geneva (outside of Switzerland) was reconstituted, in 1822, as the Diocese of Annecy. The Great Council of Geneva (cantonal council) afterwards ignored the responsibilities thus undertaken; in imitation of Napoleon's "Organic Articles", it insisted upon the "Placet", or previous approval of publication, for all papal documents. Catholic indignation ran high at the civil measures taken against Marilley, the parish priest of Geneva, and later bishop of the see. Still greater indignation was aroused among the Catholics by the injustice created by the Kulturkanmpf, which obliged them to contribute to the budget of the Protestant Church and to that of the Old Catholic Church, while for their own religious needs they did not receive the smallest pecuniary aid from the public treasury. On 30 June, 1907, most of the Catholics of Geneva voted for the separation of Church and State. By this act of separation they were assured at least a negative equality with the Protestants and Old Catholics. Since then the Canton of Geneva has given aid to no creed out of either the state or the municipal revenues. The Protestants, however, have been favoured, for to them a lump compensation of 800,000 francs (about $160,000) was paid at the outset, whereas the Catholics, in spite of the international agreements assuring financial support to their religion -- either from the public funds or from other sources -- received nothing.

III. LAUSANNE AND GENEVA

Bishop Yenni's (d. 8 December, 1845) successor was Etienne Marilley. Deposed, in 1848, by the Cantons of Berne, Geneva, Vaud, and Neuchâtel, owing to serious differences with the Radical regime at Fribourg, he was kept a prisoner for fifty days in the castle of Chillom, on the Lake of Geneva, and then spent. eight years in exile at Divonne (France); he was allowed to return to his diocese 19 December, 1856. In 1864 Pius IX appointed the vicar-general of Geneva, Gaspard Mermillod, auxiliary bishop, and in 1873 Vicar Apostolic, of Geneva, thus detaching the Genevese territory from the diocese and making it a vicariate. This new Apostolic vicariate was, however, not recognized by either the State Council of Geneva or the Swiss Federal Council, and Mermillod was banished from Switzerland by a decree of 17 February, 1873. When the Holy See condemned this measure, the Government answered on 12 December, 1873, by expelling the papal nuncio. After Bishop Marilley had resigned his diocese (1879) Monsignor Cossandey, provost of the theological seminary at Fribourg, was elected Bishop of Lausanne and Geneva, and after his death, Mermillod. Thus the Apostolic Vicariate of Geneva was given up, the conflict with the Government ended, and the decree of expulsion against Mermillod was revoked. When, in 1890, Leo XIII made Mermillod a cardinal, he removed to Rome. The Holy See then appointed the present bishop, Monsignor Joseph Deruaz, and he was consecrated at Rome, 19 March, 1890, by his predecessor. Mgr. Deruaz was born 13 May, 1826, at Choulex in the Canton of Geneva, studied theology at Fribourg and he was vicar at Grand Sacconex near Geneva, and then curé at Rolle, in the Canton of Vaud, and at Lausanne. Hew was present at the Vatican Council with Bishop Marilley. As bishop he worked in the spirit of conciliation, and was successful in remedying the ills of the Kulturkamf in the Canton of Geneva.

Statistics

The present Diocese of Lausanne-Geneva comprises the Cantons of Fribourg, Geneva, Vaul, and Neuchâtel, with the exception of certain parishes of the right bank of the Rhône belonging to the Dioecse of Sion (Sitten). According to Büchi (see bibliography) and the "Dictionnaire géographique de la Suisse" (Neuchâtel, 1905), III, 49 sqq., the diocese numbers approxunately 434,049 Protestants and 232,056 Catholics; consequently, the latter form somewhat more than one-third of the whole population of the bishopric. The Catholics inhabit principally the Canton of Fribourg (excepting the Lake District) and the country parishes transferred to Geneva in 1515, four communes in the Canton of Neuchâtel, and ten in the Canton of Vaud. The Catholic population in the Cantons of Fribourg and Geneva consists principally of farmers, in both of the other cantons it is also recruited from the labouring classes. The Catholics are distributed among 193 parishes, of which 162 are allotted to Lausanne, 31 to Geneva. The number of secular priests is 390, those belonging to orders 70. The religious orders and congregatoints are almost entirely in the Canton of Fribourg. The Capuchins have monasteries at Fribourg and bulle, and hospices at Romont and Landeron; since 1861, the Carthusians have been in possession of their old convet of Val-Sainte, suppressed in the 2eighteenth century. The Franciscans conduct the German classes in the Fribourg Gymnasium. The Marists and the Congregation of the Divine Saviour (Societas Divini Salvatoris) have establishments at Fribourg. The female congregations represented in the diocese are: Cistercians at Maigrauge, near Fribourg, and Fille-Dieu near Romont; Dominicans at Estavayer; Sisters of Charity (Hospital Sisters) at Fribourg, Estavayer, and Neuchâtel, (Theodosia's of the Holy Cross) at Fribourg, Ueberstorf, St. Wolfgang and Neuchâtel, (of St. Vincent de Paul) at Fribourg, Chatel-St-Denis, Billens, and Tafers; Capucines at Montorge, near Fribourg. The Visitandines and the Ursulines conduct each a girls' school at Fribourg; the Teaching Sisters of the Holy Cross, of Menzingen and Ingenbohl, conduct several schools for girls (among them the Academy of the Holy Cross at Fribourg attached to the university); they are also employed as teachers in many of the village schools. The Filles de L'Ouvre de St. Paul (not properly religious) have, among other works, a Catholic bookstore at Fribourg, and a well-arranged printing house. Among the more important. educational establishments of diocese, besides those already mentioned, are: the University of Fribourg [see Fribourg (Switzerland). University of]; the theological seminary of St. Charles at Fribourg, with seven ecclesiastical professors; the cantonal school of St. Michel, also at Fribourg, which comprises a German and French gymnasium, a Realschule (corresponding somewhat to the English first-grade schools) and commercial school, as well as a lyceum, the rector of which is a clergyman. This school has at present (1910) about 800 pupils, with 40 ecclesiastical and as many lay professors. Three other cantonal universities exist in the diocese: Geneva (founded by Calvin in 1559, and in 1873 raised to the rank of a university with five faculties); Neuchâtel (1866, academy; 1909, university); Lausanne (1537, academy; university since 1890, with five faculties). Geneva and Lausanne both have cantonal Protestant theological faculties, Neuchâtel a "Faculté de théologie de l'église indépendante de l'état". For the government of the diocese there are, besides the bishop, two vicars-general, one of whom lives at Geneva, the other at Fribourg. There are, moreover, a provicarius generalis, who is also chancellor of the diocese, and a secretary. The cathedral chapter of Lausanne (with 32 canons was suppressed at the time of the reformation, and has never been re-established, in consequence of which the choice of a bishop rests with the Holy See. In 1512 Julius II established a collegiate chapter in the church of St. Nicholas at Fribourg, which is immediately subject to the Holy See, with a provost appointed by the Great Council, also a dean, a cantor, and ten prebends. This collegiate church takes the place of the diocesan cathedral, still lacking, since the cathedral of St. Pierre at Geneva and that of Notre-Dame at Lausanne were given over to Protestantism at the time of the Reformation.

Besides works cited under Calvinism and Fribourg, see:--
On Lausanne, Schmitt, Mémoires historiques sur le diocèse de Lausanne, ed. Gremaud in Mémorial de Fribourg, V, VI (Fribourg, 1858-59): Genoud, Les Saints de la Suisse française (Bar-le-Duc, 1882); Dellion, Dictionnaire hist. et statist. des paroisses cath. du canton de Fribourg (13 vols., 1884-1903); Secrétan, Hist. De la cathédrale de Lausanne (Lausanne, 1889); Dupraz, La Cathédrale de Lausanne (Lausanne, 1906); Stammler, Der Domschatz von Lausanne (Bern, 1894), French tr. by Galley (Lausanne, 1902); Büchi, Die kath. Kirche in der Schweiz (Munich, 1902), 56-57; Doumergue, Lausanne au temps de la Réformation (Lausanne 1903); Holder, Les visites pastorales dans le diocèse de Lausanne depuis la fin du 16e siècle jusqu'à vers le milieu du 19e siècle (Fribourg, 1903); Besson, Recherches sur les origines des évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, Sion et leurs premiers titulaires jusqu'au déclins de 6e siècle (Fribourg and Paris, 1906) (contains a copious bibliography, pp 230-44); Idem, Contribution à l'histoire du diocèses de Lausanne sous la domination franque, 534-888 (Fribourg, 1908); Direcorium Divocesis Lausannensis et Genevensis in annum 1910 (Fribourg, 1910).
On Geneva, cf. the older literature in Chevalier, Topo-Bibl., 1284 sqq. Also, Fleury, Histoire de l'église de Genève (3 vols., Geneva, 1880-81); Lafrasse, étude sur la liturgie dans l'ancien diocèse de Genève (Geneva and Parish, 1904); Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, I (2nd ed., Paris, 1907), 255 sqq.; De Girard, Le Droit des catholiques romains de Genève au budget des cultes (Geneva, 1907); De La Rive, La Séparation de l'église et de l'état à Genève (Paris, 1909); Martin, La Situation du catholicisme à Genève 1815-1907 (Lausanne, 1909); S[peiser], Genf und die katholische Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert republished from the Neuen Zurcher Nachrichten (1909), nos. 344, 345.

GREGOR REINHOLD

Jean de Lauzon

Fourth governor of Canada, b. at Paris, 1583; d. there, 16 Feb., 1666. He was the son of François de Lauzon and Isabelle Lotin. In 1613 he was councillor of the Parlement of Paris; master of petitions (1623); appointed by Cardinal Richelieu Intendant of the Company of New France, he was lauded by Champlain for obtaining the restoration of Quebec taken by the Kertk brothers (1629). Lauzon's position enabled him to secure for his sons immense domains in Canada, including the seigniories of Lauzon (opposite Quebec), de la Citiere, with sixty leagues of frontage on the right shore of the St. Lawrence, and the Island of Montreal, later ceded to La Dauversiere, one of the founders of Ville Marie. His important office and services merited him a good reception as governor (1651). Times were critical. Lauzon, scholar, able magistrate and financier, organized the regular administration of civil and criminal justice, and provided, from the fur-trade at Tadoussac for the civil and military list, besides furnishing pensions for the Jesuits, Ursulines, and hospital nuns. But unused to war and already aged, he could not subdue the Iroquois, whose audacious cruelty made several victims under the walls of Quebec. Although his eldest son, Jean, destined like Dollard to an heroic death, represented him wherever danger threatened, Lauzon resigned before the expiration of a second term of office (1656), leaving the government ad interim to a younger son, Charles de Lauzon-Charny. Lauzon is credited for his probity, virtue, exemplary life, and great zeal for God's interests and the conversion of savages; but he lacked experience, decision under trials, and had assumed the direction of the colony under too adverse circumstances.

FERLAND, Cours d'histoire du Canada (Quebec, 1882); ROY, Histoire de la seignerie de Lauzon (Levis, 1897) GARNEAU, Histoire du Canada (Montreal, 1882) ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1896).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Pierre de Lauzon

A noted missionary of New France in the eighteenth century, born at Poitiers, 26 September, 1687; died at Quebec, 5 September, 1742. Though sometimes mentioned as Jean, in his official acts he invariably signed Pierre. He joined the Jesuits at Limoges, 24 November, 1703, and after ordination was sent to Canada in 1716. From 1716 to 1718 he was Father Daniel Richer's assistant at Lorette, where he studied the Huron-Iroquois language. He did missionary duty at Sault St. Louis (Caughnawaga) from 1718 to 1731, with the exception of the scholastic year 1721-22, when he replaced Father François Le Brun as instructor in the royal school of hydrography in the college at Quebec, as the exhausting labours of the mission had undermined his health. His Iroquois Indians clamoured for his return, and on 12 May, 1722, they formally petitioned Governor Vaudreuil and the Intendant Bégon to that effect. These in turn, persuaded that it was he alone who, on the occasion of a change in the village site, had prevented two-thirds of the Indians from moving away and settling within easy reach of the English, urged the superior to send him back, and in 1722 he returned to Sault St. Louis. It was none too soon, for the spirit of revolt was spreading among the Caughnawaga Iroquois, in consequence of a menace of again quartering upon them a French garrison, an ever prolific cause of debauchery and disorder. He made his solemn profession of the four vows at Sault St. Louis on 2 February, 1721.

In 1723 he was named superior of the Caughnawaga mission, and the ability he displayed in governing during the nine succeeding years determined the general, Francis Retz, to place him in 1732 over the whole Canada mission. This, according to established custom in Canada entailed the duties of rector of the college at Quebec. During his term of office, which lasted seven years, he crossed over to France (1733) in quest of recruits. Among those whom he brought back with him was the saintly Father Jean-Pierre Aulneau, massacred in 1736 at the Lake of the Woods. Mgr Dosquet of Quebec, returned at the same time, bringing with him three Sulpicians. The party embarked 29 May and reached Quebec 16 August, after a distressing voyage of eighty days. Terrific winds and pestilential disease marked the long journey. De Lauzon, besides ministering to the sick, as did the other priests on board, was appointed boatswain's mate, for the ecclesiastics did not shirk their share of the work. In September, 1739, he resumed his missionary labours with the Caughnawaga Iroquois, but owing to failing strength he was recalled to Quebec in 1741, where, after a short illness of two and a half days, he died in the following year.

ARTHUR EDWARD JONES

Lavabo

The first word of that portion of Psalm 25 said by the celebrant at Mass while he washes his hands after the Offertory, from which word the whole ceremony is named.

The principle of washing the hands before celebrating the holy Liturgy -- at first an obvious practical precaution of cleanness, then interpreted also symbolically -- occurs naturally in all rites. In the Eastern rites this is done at the beginning as part of the vesting; it is generally accompanied by the same fragment of Psalm 25 (vv. 6-12) said in the West after the Offertory. But in the "Apost. Const.", VIII, 11, the hands of the celebrants are washed just before the dismissal of the catechumens (Brightman, 13), in the Syriac and Coptic rites after the creed (ib., 82 and 162). Cyril of Jerusalem also mentions a washing that takes place in sight of the people (Cat. Myst., v). So also in the Roman Rite the celebrant washes his hands before vesting, but with another prayer ("Da, Domine, virtutem", etc., in the Missal among the "Orationes ante Missam"). The reason of the second washing, during the Mass, at Rome was no doubt the special need for it after the long ceremony of receiving the loaves and vessels of wine from the people at the Offertory (all of which is absent from the Eastern rites). The first Roman Ordines describe a general washing of hands by the celebrant and deacons, who have received and carried the offerings to the altar, immediately after they have done so ("Ordo Rom. I", 14; "Ordo of St. Amand" in Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 443, etc.; in the St. Amand Ordo the Pontiff washes his hands both before and after the Offertory). There is as yet no mention of any psalm or prayers said at the time. In the Gallican Rite the offerings were prepared before Mass began, as in the East; so there was no Offertory nor place for a Lavabo later. At Milan there is now an Offertory borrowed from Rome, but no washing of hands at this point; the Mozarabic Liturgy also has a Romanizing Offertory and a washing, but without any prayer (Missale Mixtum", P.L., LXXXV, 538). The Roman Rite had in the Middle Ages two washings of the hands at the Offertory, one just before, while the deacon spread the corporal on the altar, one immediately after the incensing that follows the offertory (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, 28; Benedict XIV, "De SS. Missæ Sacrif.", II, 11). The first of these has now disappeared. The second was accompanied by the verses 6-12 of Psalm xxv. This psalm is first mentioned by the medieval commentators (e.g. Durandus, loc. cit.). No doubt it was said from very early times as a private devotion obviously suitable for the occasion. We have noted that it accompanies the washing before the Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. Benedict XIV notes that as late as his time (eighteenth century) "in some churches only some verses are said" (loc. cit.) although the Missal requires that all (that is from v. 6 to the end) be recited. Cyril of Jerusalem (loc. cit.) already explains the washing as a symbol of purity of the soul; all the medieval writers (Durandus, loc. cit.; St Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theol.", III, Q. lxxxiii, art. 5, ad 1um; etc.) insist on this idea.

The present rule is this: At high Mass (or sung Mass), as soon as the celebrant has incensed the altar after the Offertory and has been incensed himself at the Epistle side, he remains there while his hands are washed by the acolytes, who must be waiting by the credence-table. The first acolyte pours water from the cruet over his fingers into the little dish provided, the second then hands him the towel to dry the fingers. Meanwhile he says: "Lavabo inter innocentes", etc., to the end of the psalm, with "Gloria Patri" and "Sicut erat". The Gloria is left out in Masses for the dead and in Masses de tempore from Passion Sunday to Holy Saturday exclusively ("Ritus celebrandi", VII, 6, in the Missal). A bishop at high Mass wears the "precious" mitre (mitra pretiosa) while he is incensed and washes his hands (Cærim. Episc.,II, 8, 64); in this case a larger silver jug and basin are generally used, though the Cærimoniale Episcoporum" does not mention them. At low Mass, since there is no incense, the celebrant goes to the Epistle side and washes his hands in the same way immediately after the prayer "Veni sanctificator". For his convenience the altar-card on the Epistle side contains the prayer said when the water is blessed before it is put into the chalice ("Deus qui humanæ substantiæ") and the verses "Lavabo", etc.

GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 502-05; BENEDICT XIV, "De SS. Missæ Sacrificio", II, 11 (ed. SCHNEIDER, Mainz, 1879, pp. 146-48); DURANDUS, "Rationale divinorum officiorum", IV, 28, DE HERDT, "S. Liturgiæ praxis", I (9th ed., Louvain, 1894), 307-08; 464-64; DUCHESNE, "Origines du Culte chretien" (Paris, 1898), 167, 443.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

François Montmorency de Laval

First bishop of Canada, b. at Montigny-sur-Avre, 30 April, 1623, of Hughes de Laval and Michelle de Péricard; d. at Quebec on 6 May, 1708. He was a scion of an illustrious family, whose ancestor was baptized with Clovis at Reims, and whose motto reads: "Dieu ayde au primer baron chrestien." He studied under the Jesuits at La Flèche, and learned philosophy and theology at their college of Clermont (Paris), where he joined a group of fervent youths directed by Father Bagot. This congregation was the germ of the Seminary of Foreign Missions, famous in the history of the Church, and of which the future seminary of Quebec was to be a sister institution. His two older brothers having died in battle, François inherited the family title and estate. But he resisted all worldly attractions and a mother's entreaties, and held fast to his vocation. After ordination (1747), he filled the office of archdeacon at Evereux. The renowned Jesuit missionary, Alexander de Rhodes, having obtained from Innocent X the appointment of three vicars Apostolic for the East, Laval was chosen for the Tonquin mission. The Portuguese Court opposed the plan and from 1655 to 1658 the future bishop lived at the "hermitage" of Caen, in the practice of piety and good works, emulating the example of the prominent figures of that period of religious revival, Olier, Vincent of Paul, Bourdoise, Eudes, and others, several of whom were his intimate friends. This solitude was a fitting preamble to his apostolic career. Appointed Vicar Apostolic of New France, with the title of Bishop of Petrea, Laval was consecrated on 8 Dec., 1658, by the papal nuncio Piccolomini in the abbatical church of St-Germain-des-Prés, Paris. He landed on 16 June, 1659, at Quebec, which then counted hardly 500 inhabitants, the whole French population of Canada not exceeding 2200 souls.

Laval's first relation to the pope (1660) breathes admiration for the natural grandeur of the country, courage and hope for the future, and praise for the zeal of the Jesuits. From the outset he had to assert his authority, which was contested by the Archbishop of Rouen, from whose province came most of the colonists, and whose pretensions were favoured by the court. Laval claimed jurisdiction directly from Rome. This conflict, which caused trouble and uncertainty, was ended when the See of Quebec was definitively erected by Clement X into a regular diocese depending solely on Rome (1674). But the hardest struggle, the trial of a life-time, was against the liquor-traffic with the Indians. The problem, on whose solution depended the civilization and salvation of the aboriginies and the welfare of New France, was rendered more arduous by the intense passion of the savage for firewater and the lawless greed of the white trader. Laval, after exhausting persuasive measures and consulting the Sorbonne theologians, forbade the traffic under pain of excommunication. The civil authorities pleaded in the interest of commerce, the eternal obstacle to temperance. First d'Avaugour relaxed the severity of the prohibition, but, through Laval's influence at court, was recalled. De Mésy, who owed his appointment to the bishop, first favoured, but then violently opposed his authority, finally dying repentant in his arms. His successors, envious of clerical authority and over-partial to commercial interests, obtained from the king a mitigated legislation. Thus, the Intendant Talon and Frontenac, notwithstanding their statesmanship and bravery, were imbued with Gallicanism and too zealous for their personal benefit. The viceroy de Tracey, however, seconded the bishop's action.

At this period the Diocese of Quebec comprised all North America, exclusive of New England, the Atlantic sea-board, and the Spanish colonies to the West, a territory now divided into about a hundred dioceses. Laval's zeal embraced all whom he could reach by his representatives or by his personal visitations. In season and out of season, he made long and perilous journeys by land and water to minister to his flock. His fatherly kindness sustained the far-off missionary. "His heart is always with us", writes the Jesuit Dablon. He was a protector and guide to the religious houses of Quebec and Montreal. He was deeply attached to the Jesuits, his former teachers, and recalled to Canada in 1670 the Franciscan Recollets, who had first brought thither the Gospel. By the solemn baptism of Garakontie, the Iroquois chief, an effacacious promoter of the true Faith was secured among his barbarous fellow-countrymen, who received the black-robed Jesuit and gave many neophytes. Laval's foresight made him foster the most cherished devotions of the Church: belief in the Immaculate Conception, the titular of his cathedral, and the cult of the Holy Family, which flourished on Canadian soil (Encyclical of Leo XIII). He was a devout client of St. Anne, whose shrine at Beaupre was rebuilt in 1673. As a patron of education Laval occupies a foremost rank. At that early period, with a handful of colonists and scanty resources, he organized a complete system of instruction: primary, technical, and classical. His seminary (1663) and little seminary (1668) trained candidates for the priesthood.

An industrial school, founded at St-Joachim (1678), provided the colony with skilled farmers and craftsmen. To these institutions, and particularly to the seminary, destined to become the university which bears his name, he gave all his possessions, including the seigniory of Beaupré and Isle Jésus. In view of the future he built the seminary on a relatively large scale, which excited the envy and criticism of Frontenac. No regular parishes having been yet established, the clergy were attached to the seminary, and thence radiated everywhere for parochial or mission work, even as far as the Illinois. The tithes, after much discussion and opposition, had finally been limited to the twenty-sixth bushel of grain harvested, an enactment still legally in force in the Province of Quebec. These tithes were paid to the seminary, which, in return provided labourers for Christ's vineyard. Laval's patriotism was remarkable. The creation of the Sovereign Council in lieu of the Company of New France was greatly due to his influence, and conduced to the proper administration of justice, to the progress of colonization, and the defence of the country against the ever-increasing ferocity and audacity of the Iroquois. He later concurred in obtaining the regiment of Carignan for the last-named object (1665). Exhausted by thirty years of a laborious apostolate, and convinced that a younger bishop would work more effacaciously for God's glory and the good of souls, he resigned in 1688. His successor, Abbé de St-Vallier, a virtuous and generous prelate, did not share all his views regarding the administration. Laval might have enjoyed a well-earned retreat in France, whither he had sailed for the fourth time. He preferred returning to the scene of his labours, where many opportunities occurred of displaying his zeal during the many years of St-Vallier's absence, five of which were spent in captivity in England. During that period, the seminary was twice burned (1701 and 1705) To Laval's intense sorrow, and rebuilt through his energy and generosity. The end was near. The last three years he spent in greater retirement and humility, and died in the odour of sanctity.

His reputation for holiness, though somewhat dimmed after the Conquest, revived during the nineteenth century, and the cause of his canonization having been introduced (1890), he now enjoys the title of Venerable. Laval has been accused of attachment to his own authority and disregard for the rights of civil authority, a reproach that savours somewhat of the Gallican spirit of the time, and of the historians who endorsed their prejudices. The truth is that he had to protect his flock from the greed, and selfishness of worldly potentates for whom material interests were often paramount; to defend the immunities of the church against a domineering Frontenac, who pretended to arraign clerics before his tribunal, and oblige missionaries to secure a passport for each change of residence, and refused the bishop the rank due to his dignity and sanctioned by the king, in the council of which the prelate was the chief founder, the soul and life. In an age when churchmen like Mazarin and Richelieu virtually ruled the State, Laval's authority, always exercised for the country's weal, was probably not exorbitant. He was loyal to the Crown when superior rights were not contradicted, and received nought but praise from the Grand Monarque. The charge of ambition and arbitrariness is equally groundless. In the Sovereign Council, Laval showed prudence, wisdom justice, moderation. His influence was always beneficent. Although firm and inflexible in the accomplishment of duty he was ready to consult and follow competent advice. He was of the race of Hildebrand, and to him likewise might have been applied the text: "Dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem." His sole ambition was to be a bishop according to God's heart. His spirit and practice of mortification and penance, his deep humility, his lively faith, his boundless charity towards the poor, rank him among the most holy personages.

GOSSELIN, "Vie de Mgr. De Laval" (Quebec, 1890); GARNEAU, "Histoire du Canada (Montreal, 1882); FERLAND, "Cours d'histoire du Canada" (Quebec, 1882); ROCHEMONTEIX, "Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle-France" (Paris, 1896); MARIE DE L'INCARNATION, "Lettres" (Tournai, 1876); "Souvenir des fetes du Monument Laval" (Quebec, 1908).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Jean Parisot de La Valette

Forty-eighth Grand Master of the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem; b. in 1494; d. in Malta, 21 Aug., 1568. He came from an old family of Southern France, several members of which had been capitouls (chief magistrates) in Toulouse. When still young he entered the Order of St. John as a knight of the Language of Provence. After the taking of Rhodes by the Sultan Soliman (1522), the order had, in 1530, settled in Malta which, with the city of Tripoli, the emperor Charles V had made over to them in full sovereignty. Here the knights devoted themselves to fighting the corsairs of Barbary, who were upheld by the Turkish Sultan. During this struggle La Valette made his first campaign, and soon rose to the highest ranks in the order. In 1537 he was appointed commander and governor of Tripoli. In that city, exposed to the attacks of the famous Dragut, chief of all the corsairs of Africa, La Valette displayed his power of organization, re-establishing discipline among the Christian and Moorish troops, driving useless persons out of the town, and punishing blasphemers. He was no longer Tripoli when it was taken by Dragut in 1556.

La Valette was unanimously chosen (18 Aug., 1557) to succeed Claude de la Sangle as grand master. He re-established his authority over the provinces of Germany and of Venice, which had refused to pay the taxes levied by general chapters, but was unable to secure from the Council of Trent a confirmation of the order's privileges, and the restitution of commanderies usurped by Protestants. Lastly, he ardently devoted himself to fighting the Moslems. In 1560 he formed an alliance with Juan de la Cerda, Admiral of Philip II, to recover Tripoli, but the Spanish squadron wasted time in the useless conquest of the island of Jorba. The Moors of Barbary, commanded by Piale and Dragut, destroyed 22 warships of the Christians, and 4,000 Christians were killed or died of disease. Thanks to La Valette's intrepidity, the galleys of the order were able to save several Christian ships and to capture many corsairs. At his own private expense La Valette had two galleys built and the wealthier commanders followed his example. The vessels of the Order were commanded by experienced navigators, like Romegas, who knew all the ports and even the smallest bays of the Mediterranean.

This naval strength soon made itself feared by the Moors of Barbary and even by the Turks. The Knights of Malta having aided Garcia of Toledo to take possession of Valez de la Gomera (southeast of the present Spanish military station of Peñon-de-Valez in the Rif), the alarmed Moors appealed to Constantinople. Before long the Maltese squadron gained a bloody victory between the islands of Zante and Cephalonia, and captured a Turkish galleon manned by 200 janizaries and laden with precious merchandise; and within five years they had taken 50 Turkish vessels. The Sultan Soliman, exasperated, ordered all his available vessels to assemble before Malta, where Dragut and the corsairs were incited to join them. Spies were sent to examine the fortifications. Don Marcia de Toledo, Viceroy of Sicily, having obtained secret information of all this, warned La Valette and endeavoured to induce Philip II to assist in the defence of Malta. La Valette summoned all the knights of Christendom, raised 2000 men in Italy, and obtained from Don Garcia two companies of Spanish troops. The inhabitants of Malta were organized as a militia, every priory sent money, and 600 knights from all the provinces of the order hastened to the rescue. La Valette displayed extraordinary activity, planning fortifications, helping the diggers with his own hands, inspecting magazines, and attending to the smallest details. He told the assembled knights that they had now entered upon a struggle between the Gospel and the Koran. After receiving Holy Communion, all vowed to shed their blood in defence of the Faith. But the Order of Malta was poorly supported in this crisis by the Christian princes. The King of Spain alone promised assistance, which, however, was not ready when the Turkish fleet, commanded by Mustapha, appeared before Malta on 18 May 1565. It consisted of 159 warships manned by 30,000 janizaries or spahis, and a large number of vessels were employed to carry the siege train. The defenders of Malta were 700 knights, with 8500 mercenaries and enrolled citizens and peasants.

Mustapha attacked the fort of St. Elmo, and Dragut joined him with 13 galleys. In spite of the Maltese artillery, in spite of the heroism of the besieged, the Turks succeeded in taking that fort on 23 June, after an assault lasting seven hours. Thousands of Turks and the famous Dragut died in the encounter. Mustapha, exasperated by the resistance, ordered the hearts of the wounded knights to be torn out of their bodies. La Valette, on his side, had all the Turkish prisoners beheaded and forbade any more prisoners to be taken. From that time the town proper and all the forts were surrounded. On 18 August the Turks tried to enter by a breach in the wall, but were driven back after six hours' fighting. La Valette himself, pike in hand, charged them, leading his knights. On 23 August another assault resulted in the taking of the Castille bastion, but La Valette spent that night constructing new defences. At last, on 7 September, the relieving fleet of Don Garcia de Toledo arrived. After four months of fighting, Mustapha, disheartened, raised the siege; he had lost more than 20,000 men, and abandoned his heavy artillery. Malta was saved, and the heroism of La Valette at last awakened Europe from its torpor. All the princes sent their congratulations; the pope offered him a cardinal's hat, which he refused; 300 noblemen, among them Brantôme came and offered him their services. To protect the island from any future attack, the grand master had another town built upon the site of Fort St. Elmo (1566). This was the city of Valette (or Valletta) which made Malta impregnable, and which was still sufficiently strong in 1798 to check Bonaparte. The last years of Valette's life were saddened by conflicts with the pope, but at the time of his death, in his seventy-fourth year, he was busy preparing "for some great deed of war and of conquest" (Brantôme).

BRANTOME, Grands capitaines francois, V (Paris, 1866), 215-39; IDEM, Des Couronnels francois: Recit du voyage de Brantôme a Malte (Paris, 1870), 407-410; Coleccion de documentos ineditos, XXVI, XXIX (Madrid, 1870), (letters of La Valette); VERLOT, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers, III, IV (Paris, 1726); FORNERON, Histoire de Philippe II, I (Paris, 1881), 378-89. — For bibliography of the siege of Malta, see POHLER, Bibliotheca Historico-militaris, I (Leipzig, 1880), 163 — 64.

LOUIS BRÉHIER

Laval University of Quebec

The University of Laval was founded in 1852 by the Seminary of Quebec; the royal charter granted to it by Queen Victoria was signed at Westminster, 8 December, 1852. By the Bull "Inter varias sollicitudines", 15 April, 1876, Pius IX completed the university by according it canonical erection together with the most extensive privileges. In virtue of this Bull the university has as its protector at Rome the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda. The control of doctrine and discipline devolves upon a superior council composed of the archbishop and bishops of the Province of Quebec, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Quebec, who is himself chancellor of the university. By the terms of the royal charter the Visitor of the Laval University is always the Catholic Archbishop of Quebec, who has the right of veto in regard to all regulations and appointments. This shows in what a broad spirit the English Government permits the Catholic French Canadians, without other supervision than that of an archbishop of their Church and nationality, to organize their university education. The royal charter indeed guarantees liberty of higher education. By this charter the office of rector, the most important in the university belongs of right to the superior of Seminary of Quebec. This position is temporary, since the superior of the seminary, who is elected for three years and is eligible for re-election after this term, cannot hold office for more than six consecutive years, except with special authorization from the ecclesiastical authorities. The charter also provides for the establishment of a council which, conjointly with the rector, shall conduct the administration of the university. This council is composed of all the directors of the seminary and of the three oldest professors of each faculty. It is empowered to make whatever statutes and rules it judges suitable, on the sole condition that these enactments contain nothing contrary to the laws of the United Kingdom or to those of Canada.

The university comprises the four faculties of theology, Iaw, medicine, and arts. Each faculty is provided with a special council which discusses and submits to the university council all questions which most directly interest one or the other of these faculties. The professors of the faculty of theology are named by the visitor; all the others are appointed by the council. The degrees which may be obtained by students in each of these faculties are those of bachelor, master, licentiate, and doctor. Good conduct is an essential condition for securing degrees. In order that the right number of classical colleges may profit by its right of conferring diplomas granted by the royal charter, and may also take a more direct interest in its work, the university received, in virtue of a provision of this charter, the power to affiliate with itself such public educational establishments of the province as it may desire on the conditions laid down by the council. At present all the houses of secondary education in the Province of Quebec, except the Jesuit College at Montreal, have sought ard obtained this affiliation. The College of St. Dunstan, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, has also secured for its students the advantages and privileges attached to the examinations for the university baccalaureate. To Laval University are also affiliated the Polytechnic School of Montreal, the School of Dental Surgery, thc School of Pharmacy, the French Veterinary School, and the Central School of Surveving of Quebec.

Conformably to a decision of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, dated 1 February, 1876, an extension of the faculties of the university was made in favour of Montreal, the archbishop of which was named vice-chancellor of the university. The decree "Jamdudum" of 2 February 1889, modified in some respects the constitution of the Montreal branch of the university. The direction of this branch is now confided to a vice-rector proposed to the university council of Quebec by the bishops of the ecclesiastical Province of Montreal. The branch has thus become nearly independent of the mother university.

The academic year comprises nine months, and is divided into three terms. Instruction is given by titular professors, associate professors, and instructors. Only the titular professors are professors in the required sense of the charter and as such may be members of the university council. The Physical museum for the use of faculty of arts at Quebec is very complete. It includes nearly fifteen hundred instruments in all the branches of physics, among them most of the apparatus for the demonstration of recent discoveries. The mineralogical museum is rich in specimens. Especially remarkable is a valuable general collection of Canadian minerals and rocks. The geological museum contains more than two thousand specimens. In the botanical museum there are a complete collection of Canadian woods used in industry, and having a commercial value, several collections of exotic woods, among others a very remarkable collection of woods sold in the English markets, and a fine collection of artificial fruits and mushrooms. The herbarium of the University of Quebec contains more twelve thousand plants. The zoological museum contains the most important Canadian mammals. The ornithological collection comprises nearly eight hundred species, represented by more than fiteen thousand individuals. The collection of rapacious birds or birds of prey is nearly complete as regards Canadian species, not including several rare exotic specimens. The entomological collection now numbers more than fifteen thousand species of insects from all parts of the world; the numismatic museum, over eleven thousand coins and medals; the library nearly one hundred and fifty thousand volumes. Students and strangers have access to it for purposes of study every day except Sunday. The Art Gallery contains nearly four hundred pictures, many of them of great value. Among them are canvases signed by renowned artists such as Salvator Rosa, Lesueur, Lanfranc, Poussin, Van Dyek, Puget, Vernet, Romanelli, Albano, Parrocel, Lebrun, etc.

The principal building of the University at Quebec, generally called Laval university, is that in which the courses in law and arts are held and in which the museums and the library are located. It is five stories high and more than three hundred feet long. The theological faculty resides in a more recent edifice two hundred and sixty feet long and five stories high. It accommodates over one hundred students, besides forty professors attached to the establishment. The names of the rectors of the university since its foundation are as follows: Abbé L. J. Casault, Mgr E. A Taschereau, Mgr. M. E. Méthot, Mgr. T. E. Hamel, Mgr. J. C. K. Laflamme, Mgr. O. E. Mathieu, and Abbé A. Gosselin. During 1908-09 four hundred and twenty-one students attended the various faculties, while the number who followed the courses at Montreal was much larger.

O.E. MATHIEU

Lavant

(LAVANTINA)

An Austrian bishopric in the southern part of Styria, suffragan of Salzburg. The original seat of the bishopric lay in the eastern part of Carinthia in the valley of the Lavant. It was here that Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg, established, 20 Aug., 1212, at St. Andrä, with the consent of Pope Innocent III and Emperor Frederick II, a collegiate chapter, the canons of which followed the Rule of St. Augustine; its members were chosen from the cathedral chapter of Salzburg. On account of the great remoteness and the difficulty of travelling, the archbishop, about the year 1223, asked Pope Honorius III to allow him to found a bishopric at St. Andrä. After the pope had had the archbishop's request examined by commissioners, and had given his consent, Eberhard drew up the deed of foundation, 10 May, 1228, wherein he secured the possession of the episcopal chair for himself and his successors in perpetuity. He named as first bishop his court chaplain Ulrich, who had formerly been priest of Haus, in Styria (died 1257).

In the deed of foundation of the new bishopric, no boundaries were defined. In a deed of Archbishop Frederick II of Salzburg of 1280, seventeen parishes, situated partly in Carinthia and partly in Styria, were described as belonging to Lavant; the extent of the diocese was rather small, but the bishops also attended to the office of vicar-general of the Archbishops of Salzburg for some scattered districts; they also frequently attended to the office of Vicedom (bishop's deputy in secular affairs) at Friesach. The tenth bishop, Dietrich Wolfhauer (1318-32), is mentioned in deeds as the first prince-bishop; he was also secretary of Frederick III the Handsome, of Austria, and was present at the battle of Mühldorf in 1322. Since the twenty-second bishop, Theobald Schweinbeck (1446-63), the bishops have borne without intermission the title of prince. The following prominent bishops deserve special mention: the humanist Johann I von Rott (1468-82), died as Prince-Bishop of Breslau; Georg II Agrikola (1570-84), who after 1572 was also at the same time Bishop of Seckau; Georg III Stobäus von Palmburg (1584-1618), a worthy promotor of the Counter-Reformation; Maximilian Gandolph Freiherr von Kienburg (1654-65), did much towards increasing the financial resources of the diocese.

By the new regulations under Emperor Joseph II, several bishoprics were added to the Diocese of Lavant. Prince-Archbishop Michael Brigido of Laibach in 1788 ceded a number of parishes in the southern part of what is now the Diocese of Lavant; and the district of Völkermarkt, which was afterwards again detached, was added to the bishopric at that time. The present extent of the diocese was brought about by the circumscription of 1 June, 1859. The valley of the Lavant and the district of Völkermarkt in Carinthia fell to Gurk; in consequence of which the District of Marburg was transferred from Seckau to Lavant; since then the diocese comprises the whole of southern Styria. By the decree of the Congregation of the Consistory of 20 May, 1857, the see of the bishop was removed from St. Andrä to Marburg; the parish church of St. John the Baptist in that place being erected into a cathedral, and the title "of Lavant" being preserved. On 4 Sept, 1859, Bishop Anton Martin Slomschek (1846-62) made his solemn entry into Marburg. His successors, Jakob Maximilian Stepischnegg (1862-89), and Michael Napotnik (since 1889) have shown great zeal for the promotion of the spiritual life by introducing religious orders and founding educational and charitable institutions and clubs. But the most beneficial work done for the religious life of the diocese was that of the diocesan synods, held by Stepischnegg (1883), and by Napotnik, who followed his example (1896, 1900, 1903, and 1906).

The bishopric is divided into 24 deaneries, and numbered (1909) 223 parishes, 200 chaplaincies (48 unoccupied), 7 unoccupied offices and benefices, 375 priests engaged in the cure of souls, 39 secular priests and 53 regular clergy in other positions, 37 clergy without office, 675 churches and chapels, and 521,896 souls. The cathedral chapter, which is four-fifths Slovene and one-fifth German, consists of one mitred cathedral provost, one mitred cathedral dean, and five canons. The old cathedral chapter, which was composed of the canons of the Augustinian order, was dissolved in 1808, and its property was assigned to the "Religionsfond" founded by Joseph II; in 1825 a new cathedral chapter was provisionally erected, and definitively so in 1847. Besides the actual canons, there are six stalls for honorary canons (four temporarily vacant). The council is composed of six advisors; the prince-bishop is the president. In the theological diocesan college there are eleven lecturers; the episcopal priests' seminary numbers (1909) 4 classes, with 42 students; the "Maximilianum-Viktorinum", an episcopal seminary for boys, 8 classes, with 80 students. Eight clerical teachers taught in 7 state schools.

In the diocese there are the following establishments of religious orders: 1 monastery of Minorites of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Pettau (founded 1239), with nine fathers; 4 Franciscan monasteries, with 31 fathers, 23 lay brothers, and 5 clerical novices; 1 Capuchin monastery at Cilli (founded 1611), with 6 fathers, and 4 lay brothers; 2 mission houses of the Fathers of St. Vincent de Paul, with 8 priests, and 10 lay brothers; 1 Trappist abbey, Maria Erlösung, at Reichenburg (founded 1881 by French Trappists), with 21 fathers, and 48 brothers. Orders of women: Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, 82, in 6 establishments, who are dedicated to the nursing of the sick; School Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi, 1 motherhouse, 14 affiliated houses, 190 sisters; School Sisters from the mother-house of Algersdorf, Graz, 9, with 1 institution 1 magdalen asylum, with 17 canonesses, and 15 lay sisters; Sisters of Mercy of the Holy Cross, 3, with one establishment; Sisters of the Teutonic Order, 9, with one hospital; 1 Carmelite Convent of Perpetual Adoration (10 sisters). The School Sisters conduct a training school for female teachers, 1 lyceum, 11 girls' schools, 5 boarding-schools, 6 kindergartens, 2 orphan asylums, 2 schools of domestic economy, and one home for servant-girls. There are 36 Catholic clubs and confraternities in the diocese, besides 25 associations for the building and adornment of churches.

The most prominent ecclesiastical buildings in the diocese are: the cathedral and parish church of St. John the Baptist, at Marburg, which was begun in the middle of the twelfth century as a Romanesque basilica, rebuilt after 1520 in the Gothic style, again restored after the fire in 1601, and once more in 1885; the provostship and parish church of St. Georg, at Pettau, erected in the Gothic style about 1314; the abbey and parish church of St. Daniel, at Cilli, dates from the middle of the sixteenth century; and the shrine of St. Maria der Wüste, in the neighbourhood of Marburg (built 1628), in the baroque style.

TANGL, Reihe der Bischöfe von Lavant (Klagenfurt, 1841); STEPISCHNEGG, Georg III. Stobäus von Palmburg, Fürstbischof von Lavant in Archiv. für Kunde österreichischer Geschichtsquellen (1856); Gesta et Statuta Synod. diœcesanœ, 1896 (Marburg, 1897); Die Zweite Diöcesansynode (Marburg, 1896); Ecclesiœ Lavantinœ Synodus diœcesana 1903 (Marburg, 1904); Synodus diœcesana 1906 (Marburg, 1907); Kirchliches Verordnungsblatt für die Lavanter Diöcese; Personalstand des Bistums Lavant in Steiermark für das Jahr 1909 (Marburg, 1909).

JOSEPH LINS.

Charles-Honoré Laverdière

French-Canadian historian, born Chateau-Richer, Province of Quebec, 1826; died at Quebec, 1873. After his ordination (1851) he was attached to the Quebec Seminary, where he had studied the classics and theology, and he remained there till his death. He utilized his varied talents in teaching belles-lettres, physics, chemistry, mathematics, music and drawing. His favourite pursuits were Canadian history and archaeology. Although his original writings were few, including a school history of Canada and some historical pamphlets, he supervised the re-editing of several most important works, which are the very sources of Canadian history. Conspicuous among these are the "Relations des Jésuites" (1858), with erudite and exhaustive analytical tables; the "Journal des Jésuites" (1871); and finally, the realization of his most ardent wish, "Les Oeuvres de Champlain" of which he wrote the introduction and countless annotations of great historical exactness and value. He often spent a day in verifying a single date or the spelling of a name. When the recently completed edition was entirely destroyed by fire, Laverdière calmly remarked that some misprints that had escaped his vigilance might be avoided in a new edition. His thorough knowledge of plain-song enabled him to publish a series of liturgical works. He was of a mild and amiable character, esteemed by all who knew him. His mastery of Canadian history, especially the period from 1500 to 1700, gave his assertions great authority.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, Sieur de Lavérendrye

Discoverer of the Canadian West, born at Three Rivers, Quebec, 17 November, 1685; died at Montreal, 6 December, 1749. His early manhood was passed as a soldier in the service of France, and he was wounded on the battlefield of Malplaquet. Later he returned to his native country and engaged in the fur trade. As a step towards the exploration of the Pacific, or the Western Sea as it was then called, he established three trading posts west of Lake Superior, i.e. Forts St. Pierre, on Rainy River (1731), St. Charles on the Lake of the Woods (1732), and Maurepas, at the month of the Winnipeg River (1734). A sincere Christian, and having at heart his own religious interests as well as those of his men, he had taken with him Father Charles M. Mesaiger, a Jesuit, who did not go farther than the Lake of the Woods, where he was succeeded, in the summer of 1735, by Father Jean P. Aulneau de La Touche.

This young priest having temporarily left for the east (8 June, 1736) with Lavérendrye's eldest son, Jean-Baptiste, and nineteen "voyageurs", in quest of much needed provisions, the entire party was slain on an island of the Lake of the Woods on the very day of their departure. Lavérendrye prudently resisted the pressing solicitations of the natives, burning to avenge on the Sioux, the authors of the massacre, the wrong done to the French. Then, in spite of his many debts occasioned by explorations and establishments for which he had no other funds than the desultory returns of the fur trade in an unorganized country, he went on with the task entrusted to his patriotism by the French court. On 24 September, 1738, he reached the exact spot where now stands Winnipeg, and, ascending the Assiniboine to the present site of Portage la Prairie, he built there a post which he called Fort La Reine. Thence he made for the south, and by the end of 1738 he was at a Mandan village on the Upper Missouri. Early in the spring of the following year, he sent north one of his sons, who discovered Lakes Manitoba, Dauphin, Winnipegosis, and Bourbon, and erected a fort on Lake Dauphin. Meantime Lavérendrye had had to repair to Montreal to come to an understanding with his creditors. On his return to the west he took with the Jesuit Father Claude G.Coquart, the first priest to see the confluence of the Assiniboine with the Red River and reside at what is now Portage la Prairie (1741). In the spring of 1742 he commissioned two of his sons, Pierre Gauthier, dit the Chevalier, and Francois, to explore the country as far west as they could possibly go. In the company of savages who had never seen a white man, they reached, after many perils, one of the spurs of the Rocky Mountains, which they partially scaled (12 January, 1743). The desertion of their native guides, terrified at the unexpected discovery of a village of their traditional enemies, alone prevented further progress. The explorers must have penetrated to a point in the northwest corner of what is now Montana. Lavérendryre was naturally endowed, it is true, with indomitable energy, but he was struggling against too heavy odds. Dragged before the law courts by the Montreal merchants whom he could not pay, and accused by others of thinking more of filthy lucre than of discoveries, and ill sustained by the Paris authorities, he had to give up his work (1744), after consecrating to it the thirteen best years of his life. Gradually his worth became recognized at Paris, and honours were bestowed upon him by the French king. He was on the eve of resuming his explorations when he died, and was buried in the vault of Notre-Dame, Montreal.

An upright man and a good Christian, Lavérendrye was considerably more than a mere explorer. No less than six fur-trading stations attested to his efficiency as an organizer. On the other hand, the numerous personnel of "voyageurs" whom these posts necessitated eventually gave rise to that wonderful race, the Metis, which was in after years to play such an important part in the history of Central Canada.

A.G. MORICE

Jean-Nicolas Laverlochère

Missionary, born at St. Georges d'Espérance, Grenoble, France, 6 December, 1812; died at Temiscaming, Canada, 4 October, 1884. He began his religious life as a lay brother in the Congregation of the Oblates, but feeling called to evangelize the natives of Canada, he was allowed to study for the priesthood, and was ordained 5 May, 1844, at L'Acadie, near Montreal. He was sent in succession to Abittibbi, Moose Factory, and other posts on Hudson Bay, where he laboured for the conversion of the native tribes. Alone, or in collaboration with others, he published a number of devotional books in Indian. His letters in the "Annales de la Propagation de la Foi" attracted wide attention, and his reputation as a zealous missionary spread throughout Catholic Europe to such an extent that he was ultimately recognized as the Apostle of Hudson Bay. A stroke of palsy interrupted his labours in the course of 1851.

A.G. MORICE

Charles-Martial-Allemand Lavigerie

French cardinal, b. at Huire near Bayonne, 13 Oct., 1825; d. at Algiers, 27 Nov., 1892. He studied at the diocesan seminary of Larressore, then went to St. Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris, and finally to St. Sulpice. Ordained on 2 June, 1849, he devoted the first year of his priesthood to higher studies at the newly founded Ecole des Carmes, taking at the Sorbonne the doctorates of letters (1850), and of theology (1853), to which he added later the Roman doctorates of civil and canon law. Appointed chaplain of Sainte-Geneviève in 1853, associate professor of church history at the Sorbonne in 1854, and titular of the chair in 1857, Lavigerie did not confine his activity to his chaplaincy or chair, but took a leading part in the organization of the students' cercles catholiques, and of l'œuvre des écoles d'Orient. As director of the latter he collected large sums for the benefit of the Oriental Christians persecuted by the Druses, and even went to Syria to superintend personally the distribution of the funds (1860). His brilliant services were rewarded by rapid promotion, first in 1861 to the Roman Rota, and two years later to the See of Nancy. From the beginning of his episcopate he displayed that genius of organization which is the characteristic of his life. The foundation of colleges at Vic, Blamont, and Lunéville; the establishment at Nancy of a higher institute for clerics and of a Maison d'étudiants for law students; the organization of the episcopal curia; the publication of the "Recueil des Ordonnances épiscopales statuts et règlements du diocèse de Nancy", were but the first fruits of a promising episcopate, when he was transferred to Algiers on 27 March, 1867.

As Archbishop of Algiers he promptly reversed the policy of neutrality towards the Moslems imposed upon his predecessors by the French authorities, and inaugurated a strong movement of assimilation and conversion. With the help of the White Fathers and of the White Sisters, whom he founded for the purpose, he established and maintained at great cost orphan asylums, industrial schools, hospitals, and agricultural settlements, wherein the Arabs could be brought under the influence of the Gospel. Appointed as early as 1868 Apostolic Delegate of Western Sahara and the Sudan, he began in 1874 the work of southward expansion which was to bring his heroic missionaries into the very heart of the Dark Continent, and result in the erection of five vicariates Apostolic in Equatorial Africa. To those many burdens -- made heavier by the consequences (felt even in Algeria) of the Franco-Prussian war, the withdrawal of government financial support, and the threatened extension to the African colonies of anti-religious legislation passed in France -- Lavigerie added other cares: the administration of the Diocese of Constantina, 1871; the foundation at St. Anne of Jerusalem of a clerical seminary for the Oriental missions, 1878, and, after the occupation of Tunis by France, the government of that vicariate. Cardinal in 1881, he became the first primate of the newly restored See of Carthage in 1884, retaining meanwhile the See of Algiers. "I shall not seek one day's rest" was the remark of Lavigerie when he landed on African soil. He carried out that promise to the letter. While Notre-Dame d'Afrique at Algiers, the Basilica of St. Louis at Carthage, and the Cathedral of St. Vincent de Paul at Tunis will stand as monuments of his prodigious activity in Africa, his labours ranged far beyond the vast territories placed under his jurisdiction. Klein (Le Cardinal Lavigerie, p. 268) describes minutely the many ways in which he served the best interests of France in, and out of, Africa. He will, however, be best remembered by the leading rôle he played in furthering the policy of Leo XIII, with regard to French Catholics, and in promoting the anti-slavery movement.

Tinctured with Gallicanism through his early association with the Sorbonne, Lavigerie modified his views during his stay at Rome, and his attitude at the Vatican Council is fully expressed by the promise he made his clergy "to be with Peter". When Leo XIII, by his Encyclicals "Nobilissima Gallorum gens" of 8 Feb., 1884, and "Sapientiæ æternæ" of 3 Feb., 1890, directed the French Catholics to rally to the Republic, he generously put aside other political affiliations and again "was with Peter". A great sensation was created when at Algiers, on 12 Nov., 1890, he proclaimed before a vast assemblage of French officials the obligation for French Catholics of sincerly adhering to the republican form of government. The famous "toast d'Alger" was the object of harsh criticism and even vituperation from the monarchist element. With his usual vehemence Cardinal Lavigterie answered by his "Lettre à un catholique", in which he not only impugned the pretenders -- the Comte de Chambord, the Comte de Paris, and Prince Napoléon -- but even hinted that monarchy was an outgrown institution. In this he may have gone too far, but in the main point it was proved later by Cardinal Rampolla's letter of 28 November, 1890, and Pope Leo's Encyclical "Inter innumeras" of 16 Feb., 1892, that Lavigerie had been the self-sacrificing spokesman of the pope.

The suppression of slavery had been the subject of Lavigerie's first pastoral letter at Algiers. When Leo XIII in his Encyclical to the bishops of Brazil (5 May, 1888) appealed to the world in behalf of the slaves, the Primate of Carthage was the first to respond. In spite of age and infirmities he visited the capitals of Europe, teling of the horrors of African slavery and urging the formation of anti-slavery societies. The international "Conférence" of Brussels, 1890, practically adopted Lavigerie's suggestions as to the best means of achieving the desired abolition, and the "Congrés de Paris", called the same year by the cardinal himself, showed great enthusiasm and verified Lavigerie's saying: "pour sauver l'Afrique intérieure, il faut soulever la colère du monde."

After the "toast d'Alger" and the "Congrès de Paris", Lavigerie, broken in health, retired to Algiers. His last two years were saddened by the often unjust criticism of his cherished project -- the "frères pionniers du Sahara" -- the death of many of his missionaries, and, above all, the passing of Uganda under the control of the sectarian Imperial East-African Company. He died at Algiers as preparations were being made for the twenty-fifth anniversary of his African episcopate. The daily press throughout the world eulogized him, who had forbidden all eulogies at his funeral, and the "Moniteur de Rome" rightly summarized his life by saying that, in a few years of incredible activity, he had laid out work for generations. An able scholar and an orator of the first order, Lavigerie was also a writer. Besides some scholastic productions destined for his pupils at the Ecole des Carmes (1848), we have from his pen a doctorate thesis: "Essai sur l'école chrétienne d'Edesse" (Paris, 1850); several contributions to the "Bibliothèque pieuse et instructive à l'usage de la jeunesse chrétienne" (Paris, 1853); "Exposé des erreurs doctrinales du Jansénisme" (Paris, 1858), an abridgment of his lessons at the Sorbonne; "Decreta concilii provincialis Algeriensis in Africa" (1873); a large number of discourses, pamphlets, or reports, some of which were embodied in the two volumes of his "Œuvres choises" (Paris, 1884); "Documents pour la fondation de l'œuvre antiesclavagiste" (St. Cloud, 1889), etc.

Baunard, Le Cardinal Lavigerie (Paris, 1896 and 1898); Klein, Le Cardinal Lavigerie et ses œuvres d'Afrique (Tours, 1891 and 1897); de Lacombe, Le Card. Lavigerie in Le Correspondent (Sept., 1909); de Coleville, Le Cardinal Lavigerie (Paris, 1905); Lages, Le Cardinal Lavigerie, sa vie, ses écrits, sa doctrine in Gloires Sacerdotales Contemporaines (Paris, s. d.); Grussenmeyer, Vingt-cinq années d'episcopat (Paris, 1888). See also Piolet, Les Missions d'Afrique (Paris, 1908), and such periodicals as the Bulletin des Missions d'Alger, the Missions d'Afrique des Pères Blancs, the Bulletin official de la Societé anti-esclavagiste de France.

J.F. Sollier.

Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier

Chemist, philosopher, economist; born in Paris, 26 August, 1743; guillotined 8 May, 1794. He was the son of Jean-Antoine Lavoisier, a lawyer of distinction, and Emilie Punctis, who belonged to a rich and influential family, and who died when Antoine-Laurent was five years old. His early years were most carefully guarded by his aunt, Mlle Constance Punctis, to whom he was devotedly attached; and through her assistance he was secured the advantage of a good education. He attended the College Mazarin, which was noted for its faculty of science, and here he studied mathematics and astronomy under Abbé de la Caille, who had built an observatory at the college after having won renown by measuring an arc of the meridian at the Cape of Good Hope, by determining the length of the second's pendulum, and by his catalogue of the stars. Young Lavoisier also received instruction from Bernard de Jussieu in botany, from Guettard in geology and mineralogy, and from Rouelle in chemistry. In logic he was influenced by the writings of Abbé de Condillac, as he frequently acknowledges in his "Traité Elementaire de Chimi." He began his career by entering the profession of the law, but soon abandoned this to return to his favourite studies of chemistry and mineralogy. His first scientific communication to the Academy was upon the composition and properties of gypsum and plaster of Paris, and this is to-day a classic and a valuable contribution to our knowledge of crystallizing cements. He early learned to look to the balance for help in the definition of facts, and found its great value particularly when he began to study the phenomena we now know under the terms combustion or oxidation, and reduction or deoxidation.

The most advanced chemical philosophers of his day taught that there was something in every combustible substance which was driven out by the burning, that the reduction of an oxide of a metal to the metallic state meant the absorption of this substance or principle, which Stahl had called phlogiston. Lavoisier studied the teaching of the phlogistonists, but having also a mastery of physics and of pneumatic experimentation he became dissatisfied with their theory. He seized upon two important discoveries, that of oxygen by Priestley (1774), and that of the compound nature of water by Cavendish (1781) and by a masterly stroke of genius reconciled discordant appearances and threw the light of day upon every phase of the world's reacting elements. His theory, for a long time thereafter known as the antiphlogists' theory, was really the reverse of that of the phlogistonists, and was simply that something ponderable was absorbed when combustion took place; that it was obtained from the surrounding air; that the increase in the weight of a metallic substance when burned was equal to the decrease in the weight of the air used; that most substances thus burning were converted into acids, or metals into metallic oxides. Priestly had called this absorbed substance or gas dephlogisticated air; Scheele called it empyreal air; Lavoisier "air strictly pure" or "very respirable air" as distinct from the other and non-respirable constituent of the atmosphere. Later, he called it oxygen because it was acid-making (oxys, and geinomai).

So great a change ensued in experimental chemistry, and in theory and nomenclature, and such a mass of facts was co-ordinated and explained by Lavoisier that he has been justly called "the father of modern chemistry." He was the first to explain definitely, the formation of acids and salts, to enunciate the principle of conservation as set forth by chemical equations, to develop quantitative analysis, gas analysis, and calorimetry, and to create a consistent system of chemical nomenclature. He made deep researches in organic chemistry, and studied the metabolism of organic compounds. His memoirs and contributions to the Academiy were of extraordinary number and variety. His life in other fields was romantic, full of interest and a social triumph, but sadly destined to end in tragedy. Happily married, and having the aid of his wife even to the extent of employing her in the prosecution and recording of his experiments, he drew around his fireside and to his library at the State Gunpowder Works a circle of brilliant French savants and distinguished travellers from other lands. Early in his career he felt the need of increasing his resources to meet the necessities caused by his scientific experiments. With this in view he became a deputy fermier-général, whereby his income was much increased. But joining this association of State-protected tax-collectors only prepared the way for many years of bitter attack and a share of the public odium attaching to their privilege. He headed many public commissions requiring scientific investigation, he aimed at bringing France to such a state of agricultural and industrial expansion that the peasant and the working-man would have profitable employment and the small landed proprietor relief from the burdensome taxes hitherto purposely increased to make grants to corrupt favourites of the Court. Having incurred the hatred of Marat he found himself, together with his fellow fermiers-général, growing more and more unpopular during the terrible days of the Revolution. Finally in 1794 he was imprisoned with twenty-seven others. A farcical trial speedily followed, in which he was charged with "incivism" in that he had damaged public health by adding water to tobacco. He and his companions, amongst them Jacques Alexis Paulze, his father-in-law, were condemned to death. Lavoisier, who was devotedly attached to him, was obliged to stand and see M. Paulze's head fall under the guillotine, 8 May, 1794. Lavoisier was then 51 years old. His biographers say little as to his last hours. Grimaux relates that all the condemned men were silent and carried themselves with dignity and courage in the face of death. What Lavoisier's sentiments were can be assumed from a passage in Grimaux (p. 53) who had been the first biographer to obtain access to Lavoiosier's papers.

Raised in a pious family which had given many priests to the Church, he had held to his beliefs. To Edward King, an English author who had sent him a controversial work, he wrote, 'You have done a noble thing in upholding revelation and the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, and it is remarkable that you are using for the defence precisely the same weapons which were once used for the attack.'

His goods and chattels and all his scientific instruments were listed and appropriated on the day following his execution, though Mme Lavoisier succeeded in having some restored to her. She was childless and long survived him.

THORPE in Contempory Review, Antonine Laurent Lavoisier (Dec., 1890); GRIMAUX, Lavoisier 1743-1794 (Paris, 1888); THORPE, Priestly, Cavendish, Lavoisier and La Revolution Chimique in Brit. Assoc. Address (Leeds, 1890); BERTHELOT, La Revolution Chimique (Paris, 1890); KOPP, Entdeckung der Chemie in der neueren Zeit (1874); HOFER, Histoire de la Chimie, II, 490; VON MEYER, Geschichte der Chemie (Leipzig, 1888); LAVOISIER, Memoires de Chimie (1805); Euvres de Lavoisier, published by the Ministry of Public Instruction (Paris, 1864-8); DUMAS, Lecons sur la Philosophie Chimique.

C.F. MCKENNA

Law

I. CONCEPT OF LAW

A. By law in the widest sense is understood that exact guide, rule, or authoritative standard by which a being is moved to action or held back from it. In this sense we speak of law even in reference to creatures that are incapable of thinking or willing and to inanimate matter. The Book of Proverbs (ch. viii) says of Eternal Wisdom that it was present when God prepared the heavens and when with a certain law and compass He enclosed the depths, when He encompassed the sea with its bounds and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits. Job (xxviii, 25 sqq.) lauds the wisdom of God Who made a weight for the winds and weighed the water by measure, Who gave a law for the rain and a way for the sounding storms.

Daily experience teaches that all things are driven by their own nature to assume a determinate, constant attitude. Investigators of the natural sciences hold it to be an established truth that all nature is ruled by universal and constant laws and that the object of the natural sciences is to search out these laws and to make plain their reciprocal relations in all directions. All bodies are subject, for example, to the law of inertia, i.e. they persist in the condition of rest or motion in which they may be until an external cause changes this condition. Kepler discovered the laws according to which the planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun, Newton the law of gravitation by which all bodies attract in direct proportion to their mass and inversely as to the square of the distance between them. The laws which govern light, heat, and electricity are known today. Chemistry, biology, and physiology have also their laws. The scientific formulae in which scholars express these laws are only laws in so far as they state what processes actually take place in the objects under consideration, for law implies a practical rule according to which things act. These scientific formulae exert of themselves no influence on things; they simply state the condition in which these things are. The laws of nature are nothing but the forces and tendencies to a determinate, constant method of activity implanted by the Creator in the nature of things, or the unvarying, homogeneous activity itself which is the effect of that tendency. The word law is used in this latter sense when it is asserted that a natural law has been changed or suspended by a miracle. For the miracle does not change the nature of things or their constant tendency; the Divine power simply prevents the things from producing their natural effect, or uses them as means to attaining an effect surpassing their natural powers. The natural tendency to a determinate manner of activity on the part of creatures that have neither the power to think nor to will can be called law for a twofold reason: first, because it forms the decisive reason and the controlling guide for the activities of such creatures, and consequently as regards irrational creatures fulfills the task which devolves upon law in the strict sense as regards rational beings; and further, because it is the expression and the effect of a rational lawgiving will. Law is a principle of regulation and must, like every regulation, be traced back to a thinking and willing being. This thinking and willing being is the Creator and Regulator of all things, God Himself. It may be said that the natural forces and tendencies placed in the nature of creatures, are themselves the law, the permanent expression of the will of the Eternal Observer Who influences creatures and guides them to their appointed ends, not by merely external influences but by their innate inclinations and impulses.

B. In a stricter and more exact sense law is spoken of only in reference to free beings endowed with reason. But even in this sense the expression law is used sometimes with a wider, sometimes with a more restricted meaning= By law are at times understood all authoritative standards of the action of free, rational beings. In this sense the rules of the arts, poetry, grammar, and even the demands of fashion or etiquette are called laws. This is, however, an inexact and exaggerated mode of expression. In the proper and strict sense laws are the moral norms of action, binding in conscience, set up for a public, self-governing community. This is probably the original meaning of the word law, whence it was gradually transformed to the other kinds of laws (natural laws, laws of art). Law can in this sense be defined with St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica I-II:90:4) as: A regulation in accordance with reason promulgated by the head of a community for the sake of the common welfare.

Law is first a regulation, i.e. a practical principle, which aims at ordering the actions of the members of the community. To obtain in any community a unified and systematized co-operation of all there must be an authority that has the right to issue binding rules as to the manner in which the members of the community are to act. The law is such a binding rule and draws its constraining or obligatory force from the will of the superior. Both because the superior wills and so far as he wills, is law binding. Not every regulation of the superior, however, is binding, but only those in accordance with reason. Law is the criterion of reasonable action and must, therefore, itself be reasonable. A law not in accordance with reason is a contradiction. That the Divine laws must of necessity be reasonable and just is self-evident, for the will of God is essentially holy and just and can only command what is in harmony with the Divine wisdom, justice, and holiness. Human laws, however, must be subordinate to the Divine law, or at least, must not contradict it, for human authority is only a participation in the supreme Divine power of government, and it is impossible that God could give human beings the right to issue laws that are unreasonable and in contravention of His will. Further, law must be advantageous to the common welfare. This is a universally acknowledged principle. That the Divine laws are advantageous to the common welfare needs no proof. The glory of the Creator is, truly, the final goal of the Divine laws, but God desires to attain this glory by the happiness of mankind. Human laws must also be useful to the common welfare. For laws are imposed upon the community as such, in order to guide it to its goal: this goal, however, is the common welfare. Further, laws are to regulate the members of the community. This can only come about by all striving to attain a common goal. But this goal can be no other than the common welfare. Consequently all laws must in some way serve the common welfare. A law plainly useless or a fortiori injurious to the community is no true law. It could have in view only the benefit of private individuals and would consequently subordinate the common welfare to the welfare of individuals, the higher to the lower.

Law therefore is distinguished from a command or precept by this essential application to the common welfare. Every law is a form of command but not every command is a law. Every binding rule which a superior or master gives to his subordinates is a command; the command, however, is only a law when it is imposed upon the community for the attainment of the common welfare. In addition, the command can be given for an individual person or case. But law is a permanent, authoritative standard for the community, and it remains in force until it is annulled or set aside. Another condition of law is that it should proceed from the representative of the highest public authority, be this a single person, several persons, or finally the totality of all the members of the community, as in a democracy. For law is, as already said, a binding rule which regulates the community for the attainment of the common welfare. This regulation pertains either to the whole community itself or to those persons in the highest position upon whom devolves the guidance of the whole community. No order or unity would be possible if private individuals had the liberty to impose binding rules on others in regard to the common welfare. This right must be reserved to the supreme head of the community. The fact that law is an emanation of the highest authority, or is issued by the presiding officer of the community by virtue of his authority, is what distinguishes it from mere counsels, requests, or admonitions, which presuppose no power of jurisdiction and can, moreover, be addressed by private persons to others and even to superiors. Laws, finally, must be promulgated, i.e. made known to all. Law in the strict sense is imposed upon rational, free beings as a controlling guide for their actions; but it can be such only when it has been proclaimed to those subject to it. From this arises the general axiom: Lex non promulgata non obligat--a law which has not been promulgated is not binding. But it is not absolutely necessary to promulgation that the law be made known to every individual; it suffices if the law be proclaimed to the community as such, so that it can come to the notice of all members of the community. Besides, all laws do not require the same kind of promulgation. At present, laws are considered sufficiently promulgated when they are published in official journals (State or imperial gazettes, law records, etc.)

In addition to the moral law as treated above, it is customary to speak of moral laws in a wider sense. Thus it is said it is a moral law that no one is willingly deceived, that no one lies without a reason, that every one strives to learn the truth. But it is only in an unreal and figurative sense that these laws are called moral. They are in reality only the natural laws of the human will. For although the will is free, it remains subject to certain inborn tendencies and laws, within which bounds alone it acts freely, and these laws are called moral only because they bear on the activities of a free will. Therefore they are not expressed by an imperative "must". They merely state that by reason of inborn tendencies, men are accustomed to act in a given way, and that such laws are observed even by those who have no knowledge of them.

To understand still better the significance of moral law in the strict sense, henceforth the sole sense intended in this article, two conditions of such law should be considered. It exists first in the intellect and will of the lawgiver. Before the lawgiver issues the law he must apprehend it in his mind as a practical principle, and at the same time perceive that it is a reasonable standard of action for his subjects and one advantageous to the common welfare. He must then have the will to make the observance of this principle obligatory on those under him. Finally, he must make known or intimate to those under him this principle or authoritative standard as the expression of his will. Strictly construed, legislation in the active sense consists in this last act, the command of the superior to the inferiors. This command is an act of the reason, but it necessarily presupposes the aforesaid act of the will and receives from the latter its entire obligatory force. The law, however, does not attain this obligatory force until the moment it is made known or proclaimed to the community. And this brings us to the point that the law can be considered objectively, as it exists apart from the lawgiver. At this stage law exists either in the mind of the subjects or in any permanent token which preserves the memory of it, e.g. as found in a collection of laws. Such outward tokens, however, are not absolutely necessary to law. God has written the natural moral law, at least in its most general outlines, in the hearts of all men, and it is obligatory without any external token. Further, an external, permanent token is not absolutely necessary for human laws. It suffices if the law is made known to the subjects, and such knowledge can be attained by oral tradition.

II. OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY LAW

Law (in the strict sense) and command are preeminently distinguished from other authoritative standards of action, inasmuch as they imply obligation. Law is a bond imposed upon the subjects by which their will is bound or in some way brought under compulsion in regard to the performance or the omission of definite actions. Aristotle, therefore, said long ago that law has a compelling force. And St. Paul (Rom., xiii, 1 sqq.) teaches that we are bound to obey the ordinances of the authorities not only through fear but also for conscience' sake. In what then does this obligation which law imposes upon us consist? Modern ethical systems which seek to construct a morality independent of God and religion, are here confronted by an inexplicable riddle. The utmost pains have been taken to construct a true obligation without regard to God. According to Kant our reason itself is the final source of obligation, it obliges us of itself, it is nomothetic and autonomous, and the absolute form in which it commands us is the categorical imperative. We are obliged to fulfil the law only on account of itself or because it is the law of our reason; to do something because another has commanded us is not moral, even should this other be God. This view is entirely untenable. We do not owe obedience to the laws of Church and State because we bind ourselves thereto, but because their superior authority obliges us. The child owes obedience to its parents not because it engages so to do but because the authority of the parents obliges it. Whoever asserts that man can bind only himself, strikes at the root of all authority and asserts the principle of anarchism. Authority is the right to issue to others binding, obligatory regulations. Whoever maintains that none can put more than himself under obligation denies, thereby, all authority= What is said of human authority is equally valid of the Divine authority. We owe adoration, obedience, and love to God, not because we engage so to do, but because God obliges us by His commands. The assertion that to do something because God has commanded us is heteronomy (subjection to the law of another) and therefore not moral, implies in principle the destruction of all religion, which in its essence rests upon the subjection of the creature to his Creator.

The adherents of the Kantian autonomy can also be asked whether man binds himself of necessity or voluntarily? If voluntarily, then he can at any moment annul this obligation; consequently, in a practical sense, no obligation exists. If of necessity, the question arises whence comes this necessity to bind oneself unconditionally? To this question Kant has no answer to give. He refers us to an undemonstrable and incomprehensible necessity. He says: "All human reason is incapable of explaining how pure reason may be practical (imposing obligation)....Thus, it is true, we do not comprehend the practical, unconditioned necessity of the moral imperative, but we do, however, comprehend its incomprehensibility, which is all that can, in fairness, be demanded from a philosophy that seeks to reach the principles which mark the limit of human reason" ["Grundleg. zur Metaphys. der Sitten", ed. Hartenstein, IV (1838), 91-93]. Kant, who without hesitation sets aside all Christian mysteries, in this way imposes upon us in philosophy a mystery of his own invention. Kant's views contain a germ of truth, which, however, they distort until it can no longer be recognized. In order that a human law may be obligatory upon us we must have in ourselves from the beginning the conviction that we are to do good and avoid evil, that we are to obey rightful authority, etc. But the further question now arises, whence do we receive this conviction? From God, our Creator. Just as our whole being is an image of God, so also is our reason with its powers and inborn tendencies an image of the Divine Reason, and our cognitions which we involuntarily form in consequence of natural tendency are a participation in the Divine wisdom,--are, it may be said, a streaming in of the Divine light into the created reason. This is, indeed, not to be so understood as though we had innate ideas, but rather that the ability and inclination are inborn in us by virtue of which we spontaneously form universal concepts and principles, both in the theoretical and practical order, and easily discern that in these practical principles the will of the Supreme Director of all things manifests itself.

The Kantian philosophy has now but few adherents; most champions of independent ethics seek to explain the origin of duty by experience and development. Typical of writers on ethics of this school are the opinions of Herbert Spencer. This philosopher of evolution believed that he had discovered already in animals, principally in dogs, evidences of conscience, especially the beginnings of the consciousness of duty, the idea of obligation. This consciousness of duty is further developed in men by the accumulation of experiences and inheritance. Duty presents itself to us as a restraint of our actions. There are, however, several varieties of such restraints. The inner restraint is developed by induction, inasmuch as we discern by repeated experience that certain actions have useful, others injurious results. In this way we are attracted to the one, and frightened away from the other. Added to this is the external restraint, the fear of evil results or punishments which threaten us from without and are threefold in form. In the earliest stages of development man has to abstain from actions through fear of the anger of uncivilized associates (social sanction). At a higher stage man must avoid many actions, because such would be punished by a powerful and bold associate who has succeeded in making himself chief (state sanction). Finally, we have in addition the fear of the spirits of the dead, especially of the dead chiefs, who, it was believed, lingered near and still inflicted punishment upon many actions displeasing to them (religious sanction). The external restraint, i.e. the fear of punishment, created in mankind, as yet little developed, the concept of compulsion, of obligation in relation to certain actions. This concept originally arose only in regard to actions which were quickly followed by external punishments. Gradually, by association of ideas, it was also connected with other actions until then performed or avoided purely on account of their natural consequences. Through evolution, however, he goes on to say, the idea of compulsion, owing only to confusion or false generalization, tends to disappear and eventually is found only in rare cases. Spencer claimed to have found, even today, here and there men who regularly do good and avoid evil without any idea of compulsion. Most modern writers on ethics, who do not hold to a positive Christian point of view, adopt these Spencerian ideas, e.g. Laas, von Gizycki, Paulsen, Leslie, Fouillée, and many others. Spencer and his followers are nevertheless wrong, for their explanation of duty rests on entirely untenable premises. It presupposes that the animal has already a conscience, that man does not differ essentially from the animal, that he has gradually developed from a form of animal, that he possesses no essentially higher spiritual powers, etc. Moreover, their explanation of duty is meaningless. No one will assert of a man that he acts from duty if he abstains from certain actions through fear of police penalties, or the anger of his fellow-men. Besides, what is the meaning of an obligation that is only an accidental product of evolution, destined to disappear with the progress of the latter, and for disregarding which we are responsible to no superior?

In contrast with these modern and untenable hypotheses the Christian theistic conception of the world explained long since the origin and nature of duty in a fully satisfactory manner. From eternity there was present to the Spirit of God the plan of the government of the world which He had resolved to create. This plan of government is the eternal law (lex aeterna) according to which God guides all things towards their final goal: the glorifying of God and the eternal happiness of mankind. But the Creator does not move creatures, as men do, simply by external force, by pressure, or impact, and the like, but by tendencies and impulses which He has implanted in creatures and, what is more, in each one according to its individual nature. He guides irrational creatures by blind impulses, inclinations, or instincts. He cannot, however, guide in this way rational, free men, but only (as is suited to man's nature) by moral laws which in the act of creation He implanted in the human heart. As soon as man attains to the use of reason he forms, as already indicated, on account of innate predispositions and tendencies, the most general moral principles, e.g. that man is to do good and avoid evil, that man is to commit no injustice, etc. He also easily understands that these commands do not depend on his own volition but express the will of a higher power, which regulates and guides all things. By these commands (the natural moral law) man shares in a rational manner in the eternal law; they are the temporal expression of the eternal, Divine law. The natural moral law is also the foundation and root of the obligation of all positive laws. We recognize that we cannot violate the natural moral law, and the positive laws that are rooted in it, without acting in opposition to the will of God, rebelling against our Creator and highest Master, offending Him, turning away from our final end, and incurring the Divine judgment. Thus man feels himself to be always and everywhere bound, without losing his freedom in a physical sense, to the order appointed him by God. He can do evil but he ought not. If of his own will he violates God's law he brings guilt upon himself and deserves punishment in the eyes of the all-wise, all-holy, and absolutely just God. Obligation is this necessity, arising from this knowledge, for the human will to do good and avoid evil.

III. CLASSIFICATION OF LAWS

A. The actual, direct effect of law is obligation. According to the varieties of duty imposed, law is classified as: commanding, prohibitive, permissive, and penal. Commanding laws (leges affirmativae) make the performance of an action, of something positive, obligatory; prohibitive laws (leges negativae), on the other hand, make obligatory an omission. The principle holds good for prohibitive laws, at least if they are absolute, like the commands of the natural, moral law, ("Thou shalt not bear false witness", "Thou shalt not commit adultery", etc.) that they are always and for ever obligatory (leges negativae obligant semper et pro semper--negative laws bind always and forever), i.e. it is never permissible to perform the forbidden action. Commanding laws, however, as the law that debts must be paid, always impose an obligation, it is true, but not for ever (leges affirmativae obligant semper, sed non pro semper--affirmative laws are binding always but not forever), that is, they continue always to be laws but they do not oblige one at every moment to the performance of the action commanded, but only at a certain time and under certain conditions. All laws which inflict penalties for violation of the law are called penal, whether they themselves directly define the manner and amount of penalty, or make it the duty of the judge to inflict according to his judgment a just punishment. Laws purely penal (leges mere poenales) are those which do not make an action absolutely obligatory, but simply impose penalty in case one is convicted of transgression. Thus they leave it, in a certain sense, to the choice of the subject whether he will abstain from the penal action, or whether, if the violation is proved against him, he will submit to the penalty. The objection cannot be raised that purely penal laws are not actual laws because they create no bounden duty, for they oblige the violator of the law to bear the punishment if the authorities apprehend and convict him= Whether a law is a purely penal law or not is not so easy to decide in an individual case. The decision depends on the will of the lawgiver and also upon the general opinion and custom of a community.

B. In treating of promulgation a distinction has to be made between natural moral law and positive law. The first is proclaimed to all men by the natural light of reason; positive laws are made known by special outward signs (word of mouth or writing). The natural moral law is a law inseparable from the nature of man; positive law, on the contrary, is not. In regard to the origin or source of law, a distinction is made between Divine and human laws according as they are issued directly by God Himself or by men in virtue of the power granted them by God. If man in issuing a law is simply the herald or messenger of God, the law is not human but Divine. Thus the laws which Moses received from God on Mount Sinai and proclaimed to the people of Israel were not human but Divine laws. A distinction is further made between the laws of Church and State according as they are issued by the authorities of the State or of the Church. Laws are divided as to origin into prescriptive and statute law. Prescriptive, or customary, law includes those laws which do not come into existence by direct decree of the lawgiving power, but by long continued custom of the community. Yet every custom does not give rise to a law or right. In order to become law a custom must be universal or must, at least, be followed freely and with the intention of raising it to law by a considerable part of the population. It must further be a custom of long standing. Finally, it must be useful to the common welfare, because this is an essential requisite of every law. Custom receives its binding, obligatory force from the tacit or legal approval of the lawgiver, for every true law binds those upon whom it is imposed. Only he can impose a binding obligation on a community on whom the supervision of it or the power of jurisdiction over it devolves. If the legislative power belongs to a people itself it can impose obligation upon itself as a whole, if it has not this power the obligation can only be formed with the consent of the lawgiver (see CUSTOM).

A classification of law, as limited to law administered in the courts, and familiar to Roman jurisprudence, is that of law in the strict sense and equity (jus strictum et jus aequum et bonum). Equity is often taken as synonymous with natural justice. In this sense we say that equity forbids that anyone be judged unheard. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which his law will be applied. Consequently, a law though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. A reasonable lawgiver could not desire this law to be followed literally in cases where this would entail a violation of the principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former. For this reason Aristotle (Ethica Nicomachea, V, x) calls equity the correction (epanorthoma) of statute or written law.

ST. THOMAS, Summa Theologica, I-II:90 sqq.; SUAREZ, De legibus et legislatore Deo, I; LAYMANN, Theologia moralis, I, tract. iv; BOUQUILLON, Theologia fundamentalis, no. 52 sqq.; TAPARELLI, Saggio teoretico di diritto naturale, I, s. 93 sqq.

V. CATHREIN

Canon Law

This subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. GENERAL NOTIONS AND DIVISIONS

Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members. The word adopted is here used to point out the fact that there are certain elements in canon law borrowed by the Church from civil law or from the writings of private individuals, who as such had no authority in ecclesiastical society. Canon is derived from the Greek kanon, i.e. a rule or practical direction (not to speak of the other meanings of the word, such as list or catalogue), a term which soon acquired an exclusively ecclesiastical signification. In the fourth century it was applied to the ordinances of the councils, and thus contrasted with the Greek word nomoi, the ordinances of the civil authorities; the compound word "Nomocanon" was given to those collections of regulations in which the laws formulated by the two authorities on ecclesiastical matters were to be found side by side. At an early period we meet with expressions referring to the body of ecclesiastical legislation then in process of formation: canones, ordo canonicus, sanctio canonica; but the expression "canon law" (jus canonicum) becomes current only about the beginning of the twelfth century, being used in contrast with the "civil law" (jus civile), and later we have the "Corpus juris canonici", as we have the "Corpus juris Civilis". Canon law is also called "ecclesiastical law" (jus ecclesiasticum); however, strictly speaking, there is a slight difference of meaning between the two expressions: canon law denotes in particular the law of the "Corpus Juris", including the regulations borrowed from Roman law; whereas ecclesiastical law refers to all laws made by the ecclesiastical authorities as such, including those made after the compiling of the "Corpus Juris". Contrasted with the imperial or Caesarian law (jus caesareum), canon law is sometimes styled pontifical law (jus pontificium), often also it is termed sacred law (jus sacrum), and sometimes even Divine law (jus divinum: c. 2, De privil.), as it concerns holy things, and has for its object the wellbeing of souls in the society divinely established by Jesus Christ.

Canon law may be divided into various branches, according to the points of view from which it is considered:

• If we consider its sources, it comprises Divine law, including natural law, based on the nature of things and on the constitution given by Jesus Christ to His Church; and human or positive law, formulated by the legislator, in conformity with the Divine law. We shall return to this later, when treating of the sources of canon law.
• If we consider the form in which it is found, we have the written law (jus scriptum) comprising the laws promulgated by the competent authorities, and the unwritten law (jus non scripture), or even customary law, resulting from practice and custom; the latter however became less important as the written law developed.
• If we consider the subject matter of the law, we have the public law (jus publicum) and private law (jus privatum). This division is explained in two different ways by the different schools of writers: for most of the adherents of the Roman school, e.g. Cavagnis (Instit. jur. publ. eccl., Rome, 1906, I, 8), public law is the law of the Church as a perfect society, and even as a perfect society such as it has been established by its Divine founder: private law would therefore embrace all the regulations of the ecclesiastical authorities concerning the internal organization of that society, the functions of its ministers, the rights and duties of its members. Thus understood, the public ecclesiastical law would be derived almost exclusively from Divine and natural law. On the other hand, most of the adherents of the German school, following the idea of the Roman law (Inst., I, i, 4; "Publicum jus est quad ad statuary rei Romanae spectat: privatum quad ad privatorum utilitatem"), define public law as the body of laws determining the rights and duties of those invested with ecclesiastical authority, whereas for them private law is that which sets forth the rights and duties of individuals as such. Public law would, therefore, directly intend the welfare of society as such, and indirectly that of its members; while private law would look primarily to the wellbeing of the individual and secondarily to that of the community.
• Public law is divided into external law (jus externum) and internal law (jus internum). External law determines the relations of ecclesiastical society with other societies. either secular bodies (the relations therefore of the Church and the State) or religious bodies, that is, interconfessional relations. Internal law is concerned with the constitution of the Church and the relations subsisting between the lawfully constituted authorities and their subjects.
• Considered from the point of view of its expression, canon law may be divided into several branches, so closely allied, that the terms used to designate them are often employed almost indifferently: common law and special law; universal law and particular law; general law and singular law (jus commune et speciale; jus universale et particulare; jus generale et singulare). It is easy to point out the difference between them: the idea is that of a wider or a more limited scope; to be more precise, common law refers to things, universal law to territories, general law to persons; so regulations affecting only certain things, certain territories, certain classes of persons, being a restriction or an addition, constitute special, particular, or singular law, and even local or individual law. This exceptional law is often referred to as a privilege (privilegium, lex privata), though the expression is applied more usually to concessions made to an individual. The common law, therefore, is that which is to be observed with regard to a certain matter, unless the legislator has foreseen or granted exceptions; for instance, the laws regulating benefices contain special provisions for benefices subject to the right of patronage. Universal law is that which is promulgated for the whole Church; but different countries and different dioceses may have local laws limiting the application of the former and even derogating from it. Finally, different classes of persons, the clergy, religious orders, etc., have their own laws which are superadded to the general law.
• We have to distinguish between the law of the Western or Latin Church, and the law of the Eastern Churches, and of each of them. Likewise, between the law of the Catholic Church and those of the non-Catholic Christian Churches or confessions, the Anglican Church and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches.
• Finally, if we look to the history or chronological evolution of canon law, we find three epochs: from the beginning to the "Decretum" of Gratian exclusively; from Gratian to the Council of Trent; from the Council of Trent to our day. The law of these three periods is referred to respectively as the ancient, the new, and the recent law (jus antiquum, novum, novissimum), though some writers prefer to speak of the ancient law, the law of the Middle Ages, and the modern law (Laurentius, "Instit.", n.4).

II. CANON LAW AS A SCIENCE

As we shall see in treating of the gradual development of the material of canon law (see below, IV), though a legislative power has always existed in the Church, and though it has always been exercised, a long period had necessarily to elapse before the laws were reduced to a harmonious systematic body, serving as a basis for methodical study and giving rise to general theories. In the first place, the legislative authority makes laws only when circumstances require them and in accordance with a definite plan. For centuries, nothing more was done than to collect successively the canons of councils, ancient and recent, the letters of popes, and episcopal statutes; guidance was sought for in these, when analogous cases occurred, but no one thought of extracting general principles from them or of systematizing all the laws then in force. In the eleventh century certain collections group under the same headings the canons that treat of the same matters; however, it is only in the middle of the twelfth century that we meet in the "Decretum" of Gratian the first really scientific treatise on canon law. The School of Bologna had just revived the study of Roman law; Gratian sought to inaugurate a similar study of canon law. But, while compilations of texts and official collections were available for Roman law, or "Corpus juris civilis", Gratian had no such assistance. He therefore adopted the plan of inserting the texts in the body of his general treatise; from the disordered mass of canons collected from the earliest days, he selected not only the law actually in force (eliminating the regulations which had fallen into desuetude, or which were revoked, or not of general application) but also the principles; he elaborated a system of law which, however incomplete, was nevertheless methodical. The science of canon law, i.e. the methodical and coordinated knowledge of ecclesiastical law, was at length established.

Gratian's "Decretum" was a wonderful work; welcomed, taught and glossed by the decretists at Bologna and later in the other schools and universities, it was for a long time the textbook of canon law. However his plan was defective and confusing, and, after the day of the glosses and the strictly literal commentaries, it was abandoned in favour of the method adopted by Bernard of Pavia in his "Breviarium" and by St. Raymund of Pennafort in the official collection of the "Decretals" of Gregory IX, promulgated in 1234 (see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI). These collections, which did not include the texts used by Gratian, grouped the materials into five books, each divided into "titles", and under each title the decretals or fragments of decretals were grouped in chronological order. The five books, the subject matter of which is recalled by the well-known verse: "judex, judicium, clerus, connubia, crimen" (i.e. judge, judgment, clergy, marriages, crime), did not display a very logical plan; not to speak of certain titles that were more or less out of place. They treated successively of the depositaries of authority, procedure, the clergy and the things pertaining to them, marriage, crimes and penalties. In spite of its defects, the system had at least the merit of being official; not only was it adopted in the latter collections, but it served as the basis for almost all canonical works up to the sixteenth century, and even to our day, especially in the universities, each of which had a faculty of canon law.

However, the method of studying and teaching gradually developed: if the early decretalists made use of the elementary plan of the gloss and literal commentary, their successors in composing their treatises were more independent of the text; they commented on the titles, not on the chapters or the words; often they followed the titles or chapters only nominally and artificially. In the sixteenth century they tried to apply, not to the official collections, but in their lectures on canon law the method and division of the "Institutes" of Justinian: persons, things, actions or procedure, crimes, and penalties (Institutes, I, ii, 12). This plan, popularized by the "Institutiones juris canonici" of Lancellotti (1563), has been followed since by most of the canonist authors of "Institutiones" or manuals, though there has been considerable divergence in the subdivisions; most of the more extensive works, however, preserved the order of the "Decretals". This was also followed in the 1917 code. In later times many textbooks, especially in Germany, began to adopt original plans. In the sixteenth century too, the study of canon law was developed and improved like that of other sciences, by the critical spirit of the age: doubtful texts were rejected and the raison d'être and tendency or intention of later laws traced back to the customs of former days. Canon law was more studied and better understood; writings multiplied, some of an historical nature, others practical, according to the inclination of the authors. In the universities and seminaries, it became a special study, though as might be expected, not always held in equal esteem. It may be noted too that the study of civil law is now frequently separated from that of canon law, a result of the changes that have come over society. On the other hand, in too many seminaries the teaching of ecclesiastical law is not sufficiently distinguished from that of moral theology. The publication of the new general code of canon law will certainly bring about a more normal state of affairs.

The first object of the science of canon law is to fix the laws that are in force. This is not difficult when one has exact and recent texts, drawn up as abstract laws, e.g. most of the texts since the Council of Trent, and as will be the case for all canon law when the new code is published. But it was not so in the Middle Ages; it was the canonists who, to a large extent, formulated the law by extracting it from the accumulated mass of texts or by generalizing from the individual decisions in the early collections of decretals. When the law in force is known it must be explained, and this second object of the science of canon law is still unchanged. It consists in showing the true sense, the reason, the extension and application of each law and each institution. This necessitates a careful and exact application of the triple method of exposition, historical, philosophical, and practical: the first explains the law in accordance with its source and the evolution of customs; the second explains its principles; the last shows how it is to be applied at present. This practical application is the object of jurisprudence, which collects, coordinates and utilizes, for more or less analogous cases, the decisions of the competent tribunal. From this we may learn the position of canon law in the hierarchy of sciences. It is a judicial science, differing from the science of Roman law and of civil law inasmuch as it treats of the laws of an other society; but as this society is of the spiritual order and in a certain sense supernatural, canon law belongs also to the sacred sciences. In this category it comes after theology, which studies and explains in accordance with revelation, the truths to be believed; it is supported by theology, but in its turn it formulates the practical rules toward which theology tends, and so it has been called "theologia practica", "theologia rectrix". In as far as it is practical the science of canon law is closely related to moral theology; however, it differs from the latter which is not directly concerned with the acts prescribed or forbidden by the external law, but only with the rectitude of human acts in the light of the last end of man, whereas, canon law treats of the external laws relating to the good order of society rather than the workings of the individual conscience. Juridical, historical, and above all theological sciences are most useful for the comprehensive study of canon law.

III. SOURCES OF CANON LAW

This expression has a twofold meaning; it may refer to the sources from which the laws come and which give the latter their judicial force (fortes juris essendi); or it may refer to the sources where canon law is to be found (fortes juris cognoscendi), i.e. the laws themselves such as they occur in the texts and various codes. These sources are also called the material and the formal sources of canon law. We shall consider first the sources under the former aspect.

The ultimate source of canon law is God, Whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law), or by Revelation (positive Divine law). Both are contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Positive Divine law cannot contradict natural law; it rather confirms it and renders it more definite. The Church accepts and considers both as sovereign binding laws which it can interpret but can not modify; however, it does not discover natural law by philosophic speculation; it receives it, with positive Divine law, from God through His inspired Books, though this does not imply a confusion of the two kinds of Divine law. Of the Old Law the Church has preserved in addition to the Decalogue some precepts closely allied to natural law, e.g. certain matrimonial impediments; as to the other laws given by God to His chosen people, it considers them to have been ritual and declares them abrogated by Jesus Christ. Or rather, Jesus Christ, the Lawgiver of the spiritual society founded by Him (Con. Trid., Sess. VI, "De justif.", can. I), has replaced them by the fundamental laws which He gave His Church. This Christian Divine law, if we may so call it, is found in the Gospels, in the Apostolic writings, in the living Tradition, which transmits laws as well as dogmas. On this positive Divine law depend the essential principles of the Church's constitution, the primacy, the episcopacy, the essential elements of Divine worship and the Sacraments, the indissolubility of marriage, etc.

Again, to attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. The sources or authors of this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head, the pope, the successors of the Apostolic College and its divinely appointed head, Saint Peter. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of canon law. Their activity is exercised in its most solemn form by the ecumenical councils, where the episcopate united with its head, and convoked and presided over by him, with him defines its teaching and makes the laws that bind the whole Church. The canons of the Ecumenical councils, especially those of Trent, hold an exceptional place in ecclesiastical law. But, without infringing on the ordinary power of the bishops, the pope, as head of the episcopate, possesses in himself the same powers as the episcopate united with him. It is true that the disciplinary and legislative power of the popes has not always, in the course of centuries, been exercised in the same manner and to the same extent, but in proportion as the administration became centralized, their direct intervention in legislation became more and more marked; and so the sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart ("in scrinio pectoris"; Boniface VIII. c. i, "De Constit." in VI). From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the councils, the principal element of canon law, not only of the Roman Church and its immediate dependencies. but of all Christendom; they are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious "decretals" (decreta, statuta, epistolae decretales, and epistolae synodicae). Later, the pontifical laws are promulgated more usually as constitutions, Apostolic Letters, the latter being classified as Bulls or Briefs, according to their external form, or even as spontaneous acts, "Motu proprio". Moreover, the legislative and disciplinary power of the pope not being an in communicable privilege, the laws and regulations made in his name and with his approbation possess his authority: in fact, though most of the regulations made by the Congregations of the cardinals and other organs of the Curia are incorporated in the Apostolic Letters, yet the custom exists and is becoming more general for legislation to be made by mere decrees of the Congregations, with the papal approval. These are the "Acts of the Holy See" (Acta Sancte Sedis), and their object or purpose permitting, are real laws (see ROMAN CURIA).

Next to the pope, the bishops united in local councils, and each of them individually, are sources of law for their common or particular territory; canons of national or provincial councils, and diocesan statutes, constitute local law. Numerous texts of such origin are found in the ancient canonical collections. At the present day and for a long time past, the law has laid down clearly the powers of local councils and of bishops; if their decrees should interfere with the common law they have no authority save in virtue of pontifical approbation. It is well known that diocesan statutes are not referred to the sovereign pontiff, whereas the decrees of provincial councils are submitted for examination and approval to the Holy See (Const. "Immensa" of Sixtus V, 22 Jan., 1587). We may liken to bishops in this matter various bodies that have the right of governing themselves and thus enjoy a certain autonomy; such are prelates with territorial jurisdiction, religious orders, some exempt chapters and universities, etc. The concessions granted to them are generally subject to a certain measure of control.

Other sources of law are rather impersonal in their nature, chief among them being custom or the unwritten law. In canon law custom has become almost like a legislator; not in the sense that the people are made their own lawgiver, but a practice followed by the greater part of the community, and which is reasonable and fulfills the legal requirements for prescription and is observed as obligatory, acquires the force of law by at least the tacit consent of the legislator. Under such circumstances custom can create or rescind a legal obligation, derogate from a law, interpret it, etc. But it must be remarked that in our days, owing to the fully developed body of written law, custom plays a much less important part than did the practices and habits of early Christian times, when there was but little written law and even that seldom of wide application. The civil law of different nations, and especially the Roman law, may be numbered among the accessory sources of canon law. But it is necessary to explain more exactly its role and importance. Evidently secular law cannot be, strictly speaking, a source of canon law, the State as such having no competence in spiritual matters; yet it may become so by the more or less formal acceptation of particular laws by the ecclesiastical authorities. We pass by in the first place the laws made by the mutual agreement of both parties, such as the legislation of the numerous assemblies in the Visigothic kingdom, and the Frankish kingdom and empire, where the bishops sat with the lords and nobles. Such also is the case of the concordats of later ages, real contracts between the two powers. In these cases we have an ecclesiastico-civil law, the legal force of which arose from the joint action of the two competent authorities. It is in a different sense that Roman law, Germanic law, and in a lesser degree modern law, have become a subsidiary source of canon law.

It must be remembered that the Church existed for a long time before having a complete and coordinated system of law; that many daily acts of its administration, while objectively canonical, were of the same nature as similar acts in civil matters, e.g. contracts, obligations, and in general the administration of property; it was quite natural for the Church to accommodate itself in these matters to the existing flows, with out positively approving of them. Later when the canonists of the twelfth century began to systematize the ecclesiastical law, they found themselves in presence, on the one hand, of a fragmentary canon law, and on the other hand of the complete methodical Roman code; they had recourse to the latter to supply what was wanting in the former, whence the maxim adopted by the canonists and inserted in the "Corpus Juris", that the Church acts according to Roman law when canon law is silent (cap. 1. "De novi op. nunc.", X, i, V, tit. xxxii). Moreover, in the Teutonic kingdoms the clergy followed the Roman law as a personal statute. However, in proportion as the written canon law increased, Roman law became of less practical value in the Church (cap. 28, X, "De priv.", X, lib. V, tit. xxxiii). Canon law, it may be said, adopted from Roman law what relates to obligations, contracts, judiciary actions, and to a great extent civil procedure. Other Roman laws were the object of a more positive recognition than mere usage, i.e. they were formally approved, those, for instance, which though of secular origin, concerned ecclesiastical things, e.g. the Byzantine ecclesiastical laws, or again laws of civil origin and character but which were changed into canonical laws, e.g. the impediment of marriage arising from adoption. The juridical influence of Teutonic law was much less important, if we abstract from the inevitable adaptation to the customs of barbarous races, yet some survivals of this law in ecclesiastical legislation are worthy of note: the somewhat feudal system of benefices; the computation of the degrees of kindred; the assimilating of the penitential practices to the system of penal compensation (wehrgeld); finally, but for a time only, justification from criminal charges on the oath of guarantors or co-jurors (De purgatione canonica, lib. V, tit. xxxiv).

Modern law has only a restricted and local influence on canon law, and that particularly on two points. On the one hand, the Church conforms to the civil laws on mixed matters, especially with regard to the administration of its property; on some occasions even it has finally adopted as its own measures passed by the civil powers acting independently; a notable case is the French decree of 1809 on the "Fabriques d'église". On the other hand, modern legislation is indebted to the canon law for certain beneficial measures: part of the procedure in criminal, civil, and matrimonial cases, and to some extent, the organization of courts and tribunals.

IV. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTS AND COLLECTIONS

Considered under the second aspect, the sources of canon law are the legislative texts, and the collections of those texts whence we derive our knowledge of the Church's laws. In order to appreciate fully the reasons for and the utility of the great work of codification of the canon law, recently begun by order of Pius X, it is necessary to recall the general history of those texts and collections, ever increasing in number up to the present time. A detailed account of each of the canonical collections is here out of place; the more important ones are the subject of special articles, to which we refer the reader; it will suffice if we exhibit the different stages in the development of these texts and collections, and make clear the movement to wards centralization and unification that has led up to the present situation. Even in the private collections of the early centuries, in which the series of conciliary canons were merely brought together in more or less chronological order, a constant tendency towards unification is noticeable. From the ninth century onwards the collections are systematically arranged; with the thirteenth century begins the first official collections, thenceforth the nucleus around which the new legislative texts centre, though it is not yet possible to reduce them to a harmonious and coordinated code. Before tracing the various steps of this evolution, some terms require to be explained. The name "canonical collections" is given to all collections of ecclesiastical legislative texts, because the principal texts were the canons of the councils. At first the authors of these collections contented themselves with bringing together the canons of the different councils in chronological order; consequently these are called "chronological" collections; in the West, the last important chronological collection is that of Pseudo-Isidore. After his time the texts were arranged according to subject matter; these are the "systematic" collections, the only form in use since the time of Pseudo-Isidore. All the ancient collections are private, due to personal initiative, and have, therefore, as collections, no official authority: each text has only its own intrinsic value; even the "Decretum" of Gratian is of this nature. On the other hand, official or authentic collections are those that have been made or at least promulgated by the legislator. They begin with the "Compilatio tertia" of Innocent III; the later collections of the "Corpus Juris", except the "Extravagantes", are official. All the texts in an official collection have the force of law. There are also general collections and particular collections: the former treating of legislation in general, the latter treating of some special subject, for instance, marriage, procedure, etc., or even of the local law of a district. Finally, considered chronologically, the sources and collections are classified as previous to or later than the "Corpus Juris".

A. Canonical Collections In the East

Until the Church began to enjoy peace, the written canon law was very meagre; after making full allowance for the documents that must have perished, we can discover only a fragmentary law, made as circumstances demanded, and devoid of all system. Unity of legislation, in as far as it can be expected at that period, is identical with a certain uniformity of practice, based on the prescriptions of Divine law relative to the constitution of the Church, the liturgy, the sacraments, etc. The clergy, organized everywhere in the same way, exercised almost everywhere the same functions. But at an early period we discover a greater local disciplinary uniformity between the Churches of the great sees (Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch, later Constantinople) and the Churches depending immediately on them. Further it is the disciplinary decisions of the bishops of the various regions that form the first nucleus of local canon law; these texts, spreading gradually from one country to another by means of the collections, obtain universal dissemination and in this way are the basis of general canon law.

There were, however, in the East, from the early days up to the end of the fifth century, certain writings, closely related to each other, and which were in reality brief canon law treatises on ecclesiastical administration the duties of the clergy and the faithful, and especially on the liturgy. We refer to works attributed to the Apostles, very popular in the Oriental Churches, though devoid of official authority, and which may be called pseudo-epigraphic, rather than apocryphal. The principal writings of this kind are the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or "Didache", the "Didascalia", based on the "Didache"; the "Apostolic Constitutions", an expansion of the two preceding works; then the "Apostolic Church Ordinance", the "Definitio canonica SS. Apostolorum", the "Testament of the Lord" and the "Octateuch of Clement"; lastly the "Apostolic Canons". Of all this literature, only the "Apostolic Canons" werein cluded in the canonical collections of the Greek Church. The most important of these documents the "Apostolic Constitutions", was removed by the Second Canon of the Council in Trullo (692), as having been interpolated by the heretics. As to the eighty-five Apostolic Canons, accepted by the same council, they rank yet first in the above-mentioned "Apostolic" collection; the first fifty translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus (c. 500), were included in the Western collections and afterwards in the "Corpus Juris".

As the later law of the separated Eastern Churches did not influence the Western collections, we need not treat of it, but go on to consider only the Greek collection. It begins early in the fourth century: in the different provinces of Asia Minor, to the canons of local councils are added those of the ecumenical Council of Nicea (325), everywhere held in esteem. The Province of Pontus furnished the penitentiary decisions of Ancyra and Neocaesarea (314); Antioch; the canons of the famous Council "in encaeniis" (341), a genuine code of metropolitan organization; Paphlagonia, that of the Council of Gangra (343), a reaction against the first excesses of asceticism; Phrygia, the fifty-nine canons of Laodicea on different disciplinary and liturgical matters. This collection was so highly esteemed that at the Council of Chalcedon (451) the canons were read as one series. It was increased later by the addition of the canons of (Constantinople (381), with other canons attributed to it, those of Ephesus (431). Chalcedon (451), and the Apostolic canons. In 692 the Council in Trullo passed 102 disciplinary canons, the second of which enumerates the elements of the official collection: they are the texts we have just mentioned, together with the canons of Sardica, and of Carthage (419), according to Dionysius Exiguus, and numerous canonical letters of the great bishops, SS. Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Basil, etc. If to these be added the canons of the two ecumenical councils of Nicea (787) and Constantinople (869) we have all the elements of the definitive collection in its final shape. A few "systematic" collections may be mentioned as pertaining to this period: one containing fifty titles by an unknown author about 535; another with twenty-five titles of the ecclesiastical laws of Justinian; a collection of fifty titles drawn up about 550, by John the Scholastic, a priest of Antioch. The compilations known as the "Nomocanons" are more important, because they bring together the civil laws and the ecclesiastical laws on the same subjects; the two principal are the Nomocanon, wrongly attributed to John the Scholastic, but which dates from the end of the sixth century, with fifty titles, and another, drawn up in the seventh century, and afterwards augmented by the Patriarch Photius in 883.

B. The Canonical Collections in the West to Pseudo-Isidore

In the West, canonical collections developed as in the East, but about two centuries later. At first appear collections of national or local laws, and the tendency towards centralization is partially effected in the ninth century. Towards the end of the fourth century there is yet in the West no canonical collection, not even a local one, those of the fifth century are essentially local, but all of them borrow from the Greek councils. The latter were known in the West by two Latin versions, one called the "Hispana" or "Isidorian", because it was inserted in the Spanish canonical collection, attributed to St. Isidore of Seville, the other called the "Itala" or "ancient" (Prisca), because Dionysius Exiguus, in the first half of the sixth century, found it in use at Rome, and being dissatisfied with its imperfections improved it. Almost all the Western collections, therefore, are based on the same texts as the Greek collection, hence the marked influence of that collection on Western canon law.

(1) At the end of the fifth century the Roman Church was completely organized and the popes had promulgated many legislative texts; but no collection of them had yet been made. The only extra-Roman canons recognized were the canons of Nicea and Sardica, the latter being joined to the former, and at times even cited as the canons of Nicea. The Latin version of the ancient Greek councils was known, but was not adopted as ecclesiastical law. Towards the year 500 Dionysius Exiguus compiled at Rome a double collection, one of the councils, the other of decretals, i.e. papal letters. The former, executed at the request of Stephen, Bishop of Salona, is a translation of the Greek councils, including Chalcedon, and begins with the fifty Apostolic canons; Dionysius adds to it only the Latin text of the canons of Sardica and of Carthage (419), in which the more ancient African councils are partially reproduced. The second is a collection of thirty-nine papal decretals, from Siricius (384) to Anastasius II (496-98). (See CANONS, COLLECTIONS OF ANCIENT.) Thus joined together these two collections became the canonical code of the Roman Church, not by official approbation, but by authorized practice. But while in the work of Dionysius the collection of conciliary canons remained unchanged, that of the decretals was successively increased; it continued to incorporate letters of the different popes till about the middle of the eighth century when Adrian I gave (774) the collection of Dionysius to the future Emperor Charlemagne as the canonical book of the Roman Church. This collection, often called the "Dionysio-Hadriana", was soon officially received in all Frankish territory, where it was cited as the "Liber Canonum", and was adopted for the whole empire of Charlemagne at the Diet of Aachen in 802. This was an important step towards the centralization and unification of the ecclesiastical law, especially as the Latin Catholic world hardly extended beyond the limits of the empire, Africa and the south of Spain having been lost to the Church through the victories of Islam.

(2) The canon law of the African Church was strongly centralized at Carthage; the documents naturally took the form of a collection, as it was customary to read and insert in the Acts of each council the decisions of the preceding councils. At the time of the invasion of the Vandals, the canonical code of the African Church comprised, after the canons of Nicea, those of the Council of Carthage under Bishop Gratus (about 348), under Genethlius (390), of twenty or twenty-two plenary councils under Aurelius (from 393 to 427), and the minor councils of Constantinople. Unfortunately these records have not come down to us in their entirety; we possess them in two forms: in the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, as the canons of a "Concilium Africanum"; in the Spanish collection, as those of eight councils (the fourth wrongly attributed, being a document from Aries, dating about the beginning of the sixth century). Through these two channels the African texts entered into Western canon law. It will suffice to mention the two "systematic" collections of Fulgentius Ferrandus and Cresconius.

(3) The Church in Gaul had no local religious centre, the territory being divided into unstable kingdoms; it is not surprising therefore that we meet no centralized canon law or universally accepted collection. There are numerous councils, however, and an abundance of texts; but if we except the temporary authority of the See of Arles, no church of Gaul could point to a permanent group of dependent sees. The canonical collections were fairly numerous, but none was generally accepted. The most widespread was the "Quesnelliana", called after its editor (the Jansenist Paschase Quesnel), rich, but badly arranged, containing many Greek, Gallic, and other councils, also pontifical decretals. With the other collections it gave way to the "Hadriana", at the end of the eighth century.

(4) In Spain, on the contrary, at least after the conversion of the Visigoths, the Church was strongly centralized in the See of Toledo, and in close union with the royal power. Previous to this, we must note the collection of St. Martin of Braga, a kind of adaptation of conciliary canons, often incorrectly cited in the Middle Ages as the "Capitula Martini papae" (about 563). It was absorbed in the large and important collection of the Visigothic Church. The latter, begun as early as the council of 633 and increased by the canons of subsequent councils, is known as the "Hispana" or "Isidoriana", because in later times it was attributed (erroneously) to St. Isidore of Seville. It comprises two parts: the councils and the decretals; the councils are arranged in four sections: the East, Africa, Gaul, Spain, and chronological order is observed in each section; the decretals, 104 in number, range from Pope St. Damasus to St. Gregory (366-604). Its original elements consist of the Spanish councils from Elvira (about 300) to the Seventeenth Council of Toledo in 694. The influence of this collection, in the form it assumed about the middle of the ninth century, when the False Decretals were inserted into it, was very great.

(5) Of Great Britain and Ireland we need mention only the Irish collection of the beginning of the eighth century, from which several texts passed to the continent; it is remarkable for including among its canons citations from the Scriptures and the Fathers.

(6) The collection of the False Decretals, or the Pseudo-Isidore (about 850), is the last and most complete of the "chronological" collections, and therefore the one most used by the authors of the subsequent "systematic" collections; it is the "Hispana" or Spanish collection together with apocryphal decretals attributed to the popes of the first centuries up to the time of St. Damasus, when the authentic decretals begin. It exerted a very great influence.

(7) To conclude the list of collections, where the later canonists were to garner their materials, we must mention the "Penitentials", the "Ordines" or ritual collections, the "Formularies", especially the "Liber Diurnus"; also compilations of laws, either purely secular, or semi-ecclesiastical, like the "Capitularies" (q.v.). The name "capitula" or "capitularia" is given also to the episcopal ordinances quite common in the ninth century. It may be noted that the author of the False Decretals forged also false "Capitularies", under the name of Benedict the Deacon, and false episcopal "Capitula", under the name of Angilramnus, Bishop of Metz.

C. Canonical Collections to the Time of Gratian

The Latin Church was meanwhile moving towards closer unity; the local character of canonical discipline and laws gradually disappears, and the authors of canonical collections exhibit a more personal note, i.e. they pick out more or less advantageously the texts, which they borrow from the "chronological" compilations, though they display as yet no critical discernment, and include many apocryphal documents, while others continue to be attributed to the wrong sources. They advance, nevertheless, especially when to the bare texts they add their own opinions and ideas. From the end of the ninth century to the middle of the twelfth these collections are very numerous; many of them are still unpublished, and some deservedly so. We can only mention the principal ones:

• A collection in twelve books, compiled in Northern Italy, and dedicated to an Archbishop Anselm, doubtless Anselm II of Milan (833-97), still unedited; it seems to have been widely used.
• The "Libri duo de synodalibus causis" of Regino, Abbot of Prum (d. 915), a pastoral visitation manual of the bishop of the diocese, edited by Wasserschleben (1840).
• The voluminous compilation, in twenty books, of Burchard, Bishop of Worms, compiled between 1012 and 1022, entitled the "Collectarium", also "Decretum", a manual for the use of ecclesiastics in their ministry; the nineteenth book, "Corrector" or "Medicus", treats of the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, and was often current as a distinct work. This widely circulated collection is in P.L., CXL. At the end of the eleventh century there appeared in Italy several collections favouring the reform of Gregory VII and supporting the Holy See in the in vestiture strife; some of the authors utilized for their works the Roman archives.
• The collection of Anselm, Bishop of Lucca (d. 1086), in thirteen books, still unedited, an influential work.
• The collection of Cardinal Deusdedit, dedicated to Pope Victor III (1087), it treats of the primacy of the pope, of the Roman clergy, ecclesiastical property, immunities, and was edited by Martinucci in 1869, more recently and better by Wolf von Glanvell (1905).
• The "Breviarium" of Cardinal Atto; edited by Mai, "Script. vet. nova collect.", VI, app. 1832.
• The collection of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri in ten books, written after 1089, still unedited.
• The collection of Cardinal Gregory, called by him "Polycarpus", in eight books, written before 1120, yet unedited.
• In France we must mention the small collection of Abbo, Abbot of Fleury (d. 1004). in fifty-two chapters, in P. L., CXXXIX; and especially
• the collections of Ives, Bishop of Chartres (d. 1115 or 1117), i.e. the "Collectio trium partium", the "Decretum", es pecially the "Panormia", a short compilation in eight books, extracted from the preceding two works, and widely used. The "Decretum" and the "Panormia" are in P. L., CLXI.
• The unedited Spanish collection of Saragossa (Caesar-augustana) is based on these works of Ives of Chartres.
• Finally, the "De misericordia et justitia", in three books, composed before 1121 by Algerus of Liège, a general treatise on ecclesiastical discipline, in which is fore shadowed the scholastic method of Gratian, reprinted in P.L., CLXXX.

D. The "Decretum" of Gratian: the Decretists

The "Concordantia discordantium canonum", known later as "Decretum", which Gratian published at Bologna about 1148, is not, as we consider it today, a collection of canonical texts, but a general treatise, in which the texts cited are inserted to help in establishing the law. It is true that the work is very rich in texts and there is hardly a canon of any importance contained in the earlier collections (including the decisions of the Lateran Council of 1139 and recent papal decretals) that Gratian has not used. His object, however, was to build up a juridical system from all these documents. Despite its imperfections, it must be admitted that the work of Gratian was as near perfection as was then possible. For that reason it was adopted at Bologna, and soon elsewhere, as the textbook for the study of canon law. (For an account of this collection see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI; CANONS.) We may here recall again that the "Decretum" of Gratian is not a codification, but a privately compiled treatise; further, that the building up of a general system of canon law was the work of the canonists, and not of the legislative authorities as such.

Quite as the professors at Bologna commented on Justinian's "Corpus juris civilis", so they began at once to comment on Gratian's work, the personal element as well as his texts. The first commentators are called the "Decretists". In their lectures (Lat. lecturae, readings) they treated of the conclusions to be drawn from each part and solved the problems (quaestiones) arising therefrom. They synopsized their teaching in "glosses", interlinear at first, then marginal, or they composed separate treatises known as "Apparatus", "Summae", "Repetitiones", or else collected "casus", "questiones", "Margaritae", "Breviaria", etc. The principal decretists are:

• Paucapalea, perhaps the first disciple of Gratian, whence, it is said, the name "palea" given to the additions to the "Decretum" (his "Summa" was edited by Schulte in 1890);
• Roland Bandinelli, later Alexander III (his "Summa" was edited by Thaner in 1874);
• Omnibonus, 1185 (see Schulte, "De Decreto ab Omnibono abbreviate", 1892);
• John of Faenza (d. bishop of that city in 1190);
• Rufinus ("Summa" edited by Singer, 1902);
• Stephen of Tournai (d. 1203; "Summa" edited by Schulte, 1891);
• the great canonist Huguccio (d. 1910; "Summa" edited by M. Gillmann);
• Sicard of Cremona (d. 1215);
• John the Teuton, really Semeca or Zemcke (d. 1245);
• Guido de Baysio, the "archdeacon" (of Bologna, d. 1313); and especially
• Bartholomew of Brescia (d. 1258), author of the "gloss" on the "Decretum" in its last form.

E. Decretals and Decretalists

While lecturing on Gratian's work the canonists laboured to complete and elaborate the master's teaching; with that view they collected assiduously the decretals of the popes, and especially the canons of the Ecumenical councils of the Lateran (1179, 1215); but these compilations were not intended to form a complete code, they merely centred round and supplemented Gratian's "Decretum"; for that reason these Decretals are known as the "Extravagantes", i.e. outside of, or extraneous to, the official collections. The five collections thus made between 1190 and 1226 (see DECRETALS), and which were to serve as the basis for the work of Gregory IX, mark a distinct step forward in the evolution of canon law: whereas Gratian had inserted the texts in his own treatise, and the canonists wrote their works without including the texts, we have now compilations of supplementary texts for the purpose of teaching, but which nevertheless remain quite distinct; in addition, we at last find the legislators taking part officially in editing the collections. While the "Breviarium" of Bernard of Pavia, the first to exhibit the division into five books and into titles, which St. Raymund of Pennafort was later to adopt, is the work of a private individual, the "Compilatio tertia" of Innocent III in 1210, and the "Compilatio quinta" of Honorius III, in 1226, are official collections. Though the popes, doubtless, intended only to give the professors at Bologna correct and authentic texts, they nevertheless acted officially; these collections, however, are but supplements to Gratian.

This is also true of the great collection of "Decretals" of Gregory IX (see DECRETALS and CORPUS JURIS CANONICI). The pope wished to collect in a more uniform and convenient manner the decretals scattered through so many different compilations; he entrusted this synopsis to his chaplain Raymund of Pennafort, and in 1234 sent it officially to the universities of Bologna and Paris. He did not wish to suppress or supplant the "Decretum" of Gratian, but this eventually occurred. The "Decretals" of Gregory IX, though composed in great part of specific decisions, represented in fact a more advanced state of law; furthermore, the collection was sufficiently extensive to touch almost every matter, and could serve as a basis for a complete course of instruction. It soon gave rise to a series of commentaries, glosses, and works, as the "Decretum" of Gratian had done, only these were more important since they were based on more recent and actual legislation. The commentators of the Decretals were known as Decretalists. The author of the "gloss" was Bernard de Botone (d. 1263); the text was commented on by the most distinguished canonists; among the best known previous to the sixteenth century, we must mention:

• Bernard of Pavia ("Summa" edited by Laspeyres, 1860),
• Tancred, archdeacon of Bologna, d. 1230 ("Summa de Matrimonio", ed. Wunderlich, 1841);
• Godfrey of Trani (1245);
• Sinibaldo Fieschi, later Innocent IV (1254), whose "Apparatus in quinque libros decre taliurn" has been frequently reprinted since 1477;
• Henry of Susa, later Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia (d. 1271), hence "Hostiensis"; his "Summa Hostiensis", or "Summa aurea" was one of the best known canonical works, and was printed as early as 1473;
• Aegilius de Fuscarariis (d. 1289);
• William Durandus (d. 1296, Bishop of Mende), surnamed "Speculator", on account of his important treatise on procedure, the "Speculum judiciale", printed in 1473;
• Guido de Baysio, the "archdeacon", already mentioned;
• Nicolas de Tudeschis (d. 1453), also known as "Abbes siculus" or simply "Panormitanus" (or also "Abbas junior seu modernus") to distinguish him from the "Abbas antiques", whose name is unknown and who commented on the Decretals about 1275); Nicolas left a "Lecture" on the Decretals, the Liber Sextus, and the Clementines.

For some time longer, the same method of collecting was followed; not to speak of the private compilations, the popes continued to keep up to date the "Decretals" of Gregory IX; in 1245 Innocent IV sent a collection of forty-two decretals to the universities, ordering them to be inserted in their proper places; in 1253 he forwarded the "initia" or first words of the authentic decretals that were to be accepted. Later Gregory X and Nicholas III did likewise, but with little profit, and none of these brief supplementary collections survived. The work was again undertaken by Boniface VIII, who had prepared and published an official collection to complete the five existing books; this was known as the "Sextus" (Liber Sextus). Clement V also had prepared a collection which, in addition to his own decretals, contained the decisions of the Council of Vienne (1311-12); it was published in 1317 by his successor John XXII and was called the "Clementina." This was the last of the medieval official collections. Two later compilations included in the "Corpus Juris" are private works, the "Extravagantes of John XXII", arranged in 1325 by Zenzelin de Cassanis, who glossed them, and the "Extra vagantes communes", a belated collection; it was only in the edition of the "Corpus Juris" by Jean Chappuis, in 1500, that these collections found a fixed form. The "Sextus" was glossed and commented by Joannes Andrae, called the "fons et tuba juris" (d. 1348), and by Cardinal Jean Le Moine (Joannes Monachus, d. 1313), whose works were often printed.

When authors speak of the "closing" of the "Corpus Juris", they do not mean an act of the popes for bidding canonists to collect new documents, much less forbidding themselves to add to the ancient collections. But the canonical movement, so active after Gratian's time, has ceased forever. External circumstances, it is true, the Western Schism, the troubles of the fifteenth century, the Reformation, were unfavourable to the compiling of new canonical collections; but there were more direct causes. The special object of the first collections of the decretals was to help settle the law, which the canonists of Bologna were trying to systematize; that is why they contain so many specific decisions, from which the authors gathered general principles; when these had been ascertained the specific decisions were of no use except for jurisprudence; and in fact the "Sextus", the "Clementinae", and the other collections contain texts only when they are the statement of a general law. Any changes deemed necessary could be made in teaching without the necessity of recasting and augmenting the already numerous and massive collections.

F. From the Decretals to the Present Time

After the fourteenth century, except for its contact with the collections we have just treated of, canon law loses its unity. The actual law is found in the works of the canonists rather than in any specific collection; each one gathers his texts where he can; there is no one general collection sufficient for the purpose. It is not a case of confusion, but of isolation and dispersion. The sources of law later than the "Corpus Juris" are:

• the decisions of councils, especially of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and the Second Vatican Council, which are so varied and important that by themselves they form a short code, though without much order;
• the constitutions of the popes, numerous but hitherto not officially collected, except the "Bullarium" of Benedict XIV (1747);
• the Rules of the Apostolic Chancery (q.v.);
• the 1917 Code of Canon Law;
• lastly the decrees, decisions, and various acts of the Roman Congregations, jurisprudence rather than law properly so called.

For local law we have provincial councils and diocesan statutes. It is true there have been published collections of councils and Bullaria. Several Roman Congregations have also had their acts collected in official publications; but these are rather erudite compilations or repertories.

V. CODIFICATION

The method followed, both by private individuals and the popes, in drawing up canonical collections is generally rather that of a coordinated compilation or juxtaposition of documents than codification in the modern sense of the word, i.e. a redaction of the laws (all the laws) into an orderly series of short precise texts. It is true that antiquity, even the Roman law, did not offer any model different from that of the various collections, that method, however, long since ceased to be useful or possible in canon law. After the "closing" of the "Corpus Juris" two attempts were made; the first was of little use, not being official; the second, was official, but was not brought to a successful issue. In 1590 the jurisconsult Pierre Mathieu, of Lyons. published under the title "Liber septimus" a supplement to the "Corpus Juris", divided according to the order of the books and titles of the Decretals. It includes a selection of papal constitutions, from Sixtus IV to Sixtus V (1471-1590), but not the decrees of the Council of Trent. This compilation was of some service, and in a certain number of editions of the "Corpus Juris" was included as an appendix. As soon as the official edition of the "Corpus Juris" was published in 1582, Gregory XIII appointed a commission to bring up to date and complete the venerable collection. Sixtus V hastened the work and at length Cardinal Pinelli presented to Clement VIII what was meant to be a "Liber septimus". For the purpose of further studies the pope had it printed in 1598: the pontifical constitutions and the decrees of the Council of Trent were inserted in it in the order of the Decretals. For several reasons Clement VIII refused to approve this work and the project was definitively abandoned. Had this collection been approved it would have been as little used today as the others, the situation continuing to grow worse.

Many times during the nineteenth century, especially at the time of the Vatican Council (Collectio Lacensis, VII, 826), the bishops had urged the Holy See to draw up a complete collection of the laws in force, adapted to the needs of the day. It is true, their requests were complied with in regard to certain matters; Pius X in his "Motu proprio" of 19 March, 1904, refers to the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" limiting and cataloguing the censures "latae sententie", the Constitution "Officiorum", revising the laws of the Index; the Constitution "Conditre" on the religious congregations with simple vows. These and several other documents were, moreover, drawn up in short precise articles, to a certain extent a novelty, and the beginning of a codification. Pius later officially ordered a codification, in the modern sense of the word, for the whole canon law. In the first year of his pontificate he issued the Tutu Proprio "Arduum", (De Ecclesiae legibus in unum redigendis); it treats of the complete codification and reformation of canon law. For this purpose the pope requested the entire episcopate, grouped in provinces, to make known to him the reforms they desired. At the same time he appointed a commission of consultors, on whom the initial work devolved, and a commission of cardinals, charged with the study and approval of the new texts, subject later to the sanction of the sovereign pontiff. The plans of the various titles were confided to canonists in every country. The general idea of the Code that followed includes (after the preliminary section) four main divisions: persons, things (with subdivisions for the sacraments, sacred places and objects, etc.). trials, crimes and penalties. It is practically the plan of the "Institutiones", or manuals of canon law. The articles were numbered consecutively. This great work was finished in 1917.

VI. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW

The sources of canon law, and the canonical writers. give us, it is true, rules of action, each with its specific object. We have now to consider all these laws in their common abstract element, in other words Ecclesiastical Law, its characteristics and its practice. According to the excellent definition of St. Thomas (I-II:90:1) a law is a reasonable ordinance for the common good promulgated by the head of the community. Ecclesiastical law therefore has for its author the head of the Christian community over which he has jurisdiction strictly so called; its object is the common welfare of that community, although it may cause inconvenience to individuals; it is adapted to the obtaining of the common welfare, which implies that it is physically and morally possible for the majority of the community to observe it; the legislator must intend to bind his subjects and must make known that intention clearly; finally he must bring the law under the notice of the community. A law is thus distinguished from a counsel, which is optional not obligatory; from a precept, which is imposed not on the community but on individual members; and from a regulation or direction, which refers to accessory matters.

The object therefore of ecclesiastical law is all that is necessary or useful in order that the society may attain its end, whether there be question of its organization, its working, or the acts of its individual members; it extends also to temporal things, but only indirectly. With regard to acts, the law obliges the individual either to perform or to omit certain acts; hence the distinction into "affirmative or preceptive" laws and "negative or prohibitory" laws; at times it is forced to allow certain things to be done, and we have "permissive" laws, or laws of forbearance; finally, the law in addition to forbidding a given act may render it, if performed, null and void; these are "irritant" laws. Laws in general, and irritant laws in particular, are not retroactive, unless such is expressly declared by the legislator to be the case. The publication or promulgation of the law has a double aspect: law must be brought to the knowledge of the community in order that the latter may be able to observe it, and in this consists the publication. But there may be legal forms of publication, requisite and necessary, and in this consists the promulgation properly so called (see PROMULGATION). Whatever may be said about the forms used in the past, today the promulgation of general ecclesiastical laws is effected exclusively by the insertion of the law in the official publication of the Holy See, the "Acta Apostolical Sedis", in compliance with the Constitution "Promulgandi", of Pius X, dated 29 September, 1908, except in certain specifically mentioned cases. The law takes effect and is binding on all members of the community as soon as it is promulgated, allowing for the time morally necessary for it to become known, unless the legislator has fixed a special time at which it is to come into force.

No one is presumed to be ignorant of the law; only ignorance of fact. not ignorance of law, is excusable (Reg. 1:3 jur. in VI). Everyone subject to the legislator is bound in conscience to observe the law. A violation of the law, either by omission or by act, is punishable with a penalty (q.v.). These penalties may be settled beforehand by the legislator, or they may be left to the discretion of the judge who imposes them. A violation of the moral law or what one's conscience judges to be the moral law is a sin; a violation of the exterior penal law, in addition to the sin, renders one liable to a punishment or penalty; if the will of the legislator is only to oblige the offender to submit to the penalty, the law is said to be "purely penal"; such are some of the laws adopted by civil legislatures, and it is generally admitted that some ecclesiastical laws are of this kind. As baptism is the gate of entrance to the ecclesiastical society, all those who are baptized, even non-Catholics, are in principle subject to the laws of the Church; in practice the question arises only when certain acts of heretics and schismatics come before Catholic tribunals; as a general rule an irritant law is enforced in such a case, unless the legislator has exempted them from its observance, for instance, for the form of marriage. General laws, therefore, bind all Catholics wherever they may be. In the case of particular laws, as one is subject to them in virtue of one's domicile, or even quasi-domicile, passing strangers are not subject to them, except in the case of acts performed within the territory.

The role of the legislator does not end with the promulgation of the law; it is his office to explain and interpret it (declaratio, interpretatio legis). The interpretation is "official" (authentica) or even "necessary", when it is given by the legislator or by some one authorized by him for that purpose; it is "customary", when it springs from usage or habit; it is "doctrinal", when it is based on the authority of the learned writers or the decisions of the tribunals. The official interpretation alone has the force of law. According to the result, the interpretation is said to be "comprehensive, extensive, restrictive, corrective," expressions easily understood. The legislator, and in the case of particular laws the superior, remains master of the law; he can suppress it either totally (abrogation), or partially (derogation), or he can combine it with a new law which suppresses in the first law all that is incompatible with the second (abrogation). Laws co-exist as far as they are reconcilable; the more recent modifies the more ancient, but a particular law is not suppressed by a general law, unless the fact is stated expressly. A law can also cease when its purpose and end cease, or even when it is too difficult to be observed by the generality of the subjects; it then falls into desuetude (see CUSTOM).

In every society, but especially in a society so vast and varied as the Church, it is impossible for every law to be applicable always and in all cases. Without suppressing the law, the legislator can permanently exempt from it certain persons or certain groups, or certain matters, or even extend the rights of certain subjects; all these concessions are known as privileges. In the same manner the legislator can derogate from the law in special cases; this is called a dispensation. Indults or the powers that the bishops of the Catholic world receive from the Holy See, to regulate the various cases that may arise in the administration of their dioceses, belong to the category of privileges; together with the dispensations granted directly by the Holy See, they eliminate any excessive rigidity of the law, and ensure to ecclesiastical legislation a marvellous facility of application. Without imperilling the rights and prerogatives of the legislator, but on the contrary strengthening them, indults impress more strongly on the law of the Church that humane, broad, merciful character, mindful of the welfare of souls, but also of human weakness, which likens it to the moral law and distinguishes it from civil legislation, which is much more external and inflexible.

VII. THE PRINCIPAL CANONISTS

It is impossible to draw up a detailed and systematic catalogue of all the works of special value in the study of canon law; the most distinguished canonists are the subject of special articles in this Encyclopedia. Those we have mentioned as commentators of the ancient canonical collections are now of interest only from an historical point of view; but the authors who have written since the Council of Trent are still read with profit; it is in their great works that we find our practical canon law. Among the authors who have written on special chapters of the "Corpus Juris", we must mention (the date refers to the first edition of the works):

• Prospero Fagnani, the distinguished secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, "Jus canonicum seu commentaria absolutissima in quinque libros Decretalium" (Rome, 1661),
• Manuel González Téllez (d. 1649), "Commentaria perpetua in singulos textus juris canonici" (Lyons, 16, 3);
• the Jesuit Paul Laymann, better known as a moral theologian, "Jus canonicum seu commentaria in libros Decretalium" (Dillingen, 1666);
• Ubaldo Giraldi, Clerk Regular of the Pious Schools, "Expositio juris pontificii juxta re centiorem Ecclesiae disciplinam" (Rome, 1769).

Among the canonists who have followed the order of the titles of the Decretals:

• the Benedictine Louis Engel, professor at Salzburg, "Universum jus canonicum secundum titulos libr. Decretalium" (Salzburg, 1671);
• the Jesuit Ehrenreich Pirhing, "Universum jus canonicum" etc. (Dillingen, 1645);
• the Franciscan Anaclet Reiffenstuel, "Jus canonicum universum" (Freising, 1700);
• the Jesuit James Wiestner, "Institutiones canonical" (Munich, 1705);
• the two brothers Francis and Benedict Schmier, both Benedictines and professors at Salzburg; Francis wrote "Jurisprudentia canonico-civilis" (Salzburg, 1716); Benedict: "Liber I Decretalium; Lib. II etc." (Salzburg, 1718);
• the Jesuit Francis Schmalzgrueber, "Jus ecclésiasticum universum" (Dillingen, 1717);
• Peter Leuren, also a Jesuit, "Forum ecclesiasticum" etc. (Mainz, 1717);
• Vitus Pichler, a Jesuit, the successor of Schmalzgrueber, "Summa jurisprudential sacrae" (Augsburg, 1723);
• Eusebius Amort, a Canon Regular, "Elementa juris canonici veteris et modern)" (Ulm, 1757);
• Amort wrote also among other works of a very personal character; "De origine, progressu . . . indulgentiarum" (Augsburg, 1735);
• Carlo Sebastiano Berardi, "Commentaria in jus canonicum universum" (Turin, 1766); also his "Institutiones" and his great work "Gratiani canonesgenuini ab apocryphis discreti", (Turin, 1752);
• James Anthony Zallinger, a Jesuit, "Institutiones juris ecclesiastici maxime privati" (Augsburg, 1791), not so well known as his "Institutionum juris naturalis et ecclesiastici publici libri quinque" (Augsburg, 1784).
• This same method was followed again in the nineteenth century by Canon Filippo de Angelis, "Praelectiones juris canonici", (Rome, 1877);
• by his colleague Francesco Santi, "Praelectiones", (Ratisbon, 1884; revised by Martin Leitner, 1903); and
• E. Grand claude, "Jus canonicum" (Paris, 1882).

The plan of the "Institutiones", in imitation of Lancelotti (Perugia, 1563), has been followed by very many canonists, among whom the principal are:

• the learned Antonio Agustin, Archbishop of Tarragona, "Epitome jurispontificu veteris" (Tarragona, 1587); his "De emendatione Gratiani dialogorum libri duo" (Tarragona, 1587), is worthy of mention;
• Claude Fleury, "Institution au droit ecclésiastique" (Paris, 1676);
• Zeger Bernard van Espen, "Jus ecclesiasticum universum" (Cologne, 1748);
• the Benedictine Dominic Schram, "Institutiones juris ecclesiastici" (Augsburg, 1774);
• Vincenzo Lupoli, "Juris ecclesiastici praelectiones" (Naples, 1777);
• Giovanni Devoti, titular Archbishop of Carthage, "Institutionum canonicarum libri quatuor" (Rome, 1785); his "Commentary on the Decretals" has only the first three books (Rome, 1803);
• Cardinal Soglia, "Institutiones juris privati et publici ecclesiastici" (Paris, 1859) and "Institutiones juris publici", (Loreto, 1843);
• D. Craisson, Vicar-General of Valence, "Manuale compendium totius juris canonici" (Poitiers, 1861).

School manuals in one or two volumes are very numerous and it is impossible to mention all.

• We may cite in Italy those of G.C. Ferrari (1847); Vecchiotti (Turin, 1867); De Camillis, (Rome, 1869); Sebastiano Sanguinetti, S.J. (Rome, 1884); Carlo Lombardi (Rome, 1898); Guglielmo Sebastianelli (Rome, 1898), etc.
• For German speaking countries, Ferdinand Walter (Bonn, 1822); F. M. Permaneder, 1846; Rosshirt, 1858; George Phillips (Ratisbon, 1859: in addition to his large work in eight volumes, 1845 sq.); J. Winckler, 1862 (specially for Switzerland); S. Aichner (Brixen, 1862) specially for Austria; J. F. Schulte (Geissen, 1863); F. H. Vering (Freiburg-im-B., 1874); Isidore Silbernagl (Ratisbon, 1879); H. Laemmer (Freiburg-im-B., 188fi); Phil. Hergenroether (Freiburg-im-B., 1888); T. Hollweck (Freiburg-im-B.. 1905); J. Laurentius (Freiburg-im-B., 1903); D. M. Prummer, 1907; J. B. Sägmüller (Freiburg-im-B., 1904).
• For France: H. Icard, Superior of Saint-Sulpice (Paris, 1867); M. Bargilliat (Paris, 1893); F. Deshayes, "Memento juris ecclesiastici" (Paris, 1897).
• In Belgium: De Braban dere (Bruges, 1903).
• For English-speaking countries: Smith (New York, 1890); Gignac (Quebec, 1901); Taunton (London, 1906). For Spain: Marian Aguilar (Santo Domingo de la Calzada, 1904); Gonzales Ibarra (Valladolid, 1904).

There are also canonists who have written at considerable length either on the whole canon law, or on special parts of it, in their own particular manner; it is difficult to give a complete list, but we will mention:

• Agostino Barbosa (d. 1639), whose works fill at least 30 volumes;
• J.B. Cardinal Luca (d. 1683), whose immense "Theatrum veritatis" and "Relatio curiae romance" are his most important works;
• Pignatelli, who has touched on all practica1 questions in his "Consultationes canoniccae", 11 folio volumes, Geneva, 1668;
• Prospero Lambertini (Pope Benedict XIV), perhaps the greatest canonist since the Council of Trent;
• in the nineteenth century we must mention the different writings of Dominique Bouix, 15 volumes, Paris, 1852 sq.;
• the "Kirchenrecht" of J. F. Schulte, 1856 and of Rudolf v. Scherer, 1886; and above all
• the great work of Franz Xavier Wernz, General of the Society of Jesus, "Jus decretalium" (Rome, 1898 sq.).

It is impossible to enumerate the special treatises. Among repertoires and dictionaries, it will suffice to cite the "Prompta Bibliotheca" of the Franciscan Ludovico Ferraris (Bologna, 1746); the "Dictionnaire de droit canonique" of Durand de Maillane (Avignon, 1761), continued later by Abbé Andre (Paris, 1847) etc.; finally the other encyclopedias of ecclesiastical sciences wherein canon law has been treated.

On ecclesiastical public law, the best-known hand books are, with Soglia,

• T. M. Salzano, "Lezioni di diritto canonico pubblico et private" (Naples, 1845);
• Camillo Cardinal Tarquini, "Juris ecclesiastici publici institutiones" (Rome, 1860);
• Felice Cardinal Cavagrus, "Institutiones juris publici ecclesiastici" (Rome, 1888);
• Msgr. Adolfo Giobbio, "Lezioni di diplomazia ecclesiastics" (Rome, 1899);
• Emman. de la Peña y Fernéndez, "Jus publicum ecclesiasticum" (Seville, 1900).
• For an historical view, the chief work is that of Pierre de Marco, Archbishop of Toulouse, "De concordia sacerdotii et imperi" (Paris, 1641).

For the history of canon law considered in its sources and collections, we must mention

• the brothers Pietro and Antonio Ballerini of Verona, "De antiquis collectionibus et collectoribus canonum" (Venice, 1757);
• among the works of St. Leo I, in P.L. LIII;
• the matter has been recast and completed by Friedrich Maassen, "Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des kanonischen Rechts im Abendland", I, (Graz, 1870);
• for the history from the time of Gratian see J. F. Schulte, "Geschichte der Quellenund der Literatur des kanonischen Rechts von Gratian his zum Gegenwart" (Stuttgart, 1875 sq.), and "Die Lehre von der Quellen des katholiscen Kirchen rechts" (Giessen, 1860);
• Philip Schneider, "Die Lehre van den Kirchenrechtsquellen" (Ratisbon, 1892),
• Adolphe Tardif, "Histoire des sources du droit canonique" (Paris, 1887);
• Franz Laurin, "Introduc tio in Corpus Juris canonici" (Freiburg, 1889).
• On the history of ecclesiastical discipline and institutions, the principal work is "Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'Eglise" by the Oratorian Louis Thomassin (Lyons, 1676), translated into Latin by the author, "Vetus et nova discipline" (Paris, 1688).
• One may consult with profit A. J. Binterim, "Die vorzüglich sten Denkwurdigkeiten der christkatolischen Kirche" (Mainz, 1825);
• the "Dizionario di erudizione storico ecclesiastica" by Moroni (Venice, 1840 sq.);
• also J. W.Bickell, "Geschichte des Kirchenrechts" (Gies sen, 1843);
• E. Loening, "Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts (Strasburg, 1878);
• R. Sohm, "Kirchenrecht, I: Die geschichtliche Grundlagen" (1892).

A. BOUDINHON

Influence of the Church on Civil Law

Christianity is essentially an ethical religion; and, although its moral principles were meant directly for the elevation of the individual, still they could not fail to exercise a powerful influence on such a public institution as law, the crystallized rule of human conduct. The law of Rome escaped this influence to a large extent, because much of it was compiled before Christianity was recognized by the public authorities. But the leges barbarorum were more completely interpenetrated, as it were, by Christian influences; they received their definite form only after the several nations had submitted to the gentle yoke of Christ. This influence of the Church is particularly noticeable in the following matters:

(1) Slavery

The condition of the slaves was most pitiable in the ages of antiquity. According to Roman law and usage a slave was considered, not as a human being, but as a chattel, over which the master had the most absolute control, up to the point of inflicting death. Gradually, the spirit of Christianity restricted these inhuman rights. From the time of the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-61) a master was punished if he killed his slave without reason, or even practiced on him excessive cruelty (Instit. Just., lib. I, tit. 8; Dig., lib. I, tit. 6, leges 1, 2). The emperor Constantine (306-37) made it homicide to kill a slave with malice aforethought, and described certain modes of barbarous punishment by which, if death followed, the guilt of homicide was incurred (Cod. Just., lib. IV, tit. 14). A further relief consisted in facilitating the manumission or liberation of slaves. According to several laws of Constantine the ordinary formalities could be dispensed with if the manumission took place in the church, before the people and the sacred ministers. The clergy were permitted to bestow freedom on their slaves in their last will, or even by simple word of mouth (Cod. Just., lib. I, tit. 13, leges 1, 2). The Emperor Justinian I (527-65) gave to freed persons the full rank and rights of Roman citizens, and abolished the penalty of condemnation to servitude (Cod. Just., lib. VII, tit. 6; Nov., VII, cap. viii; Nov. LVIII, praef. capp. i, iu). Similar provisions were found in the Barbarian codes. According to the Burgundian and Visigothic laws the murder of a slave was punished; emancipation in the church and before the priest was permitted and encouraged. In one point they were ahead of the Roman law; they recognized the legality of the marriage between slaves. in the Lombardic law, on the authority of the Scriptural sentence: "Whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." The Church could not directly abolish slavery; she was satisfied with admitting the slaves within her pale on a footing of equality with others, with counselling patience and submission on the part of the slave, forbearance and moderation on that of the master. Otherwise she concurred in the civil legislation, or even went beyond it in some cases. Thus, the killing of a slave was severely punished (Counc. of Elvira, D. 300, Can. v; Counc. of Epaon, A.D. 517, Can. xxviv); a fugitive slave who had taken refuge in the church was to be restored to his master only on the latter's promise of remitting the punishment (Counc. of Orleans, A.D. 511, Can. iii, c. vi, X, lib. III, tit. 49); marriage between slaves was recognized as valid (Counc. of Chalons, A.D. 813; Can. xxx; c. i, X, lib. IV, tit. 9); and even the marriage between a free person and a slave was ratified, provided it had been contracted with full knowledge (Counc. of Compiegne, A.D. 757, Can. viii).

(2) Paternal Authority (Potestas Paterna)

According to the Roman law the power of the father over his children was as absolute as that of the master over his slaves: it extended to their freedom and life. The harsher features of this usage were gradually eliminated. Thus, according to the laws of different emperors, the killing of a child either by the father or by the mother was declared to be one of the greatest crimes (Cod. Theod., lib. IX, tit. 14, 15; Cod. Just., lib. IX, tit. 17; Dig., lib. XLVIII, tit. 9, lex 1). Cruel treatment of children was forbidden, such as the jus liberos notice dandi, i.e., the right of handing children over to the power of someone injured by them (Instit. Just., lib. IV, tit. 8); children could not be sold or given away to the power of others (Cod. Just., lib. IV, tit. 43, lex 1); children that were sold by their father on account of poverty were to be set free (Cod. Theod., lib. III, tit. 3, lex 1); finally, all children exposed by their parents and fallen into servitude were to become free without exception (Cod. Just., lib. VIII, tit. 52, lex 3). The son of a family was entitled to dispose in his last will of the possessions acquired either in military service (peculium castrense), or in the exercise of an office (peculium quasi castrense), or in any other way (In stit. Just., Jib. II, tit. 11; c. iv, VI, lib. III, tit. 12). The children could not be disinherited at the simple wish of the father, but only for certain specified reasons based on ingratitude (Nov. CXV. cc. iii sqq.).

(3) Marriage

In the ancient law of Rome the wife was, like the rest of the family, the property of the husband, who could dispose of her at will. Christianity rescued woman from this degrading condition by attributing to her equal rights, and by making her the companion of the husband. This equality was in part recognized by imperial laws, which gave to women the right of controlling their property, and to mothers the right of guardianship (Cod. Theod., lib. II, tit. 17, lex 1; lib. III, tit. 17, lex 4). The boundless liberty of divorce, which had obtained since the time of Augustus, was restricted to a certain number of cases. The legislation of the Emperors Constantine and Justinian on this subject did not come up to the standard of Christianity, but it approached it and imposed a salutary check on the free desire of husband or wife for separation (Cod. Theod., lib. III, tit. 16, lex 1; Cod. Just., lib. V, tit. 17, leg. 8, 10, 11). Woman was highly respected among the barbarian nations; and with some, like the Visigoths, divorce was forbidden except for adultery.

(4) Wills and Testaments

The canon law introduced various modifications in the regulations of the civil law concerning last wills and testaments; among them there is one which enforced a particular fairness in favour of the necessary heirs, such as children. According to the Roman law, one who became heir or legates with the condition of a fideicommissum (i.e., of transmitting his inheritance or legacy to another after his death) had the right of deducting the fourth part from the inheritance or legacy, which was not transmitted; this fourth part being known as the Trebellian quarter. Again, the necessary heirs, such as children, had a claim on a certain part of the inheritance. If it happened that the share of the necessary heir was burdened with a fideicommissum, then the necessary heir was entitled only to deduct the part coming to him as a necessary heir, but not the Trebellian quarter (Cod. Just., lib. VI, tit. 49, lex 6). The canon law modified this provision by enjoining that the necessary heir in such a case was entitled first to the deduction of his natural share and then also to the deduction of the Trebellian quarter from the rest of the inheritance (cc. 16, 18, X, lib. III, tit. 26).

(5) Property Rights

According to a provision in the Roman law, a man who was forcibly ejected from his property could, in order to recover it, apply the process known as the interdictum under vi against the one who ejected him directly or indirectly, i.e., against him who perpetrated the act of ejection or who counselled it. But he could take action against the heirs of those who ejected him only in so far as they were enriched by the spoliation, and none against a third owner, who meanwhile had obtained possession of his former property (Dig., lib., VLVIII, tit. 16, lex 1. tit. 17, lex 3). The canon law modified this unfair measure by decreeing that he who was despoiled of his property could insist first on being reinstated; if the matter were brought to the courts, he could allege the exceptio spolii, or the fact of spoliation; and, finally, he was permitted to have recourse to the law against a third owner who had acquired the property with the knowledge of its unjust origin (c. 18, X, lib. II, tit. 13; c. 1, VI, lib. II, tit. 5).

(6) Contracts

The Roman law distinguished between pacts (pacta nuda) and contracts. The former could not be enforced by law or a civil action, while the latter, being clothed in special judicial solemnities, were binding before the law and the civil courts. Against this distinction the canon law insists on the obligation incurred by any agreement of whatever form, or in whatever manner it may have been contracted (c. 1, 3, X, lib. I, tit. 35).

(7) Prescriptions

The Roman law admitted the right of prescription in favour of him who had been in good faith only at the beginning of his possession, and it abstracted altogether from the good or bad faith in either party to a civil action, if it were terminated by prescription. The canon law required the good faith in him who prescribed for all the time of his possession; and it refused to acknowledge prescription in the case of a civil action against a possessor of bad faith (cc. 5, 20, X, lib. II, tit. 26: c. 2, VI, lib. V, tit. 12, De Reg. Jur.). (See PRESCRIPTION.)

(8) Legal Procedure

The spirit of Christianity made itself felt in the treatment of criminals and prisoners. Thus prisoners were not to be subjected to in human maltreatment before their trial (Cod. Theod., lib. IX, tit. 3, lex 1); criminals already sentenced were not to be branded on the forehead (Cod. Theod. lib. IX, tit. 40, lex 2); the bishops received the right of interceding for prisoners detained for lighter offenses, and to obtain their freedom on the feast of Easter; they were likewise empowered to visit the prisons on Wednesdays or Fridays in order to see that the magistrates heaped no extra afflictions on the prisoners (Cod. Theod., lib. IX, tit. 38, leges 3,4,6-8; Cod. Just., lib. I, tit. 4, leges 3,9,22,23). To all this may be added the recognition of the right of asylum in the churches, which prevented a hasty and vindictive administra tion of justice (Cod. Theod., lib. IX, tit. 15, lex 4). A great evil among the Germanic nations was the trial by ordeals, or judgments of God. The Church was unable for some time to suppress them, but at least she tried to control them, placed them under the direction of the priests, and gave to them a Christian appearance by prescribing special blessings and ceremonies for such occasions. The popes, however were always opposed to the ordeals as implying a tempting of God; decrees to that effect were enacted by Nicholas I (858-67), Stephen V (885-91), Alexander II (1061-73), Celestine III (1191-98), Innocent III (1198-1216), and Honorius III (1216-27) (cc. 22, 20, 7, C. II, q. 5; cc. 1, 3, X, lib. V, tit. 35; c. 9, X, lib. III, tit. 50). Another evil consisted in the feuds or sanguinary conflicts between private persons in revenge for injuries or murders. The Church could not stop them altogether, owing to the conditions of anarchy and barbarism prevailing among the nations in the Middle Ages; but she succeeded at least in restricting them to certain periods of the year, and certain days of the week, by what is known as the treuga Dei or "Truce of God". By this institution private feuds were forbidden from Advent to the Octave of Epiphany, from Septuagesima Sunday until the Octave of Pentecost, and from sunset of Wednesday until sunrise of Monday. Laws to that effect were enacted as early as the middle of the eleventh century in nearly all countries of Western Europe -- in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, England. The canon law insisted on certain principles of fairness: thus, it acknowledged that a civil action might extend sometimes over three years, against the ordinary rule (c. 20, X, lib. II, tit. 1); connected questions, such as disputes about possessions and the right of property, were to be submitted to the same court (c. 1, X, lib. II, tit. 12; c. 1, X, lib. II, tit. 17); a suspected judge could not be refused, unless the reasons were manifested and proved (c. 61, X, lib. II, tit. 28); of two contradictory sentences rendered by different judges the one favouring the accused was to prevail (c. 26, X, lib. II, tit. 27); the intention of appealing could be manifested outside of the court in the presence of good men, if anyone entertained fear of the judge (c. 73, X, lib. II, tit. 28).

(9) Legislation, Government, and Administration of Justice

The Church was allowed to exercise a wide influence on civil law by the fact that her ministers, chiefly the bishops and abbots, had a large share in framing the leges barbarorum. Practically all the laws of the barbarian nations were written under Christian influences; and the illiterate barbarians willingly accepted the aid of the literate clergy to reduce to writing the institutes of their forefathers. The cooperation of the clergy is not expressly mentioned in all the codes of this kind: in some only the learned in the law, or, again, the proceres, or nobles, are spoken of; but the ecclesiastics were, as a rule, the only learned men, and the higher clergy, bishops and abbots, belonged to the class of the nobles. Ecclesiastics -- priests or bishops -- were certainly employed in the composition of the "Lex Romana Visigothorum" or "Breviarium Alarici", the "Lex Visigothorum" of Spain, the "Lex Alamannorum", the "Lex Bajuwariorurn", the Anglo-Saxon laws, and the capitularies of the Frankish kings. The bishops and abbots also had a great share in the government of states in the Middle Ages. They took a leading part in the great assemblies common to most of the Germanic nations; they had a voice in the election of the kings; they performed the coronation of the kings; they lived much at the Court, and were the chief advisors of the kings. The office of chancellor in England and in the medieval German Empire was the highest in the State (for the chancellor was the prime minister of the king or emperor, and responsible for all his public acts, it was the chancellor who annulled iniquitous decrees of the king or emperor, and righted all that was wrong); and this office was usually entrusted to an ecclesiastic, in Germany generally to a distinguished bishop. The bishops also had a great share in the administration of justice. As in the East so also in the West, they had a general superintendence over the courts of justice. They always had a seat in the highest tribunal; to them the injured parties could appeal in default of justice; and they had the power to punish subordinate judges for injustice in the absence of the king. In Spain they had a special charge to keep continual watch over the administration of justice, and were summoned on all great occasions to instruct the judges to act with piety and justice. What is more, they often acted directly as judges in temporal matters. By a law of the Emperor Constantine (321) the parties to a litigation could, by mutual consent, appeal to the bishop in any stage of their judicial controversy, and by a further enactment (331) either party could do so even without the consent of the other. This second part, however, was again abrogated by subsequent legislation.

In the Middle Ages the bishops acted likewise as judges, both in civil and in criminal matters. In civil matters the Church drew to its jurisdiction all things of a mixed character -- the causae spirituali annexae, which were partly temporal and partly ecclesiastical. Criminal matters were brought before the bishap's court, which was held usually in connection with the episcopal visitation throughout the diocese. The methods employed by the ecclesiastical or episcopal courts in a judicial process were such that they served as a model for secular courts. At the beginning the proceedings were very simple; the bishop decided the case presented to him with the advice of the body of presbyters, but without any definite formalities. After the twelfth century the Church elaborated her own method of procedure, with such comparative perfection that it was imitated to a large extent by modern courts. Several principles prevailed in this regard: first, all essential parts of a trial were to be recorded in writing -- such as the presentation of the complaint, the citation of the defendant, the proofs, the deposition of witnesses, the defence, and the sentence; secondly, both parties were entitled to a full opportunity of presenting all material relating to the accusation or to the defence; thirdly, the parties in a litigation had the right of appealing to a higher court after the lapse of the ordinary term for a trial (which was two years), the party dissatisfied with the decision was permitted to appeal within ten days after the rendering of the sentence.

(10) Sacred Scripture in Legislation

A last instance of the influence of Christianity on legislation is found in the appeal to the books of Sacred Scripture in support of civil laws. In the Roman law there is hardly any reference to Scripture. And that is not surprising, since the spirit of Roman legislation, even under the Christian emperors, was heathen, and the emperor -- the principle voluntas -- was conceived of as the supreme and ultimate source of legislation. On the contrary, the codes of the barbarian nations are replete with quotations from Scripture. In the prologue to several of them reference is made to the leftist ration given by Moses to the Jewish people. Mention has been made above of a Lombardic law which recognizes the legality of marriages among slaves on the authority of the Scriptural text: "whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder " (Matt., xix, 6; Mark, x, 9). Many other examples may be found, e.g., in the "Leges Visigothorum" and in the Capitularies of the Frankish kings, where almost every book of the Old and New Testament is resorted to for argument or illustration.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Common Law

(Lat. communis, general, of general application; lex, law)

The term is of English origin and is used to describe the juridical principles and general rules regulating the possession, use and inheritance of property and the conduct of individuals, the origin of which is not definitely known, which have been observed since a remote period of antiquity, and which are based upon immemorial usages and the decisions of the law courts as distinct from the lex scripta; the latter consisting of imperial or kingly edicts or express acts of legislation. That pre-eminent English lawyer and law-writer, Sir William Blackstone, states in his "Commentaries upon the Laws of England" that the common law consists of rules properly called leges non scriptœ, because their original institution and authority were not set down in writing as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power and the force of laws, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom; and, quoting from a famous Roman author, Aulus Gellius, he follows him in defining the common law as did Gellius the Jus non scriptum as that which is "tacito illiterato hominum consensu et moribus expressum" (expressed in the usage of the people, and accepted by the tacit unwritten consent of men).

When a community emerges from the tribal condition into that degree of social development which constitutes a state and, consequently, the powers of government become defined with more or less distinctness as legislative, executive, and judicial, and the arbitration of disputes leads to the establishment of courts, the community finds itself conscious of certain rules regarding the conduct of life, the maintenance of liberty, and the security of property which come into being at the very twilight of civilization and have been consistently observed from age to age. Such were the usages and customs, having the force of law which became the inheritance of the English people and were first compiled and recorded by Alfred the Great in his famous "Dome-book" or "Liber Judicialis", published by him for the general use of the whole kingdom. That famous depository of laws was referred to in a certain declaration of King Edward, the son of Alfred, with the injunction: "Omnibus qui reipublicæ præsunt etiam atque etiam mando ut omnibus æquos se præbeant judices, perinde ac in judiciali libro scriptum habetur: nec quicquam formident quin jus commune audacter libereque dicant" (To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously).

In modern times the existence of the "Liber Judicialis" was the subject of great doubt, and such doubt was expressed by many writers upon the constitutional history of England, including both Hallam and Turner. After their day the manuscript of the work was brought to light and was published both in Saxon and English by the Record Commissioners of England in the first volume of the books published by them under the title, "The Ancient Laws and Institutes of England". The profound religious spirit which governed King Alfred and his times clearly appears from the fact that the "Liber Judicialis" began with the Ten Commandments, followed by many of the Mosaic precepts, added to which is the express solemn sanction given to them by Christ in the Gospel: "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." After quoting the canons of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, Alfred refers to the Divine commandment, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them", and then declares, "From this one doom, a man may remember that he judge every one righteously, he need heed no other doom-book." The original code of the common law compiled by Alfred was modified by reason of the Danish invasion, and from other causes, so that when the eleventh century began the common law of England was not uniform but consisted of observances of different nature prevailing in various districts, viz: Mercen Lage, or Mercian laws, governing many of the midland counties of England and those bordering upon Wales, the country to which the ancient Britons had retreated at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. These laws were, probably, influenced by and intermixed with the British or Druidical customs. Another distinct code was the West-Saxon Lage (Laws of the West-Saxons) governing counties in the southern part of England from Kent to Devonshire. This was, probably, identical for the most part with the code which was edited and published by Alfred. The wide extent of the Danish conquest is shown by the fact that the Dane Lage, or Danish law, was the code which prevailed in the rest of the midland counties and, also, on the eastern coast. These three systems of law were codified and digested by Edward the Confessor into one system, which was promulgated throughout the entire kingdom and was universally observed. Alfred is designated by early historians as Legum Anglicanarum Conditor; Edward the Confessor as Legum Anglicanarum Restitutor.

In the days of the Anglo-Saxon kings the courts of justice consisted principally of the county courts. These county courts were presided over by the bishop of the diocese and the ealdorman or sheriff, sitting en banc and exercising both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction. In these courts originated and developed the custom of trial by jury. Prior to the invasion led by William the Norman, the common law of England provided for the descent of lands to all the males without any right of primogeniture. Military service was required in proportion to the area of each free man's land, a system resembling the feudal system but not accompanied by all its hardships. Penalties for crime were moderate; few capital punishments being inflicted and persons convicted of their first offence being allowed to commute it for a fine or weregild; or in default of payment, by surrendering themselves to life-long bondage. The legal system which thus received form under the direction of the last Saxon King of England, was common to all the realm and was designated as "Jus commune" or Folk-right.

In contradistinction to English jurisprudence the Civil Law of Rome prevailed throughout the Continent. William the Conqueror brought with him into England jurists and clerics thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the civil law and distinctly adverse to the English system. However, the ancient laws and customs of England prevailing before the Conquest, withstood the shock and stress of opposition and remained without impairment to any material extent. The first great court of judicature in England after the Conquest was the Aula Regis or King's Court wherein the king either personally or constructively administered justice for the whole kingdom. The provision in Magna Charta to the effect that the King's Court of Justice should remain fixed and hold its sessions in one certain place, instead of being a peripatetic institution, constitutes historic evidence of the existence of such a court and, also, gives expression to the public discontent created by the fact that its sessions were held at various places and thus entailed great expense and trouble upon litigants. In later days, the Aula Regis became obsolete and its functions were divided between the three great common-law courts of the realm, viz; the Court of King's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Exchequer. The Court of King's Bench was considered the highest of these three tribunals, although an appeal might be taken from the decisions thereof to the House of Lords. The Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction over ordinary civil actions, while the Court of Exchequer was restricted in its jurisdiction to causes affecting the royal revenues. Besides these courts the canon law was administered by the Catholic clergy of England in certain ecclesiastical courts called "Curiæ Christianitatis" or Courts Christian. These courts were presided over by the archbishop and bishops and their derivative officers. The canon law at an early date laid down the rule that "Sacerdotes a regibus honorandi sunt, non judicandi," i. e. the clergy are to be honoured by kings, but not to be judged by them, based on the tradition that when some petitions were brought to the Emperor Constantine, imploring the aid of his authority against certain of his bishops accused of oppression and injustice, he caused the petitions to be burned in their presence bidding them farewell in these words, "Ite et inter vos causas vestras discutite, quia dignum non est ut nos judicemus deos" (judge your own cases; it is not meet that we should judge sacred men).

The ecclesiastical courts of England were:

1. The Archdeacon's Court which was the lowest in point of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical polity. It was held by the archdeacon or, in his absence, before a judge appointed by him and called his official. Its jurisdiction was sometimes in concurrence with and sometimes in exclusion of the Bishop's Court of the diocese, and the statute 24 Henr. VIII, c. XII, provided for an appeal to the court presided over by the bishop.
2. The Consistory Court of the diocesan bishop which held its sessions at the bishop's see for the trial of all ecclesiastical causes arising within the diocese. The bishop's chancellor, or his commissary, was the ordinary judge; and from his adjudication an appeal lay to the archbishop of the province.
3. The Court of Arches was a court of appeal belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the judge of such court was called the Dean of the Arches because in ancient times he held court in the church of St. Mary le bow (Sancta Maria de arcubus), one of the churches of London.
4. The Court of Peculiars was a branch of and annexed to the Court of Arches. It had jurisdiction over all those parishes dispersed throughout the Province of Canterbury in the midst of other dioceses, which were exempt from the ordinary's jurisdiction and subject to the metropolitan only. All ecclesiastical causes arising within these peculiar or exempt jurisdictions were, originally, cognizable by this court. From its decisions an appeal lay, formerly, to the pope, but during the reign of Henry VIII this right of appeal was abolished by statute and therefor was substituted an appeal to the king in Chancery.
5. The Prerogative Court was established for the trial of testamentary causes where the deceased had left "bona notabilia" (i. e. chattels of the value of at least one hundred shillings) within two different dioceses. In that case, the probate of wills belonged to the archbishop of the province, by way of special prerogative, and all causes relating to the wills, administrations or legacies of such persons were, originally, cognizable therein before a judge appointed by the archbishop and called the Judge of the Prerogative Court. From this court an appeal lay (until 25 Henr. VIII, c. XIX) to the pope; and after that to the king in Chancery.

These were the ancient courts. After the religious revolution had been inaugurated in England by Henry VIII, a sixth ecclesiastical court was created by that monarch and designated the Court of Delegates (judices delegati), and such delegates were appointed by the king's commission under his great seal, issuing out of chancery, to represent his royal person and to hear ordinary ecclesiastical appeals brought before him by virtue of the statute which has been mentioned as enacted in the twenty-fifth year of his reign. This commission was frequently filled with lords, spiritual and temporal, and its personnel was always composed in part of judges of the courts at Westminster and of Doctors of the Civil Law. Supplementary to these courts were certain proceedings under a special tribunal called a Commission of Review, which was appointed in extraordinary cases to revise the sentences of the Court of Delegates; and, during the reign of Elizabeth, another court was created, called the Court of the King's High Commission in Cases Ecclesiastical. This court was created in order to supply the place of the pope's appellate jurisdiction in regard to causes appertaining to the reformation, ordering and correcting of the ecclesiastical state and of ecclesiastical persons "and all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities". This court was the agent by which most oppressive acts were committed and was justly abolished by statute, 16 Car. I, c. XI. An attempt was made to revive it during the reign of King James II.

The Church of England was the name given to that portion of the laity and clergy of the Catholic Church resident in England during the days of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy and during the history of England under William the Conqueror and his successors down to the time when Henry VIII assumed unto himself the position of spiritual and temporal head of the English Church. Prior to the time of Henry VIII, the Church of England was distinctly and avowedly a part of the Church universal. Its prerogatives and its constitution were wrought into the fibre of the common law. Its ecclesiastical courts were recognized by the common law — the jus publicum of the kingdom — and clear recognition was accorded to the right of appeal to the sovereign pontiff; thus practically making the pontiff the supreme judge for England as he was for the remainder of Christendom in all ecclesiastical causes. The civil courts rarely sought to trench upon the domain of ecclesiastical affairs and conflict arose only when the temporalities of the church were brought within the scope of litigation. The common law is chiefly, however, to be considered in reference to its protection of purely human interests. As such it proved to be powerful, efficient and imposing. The Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas and the Exchequer, together with the High Court of Chancery, were justly famous throughout Christendom. The original Anglo-Saxon juridical system offered none but simple remedies comprehended, for the most part, in the award of damages for any civil wrong and in the delivery to the proper owners of land or chattels wrongfully withheld. Titles of an equitable nature were not recognized and there was no adequate remedy for the breach of such titles. The prevention of wrong by writs of injunction was unknown.

The idea of a juridical restoration of conditions which had been disturbed by wrongful act as well as the idea of enforcing the specific performance of contracts had never matured into either legislation or judicial proceedings. Such deficiencies in the jurisprudence of the realm were gradually supplied, under the Norman kings, by the royal prerogative exercised through the agency of the lord chancellor by special adjudications based upon equitable principles. In the course of time, a great Court of Chancery came into being deriving its name from the fact that its presiding judge was the lord chancellor. In this court were administered all the great principles of equity jurisprudence. The lord chancellor possessed as one of his titles that of Keeper of the King's Conscience; and, hence, the High Court of Chancery was often called a Court of Conscience. Its procedure did not involve the presence of a jury and it differed from the courts of common law in its mode of proof, mode of trial, and mode of relief. The relief administered was so ample in scope as to be conformable in all cases with the absolute requirements of a conscientious regard for justice. Among the most eminent of the Chancellors of England was Sir Thomas More who laid down his life rather than surrender the Catholic Faith, and Lord Bacon who was the pioneer in broadening the scope of modern learning. After the time when courts became established and entered upon the exercise of their various functions, the common law developed gradually into a more finished system because of the fact that judicial decisions were considered to be an exposition of the common law and, consequently, were the chief repository of the law itself. For this reason the observance of precedents is a marked feature in English jurisprudence and prevails to a much greater extent than under other systems. As the law is deemed to be contained in the decisions of the courts, it necessarily follows that the rule to be observed in any particular proceeding must be found in some prior decision.

When the period of English colonization in America began, the aborigines were found to be wholly uncivilized and, consequently, without any system of jurisprudence, whatsoever. Upon the theory that the English colonists carried with them the entire system of the English law as it existed at the time of their migration from the fatherland, the colonial courts adopted and acted upon the theory that each colony, at the very moment of its inception, was governed by the legal system of England including the juridical principles administered by the common law courts and by the High Court of Chancery. Thus, law and equity came hand in hand to America and have since been the common law of the former English colonies.

When the thirteen American colonies achieved their independence, the English common law, as it existed with its legal and equitable features in the year 1607, was universally held by the courts to be the common law of each of the thirteen states which constituted the new confederated republic known as the United States of America. As the United States have increased in number, either by the admission of new states to the Union carved out of the original undivided territory, or by the extension of territorial area through purchase or contest, the common law as it existed at the close of the War of the American Revolution has been held to be the common law of such new states with the exception that, in the State of Louisiana, the civil law of Rome, which ruled within the vast area originally called Louisiana, has been maintained, subject only to subsequent legislative modifications. The Dominion of Canada is subject to the common law with the exception of the Province of Quebec and the civil laws of that province are derived from the old customary laws of France, particularly the Custom of Paris, in like manner as the laws of the English-speaking provinces are based upon the common law of England. In process of time, the customary laws have been modified or replaced by enactments of the Imperial and Federal parliament and by those of the provincial parliament; they were finally codified in the year 1866 upon the model of the Code Napoléon. However, the criminal law of the Province of Quebec is founded upon that of England and was to a great extent codified by the federal statute of 1892. Practice and procedure in civil causes are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 1897.

The common law of England is not the basis of the jurisprudence of Scotland; that country having adhered to the civil law as it existed at the time of the union with England except so far as it has been modified by subsequent legislation. The English common law with the exceptions which have been noted prevails throughout the English-speaking world. Mexico, Central America, and South America, with the exception of an English Colony and a Dutch Colony, remain under the sway of the civil law. The common law of England has been the subject of unstinted eulogy and it is, undoubtedly, one of the most splendid embodiments of human genius. It is a source of profound satisfaction to Catholics that it came into being as a definite system and was nurtured, and to a great extent administered, during the first ten centuries of its existence by the clergy of the Catholic Church.

REEVES, History of the English Law (Philadelphia, 1880); BLACKSTONE, Commentaries on the Laws of England, SHARSWOOD edition (Philadelphia, 1875); POLLOCK AND MAITLAND, The History of English Law (Boston, 1875); KENT, Commentaries upon American Law (12th ed., Boston, 1873).

JOHN WILLEY WILLIS

Moral Aspect of Divine Law

Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. We distinguish between the Old Law, contained in the Pentateuch, and the New Law, which was revealed by Jesus Christ and is contained in the New Testament. The Divine Law of the Old Testament, or the Mosaic Law, is commonly divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral precepts. The civil legislation regulated the relations of the people of God among themselves and with their neighbours; the ceremonial regulated matters of religion and the worship of God; the moral was a Divine code of ethics. In this article we shall confine our attention exclusively to the moral precepts of the Divine Law. In the Old Testament it is contained for the most part and summed up in the Decalogue (Ex., xx, 2-17; Lev., xix, 3, 11-18; Deut., v, 1-33).

The Old and the New Testament, Christ and His Apostles, Jewish as well as Christian tradition, agree in asserting that Moses wrote down the Law at the direct inspiration of God. God Himself, then, is the lawgiver, Moses merely acted as the intermediary between God and His people; he merely promulgated the Law which he had been inspired to write down. This is not the same as to say that the whole of the Old Law was revealed to Moses. There is abundant evidence in Scripture itself that many portions of the Mosaic legislation existed and were put in practice long before the time of Moses. Circumcision is an instance of this. The religious observance of the seventh day is another, and this indeed, seems to be implied in the very form in which the Third Commandment is worded: " Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day." If we except the merely positive determinations of time and manner in which religious worship was to be paid to God according to this commandment, and the prohibition of making images to represent God contained in the first commandment, all the precepts of the Decalogue are also precepts of the natural law, which can be gathered by reason from nature herself, and in fact they were known long before Moses wrote them down at the express command of God. This is the teaching of St. Paul — "For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law [of Moses], are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them" (Rom., ii, 14, 15). Although the substance of the Decalogue is thus both of natural and Divine law, yet its express promulgation by Moses at the command of God was not without its advantages. The great moral code, the basis of all true civilization, in this manner became the clear, certain, and publicly recognized standard of moral conduct for the Jewish people, and through them for Christendom.

Because the code of morality which we have in the Old Testament was inspired by God and imposed by Him on His people, it follows that there is nothing in it that is immoral or wrong. It was indeed imperfect, if it be compared with the higher morality of the Gospel, but, for all that, it contained nothing that is blameworthy. It was suited to the low stage of civilization to which the Israelites had at the time attained; the severe punishments which it prescribed for transgressors were necessary to bend the stiff necks of a rude people; the temporal rewards held out to those who observed the law were adapted to an unspiritual and carnal race. Still its imperfections must not be exaggerated. In its treatment of the poor, of strangers, of slaves, and of enemies, it was vastly superior to the civilly more advanced Code of Hammurabi and other celebrated codes of ancient law. It did not aim merely at regulating the external acts of the people of God, it curbed also licentious thoughts and covetous desires. The love of God and of one's neighbour was the great precept of the Law, its summary and abridgment, that on which the whole Law and the Prophets depended. In spite of the undeniable superiority in this respect of the Mosaic Law to the other codes of antiquity, it has not escaped the adverse criticism of heretics in all ages and of Rationalists in our own day. To meet this adverse criticism it will be sufficient to indicate a few general principles that should not be lost sight of, and then to treat a few points in greater detail.

It has always been freely admitted by Christians that the Mosaic Law is an imperfect institution; still Christ came not to destroy it but to fulfil and perfect it. We must bear in mind that God, the Creator and Lord of all things, and the Supreme Judge of the world, can do and command things which man the creature is not authorized to do or command. On this principle we may account for and defend the command given by God to exterminate certain nations, and the permission given by Him to the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians. The tribes of Chanaan richly deserved the fate to which they were condemned by God; and if there were innocent people among the guilty, God is the absolute Lord of life and death, and He commits no injustice when He takes away what He has given. Besides, He can make up by gifts of a higher order in another life for sufferings which have been patiently endured in this life. A great want of historical perspective is shown by those, critics who judge the Mosaic Law by the humanitarian and sentimental canons of the twentieth century. A recent writer (Keane, "The Moral Argument against the Inspiration of the Old Testament" in the Hibbert Journal, October, 1905, p. 155) professes to be very much shocked by what is prescribed in Exodus, xxi, 5-6. It is there laid down that if a Hebrew slave who has a wife and children prefers to remain with his master rather than go out free when the sabbatical year comes round, he is to be taken to the door-post and have his ear bored through with an awl, and then he is to remain a slave for life. It was a sign and mark by which he was known to be a lifelong slave. The practice was doubtless already familiar to the Israelites of the time, as it was to their neighbours. The slave himself probably thought no more of the operation than does a South African beauty, when her lip or ear is pierced for the lip-ring and the ear-ring, which in her estimation are to add to her charms. It is really too much when a staid professor makes such a prescription the ground for a grave charge of inhumanity against the law of Moses. Nor should the institution of slavery be made a ground of attack against the Mosaic legislation. It existed everywhere and although in practice it is apt to lead to many abuses, still, in the mild form in which it was allowed among the Jews, and with the safeguards prescribed by the Law, it cannot be said with truth to be contrary to sound morality.

Polygamy and divorce, though less insisted on by Rationalist critics, in reality constitute a more serious difficulty against the holiness of the Mosaic Law than any of those which have just been mentioned. The difficulty is one which has engaged the attention of the Fathers and theologians of the Church from the beginning. To answer it they take their stand on the teaching of the Master in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew and the parallel passages of Holy Scripture. What is there said of divorce is applicable to plurality of wives. The strict law of marriage was made known to our first parents in Paradise: "They shall be two in one flesh" (Gen., ii, 24). When the sacred text says two it excludes polygamy, when it says one flesh it excludes divorce. Amid the general laxity with regard to marriage which existed among the Semitic tribes, it would have been difficult to preserve the strict law. The importance of a rapid increase among the chosen people of God so as to enable them to defend themselves from their neighbours, and to fulfil their appointed destiny, seemed to favour relaxation. The example of some of the chief of the ancient Patriarchs was taken by their descendants as being a sufficient indication of the dispensation granted by God. With special safeguards annexed to it Moses adopted the Divine dispensation on account of the hardness of heart of the Jewish people. Neither polygamy nor divorce can be said to be contrary to the primary precepts of nature. The primary end of marriage is compatible with both. But at least they are against the secondary precepts of the natural law: contrary, that is, to what is required for the well-ordering of human life. In these secondary precepts, however, God can dispense for good reason if He sees fit to do so. In so doing He uses His sovereign authority to diminish the right of absolute equality which naturally exists between man and woman with reference to marriage. In this way, without suffering any stain on His holiness, God could permit and sanction polygamy and divorce in the Old Law.

Christ is the author of the New Law. He claimed and exercised supreme legislative authority in spiritual matters from the beginning of His public life until His Ascension into heaven. In Him the Old Law had its fulfilment and attained its chief purpose. The civil legislation of Moses had for its object to form and preserve a peculiar people for the worship of the one true God, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messias who was to be born of the seed of Abraham. The new Kingdom of God which Christ founded was not confined to a single nation, it embraced all the nations of the earth, and when the new Israel was constituted, the old Israel with its separatist law became antiquated; it had fulfilled its mission. The ceremonial laws of Moses were types and figures of the purer, more spiritual, and more efficacious sacrifice and sacraments of the New Law, and when these were instituted the former lost their meaning and value. By the death of Christ on the Cross the New Covenant was sealed, and the Old was abrogated, but until the Gospel had been preached and duly promulgated, out of deference to Jewish prejudices, and out of respect for ordinances, which after all were Divine, those who wished to do so were at liberty to conform to the practices of the Mosaic Law. When the Gospel had been duly promulgated the civil and ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses became not only useless, but false and superstitious, and thus forbidden.

It was otherwise with the moral precepts of the Mosaic Law. The Master expressly taught that the observance of these, inasmuch as they are prescribed by nature herself, is necessary for salvation — "If thou wouldst enter into life keep the commandments", — those well-known precepts of the Decalogue. Of these commandments those words of His are especially true — "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it." This Christ did by insisting anew on the great law of charity towards God and man, which He explained more fully and gave us new motives for practising. He corrected the false glosses with which the Scribes and Pharisees had obscured the law as revealed by God, and He brushed aside the heap of petty observances with which they had overloaded it, and made it an intolerable burden. He denounced in unmeasured terms the externalism of Pharisaic observance of the Law, and insisted on its spirit being observed as well as the letter. As was suited to a law of love which replaced the Mosaic Law of fear, Christ wished to attract men to obey His precepts out of motives of charity and filial obedience, rather than compel submission by threats of punishment. He promised spiritual blessings rather than temporal, and taught His followers to despise the goods of this world in order to fix their affections on the future joys of life eternal. He was not content with a bare observance of the law, He boldly proposed to His disciples the infinite goodness and holiness of God for their model, and urged them to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect. For such as were specially called, and who were not content to observe the commandments merely, He proposed counsels of consummate perfection. By observing these His specially chosen followers, not only conquered their vices, but destroyed the roots of them, by constantly denying their natural propensities to honours, riches, and earthly pleasures. Still it is admitted by Catholic theologians that Christ added no new merely moral precepts to the natural law. There is of course a moral obligation to believe the truths which the Master revealed concerning God, man's destiny, and the Church. Moral obligations, too, arise from the institution of the sacraments, some of which are necessary to salvation. But even here nothing is added directly to the natural law; given the revelation of truth by God, the obligation to believe it follows naturally for all to whom the revelation is made known; and given the institution of necessary means of grace and salvation, the obligation to use them also follows necessarily.

As we saw above, the Master abrogated the dispensations which made polygamy and divorce lawful for the Jews owing to the special circumstances in which they were placed. In this respect the natural law was restored to its primitive integrity. Somewhat similarly with regard to the love of enemies, Christ clearly explained the natural law of charity on the point, and urged it against the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees. The Law of Moses had expressly enjoined the love of friends and fellow-citizens. But at the same time it forbade the Jews to make treaties with foreigners, to conclude peace with the Ammonites, Moabites, and other neighbouring tribes; the Jew was allowed to practise usury in dealing with foreigners; God promised that He would be an enemy to the enemies of His people. From these and similar provisions the Jewish doctors seem to have drawn the conclusion that it was lawful to hate one's enemies. Even St. Augustine, as well as some other Fathers and Doctors of the Church, thought that hatred of enemies, like polygamy and divorce, was permitted to the Jews on account of their hardness of heart. It is clear, however, that, since enemies share the same nature with us, and are children of the same common Father, they may not be excluded from the love which, by the law of nature, we owe to all men. This obligation Christ no less clearly than beautifully expounded, and taught us how to practise by His own noble example. The Catholic Church by virtue of the commission given to her by Christ is the Divinely constituted interpreter of the Divine Law of both the Old and the New Testament.

ST. THOMAS, Summa theologica (Parma, 1852); SUAREZ, De Legibus (Paris, 1856); PESCH, Prœlectiones dogmaticœ, V (Freiburg, 1900); KNABENBAUER, Commentarius in Evangelia (Paris, 1892); GIGOT, Biblical Lectures (New York, 1901); PALMIERI, De Matrimonio (Rome, 1880); PELT, Histoire de l'ancien Testament (Paris, 1901); VON HUMMELAUER, Commentarius in Exodum, Leviticum, Deuteronomium (Paris, 1897, 1901); VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1908); HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1904).

T. SLATER.

International Law

International law has been defined to be "the rules which determine the conduct of the general body of civilized states in their dealings with each other" (American and English Encycl. of Law). Different writers have given varying views of the foundation of the law of nations, some holding that it is founded merely upon consent and usage, and others that it is the same as the law of nature, applied to the conduct of nations in the character of moral persons susceptible of obligations and laws. Chancellor Kent holds that neither of these views is strictly true; that the law of nations is purely positive law founded on usage, consent, and agreement, but that it must not be separated entirely from natural jurisprudence, since it derives its force "from the same principles of right reason, the same views of the nature and constitution of man, and the same sanction of Divine revelation, as those from which the science of morality is deduced". It follows, then, that by the natural law every state is bound to conduct itself towards other states in accordance with the rules of justice, irrespective of the general rules that have arisen from long established custom and usage. International law is a part of the law of the land of which the courts take judicial notice, and municipal statutes are construed so as not to infringe on its doctrines. The rules of international law are to be found in writers of recognized authority, in treaties between civilized nations, in the decisions of international tribunals, in state papers and diplomatic correspondence, and its application is to be sought especially in the decisions of the courts of the different nations where the rules have been defined in litigated cases, arising especially in the admiralty where judgment has been sought in prize cases. The first great modern authority on the subject was Grotius. His works have been followed by those of Puffendorf, Burlamaqui, Bynkershoek, and Vattel. The works of these learned authors have been adapted and expanded by various writers, so that now there is a vast body of literature upon the subject representing great learning and ability.

The law of nations is essentially the product of modern times. Ancient nations looked upon strangers as enemies, and upon their property as lawful prize. Among the Greeks prisoners of war might lawfully be put to death or sold into slavery with their wives and children, and there was no duty owed by the nation to a foreign nation. Some beginnings of diplomatic intercourse may be traced in the relations of the Greek states towards one another, by agreements relating to the burying of the dead and the exchange of prisoners, while the Amphictyonic Council affords an instance of an attempt to institute a law of nations among the Grecian states themselves. The Romans show stronger evidence of appreciation of international law, or at least of the beginnings of it. They had a college of heralds charged with the Fetial Law relating to declarations of war and treaties of peace, and as their power and civilization grew, there came an appreciation of the moral duty owed by the state to nations with which it was at war. After the establishment of the empire, especially in its later periods, the law of nations became recognized as part of the natural reason of mankind. After the fall of the empire there was a relapse into the barbarism of earlier ages, but, when in the ninth century Charlemagne consolidated his empire under the influence of Christianity, the law of nations took on a new growth. As commerce developed, the necessity of an international law providing for the enforcement of contracts, the protection of shipwrecked sailors and property, and the maintaining of harbours, became more apparent. Various codes and regulations containing the laws of the sea gradually developed, the most famous of which are the "Judgments of Oléron", said to have been drawn up in the eleventh century and long recognized in the Atlantic ports of France and incorporated in part in the maritime ordinances of Louis XIV; the "Consolato del Mare", a collection of rules applicable to questions arising in commerce and navigation both in peace and war, probably drawn up in the twelfth century and founded upon the Roman maritime law and early maritime customs of the commercial cities of the Mediterranean; the "Guidon de la Mar", which dates from the close of the sixteenth century and deals with the law of maritime insurance, prize, and the regulations governing the issue of letters of marque and reprisal. In addition to these there were various bodies of sea laws, notably the maritime law of Wisby, the customs of Amsterdam, the laws of Antwerp, and the constitutions of the Hanseatic League. All of these codes contained provisions extracted from the earliest known maritime code, the Rhodian Laws, which were incorporated into the general body of Roman law, and were recognized and sanctioned by Tiberius and Hadrian.

During the long period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the definitive beginning of modern European states the greatest influence working for a recognition of international law among all peoples was the Church. A common faith, imposing the same obligations upon the individual members of the Church among all nations, obviously tended to the establishment and recognition of rules of justice and morality as among the nations themselves; and, when the more general acceptance of the obligations of Christianity became the rule, it followed naturally that the Head of the Church, the pope holding the Divine commission, should become the universal arbiter in disputes among nations. For centuries the great offices of state, especially those having to do with foreign relations, were held by bishops learned in canon law, and, as canon law was based upon Roman law and especially adapted to the government of the Church whose jurisdiction was not bounded by state lines, it naturally suggested many of the rules that have found a place in international law. The pope became the natural arbitrator between nations, and the power to which appeals were made when the laws of justice and morality were flagrantly violated by sovereigns either in relation to their own subjects or to foreign nations.

As the empire founded by Charlemagne gained in power and extent, the controversies precipitated by the conflicting claims of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction developed still further the position of the pope as the highest representative of the moral power of Christendom. It has been justly said therefore that, "of all the effects of Christianity in altering the political face of Europe throughout all its people, and which may therefore very fairly be denominated a part of its Law of Nations, none are so prominent to observation during these centuries as those which sprang from the influence and form of government of the Church" (Ward, "Law of Nations", II, 31). At first without territory or temporal power, on account of his spiritual influence alone the pope was recognized as the ultimate tribunal of Christendom, and as such was known as the Father of Christendom. Under the Holy Roman Empire from the time of Otho I, as is pointed out by Janssen, there was a close alliance between the Church and the State, though they were at no time identical. "Church and State", he says, "granting certain presupposed conditions, are two necessary embodiments of one and the same human society, the State taking charge of the temporal requirements, and the Church of the spiritual and supernatural. These two powers would, however, be in a state of continual contention were it not for a Divine Law of equilibrium keeping each within its own limits." He points out further that the original cause of the separation between the spiritual and temporal powers, as "taught by Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth century, lies in the law established by the Divine founder of the Church, Who, 'cognizant of human weakness, was careful that the two powers should be kept separate, and each limited to its own province. Christian princes were to respect the priesthood in those things which relate to the soul, and the priests in their turn to obey the laws made for the preservation of order in worldly matters; so that the soldiers of God shall not mix in temporal affairs, and the worldly authorities shall have naught to say in spiritual things. The province of each being so marked out, neither power shall encroach on the prerogatives of the other, but confine itself to its own limit.'"

"While it is recognized that the kingdoms of this world, as opposed to the one universal Church, may exist and prosper while remaining separate and independent, yet it was thought that the bond with the Church would be of a higher nature if the partition walls between people and people were broken down, all nations joined together in one, and the unity of the human race under one lord and ruler acknowledged. It was this idea which inspired the popes with the desire to found the Holy Roman Empire, whose Emperor would deem it his highest prerogative to protect the Christian Church. The Gospel was to be the law of nations. The State would consolidate the nations, while the Church would sow the seeds of revealed truth" (Janssen, "History of the German People", II, 110 sq.). In this ideal we find the medieval conception of the State. Although the ideal was never completely realized, yet it met such general acceptance that the emperor became the chief protector of law and order and the arbiter between lesser princes. The growth of the power of the State gradually diminished that of the feudal barons, whose petty contentions and the violence of whose lives were a hindrance to the development of international justice. Until this phase of the beginnings of civilization changed there was little to ameliorate the brutality of conduct between warring peoples, except as the individual education of knights in chivalry affected their conduct.

Another influence of great importance in the formation of international law were the general councils of the Church, affecting as they did all Christian nations and laying down rules of faith and discipline binding alike upon individuals and governments. The history and development of rules of international law from these early beginnings have been traced to contemporary times, and, notwithstanding periods when the influence of a lofty and Christian ideal of the relations between nations seems almost to have been lost, it will appear that there has been a steady advance in the recognition of the existence of a moral law of nations whose sanction is the public opinion of the world. So far has this system progressed that its underlying principles are, in the main, well-defined, universally recognized, and constantly appealed to, both in times of war and in times of peace, by all civilized nations. Rules governing the acquisition of territorial property, jurisdiction over rivers and seas, protectorates over independent peoples; measures allowed to compel the rendering of justice, short of war; intervention in the affairs of foreign nations, have all been measurably settled; and so far as relates to the rights and duties of belligerents and of neutral states in declaring and carrying on war, the fixing of the character of property, the regulating of the effect of intercourse between individuals, many vexed points have also been carefully defined and to a large extent settled. Some of the most delicate questions, such as the right to visit and search the blockaded ports of the enemy, and the character of correspondence permitted between the subjects or citizens of neutral states and the belligerents, may be considered as well settled and recognized by decisions of the highest courts of all civilized nations as any of the rules of municipal law.

Earnest and intelligent efforts to bring about a permanent court of arbitration have resulted in the formation of an international tribunal at The Hague, which has already been accepted by the voluntary action of the various nations as a proper forum for the decision of many international questions specially referred to it. The principles of arbitration accepted by the United States and Great Britain in the settlement of the so-called Alabama Claims and the frequent agreements between the contending parties over questions of boundary, fisheries, and damages to private property of their respective citizens or subjects, have given emphasis to international law. Its rules have enforced respect for private property on the part of contending armies, and, under certain conditions, when such is carried by ships, have forbidden the use of certain destructive missiles, and in very many ways have alleviated the horrors of war. While there must always remain questions that no self-respecting nation would be willing to submit to arbitration, yet the field for the exercise of the latter is indefinitely great, and, as the demands of modern civilization, the means of communication between nations, and the development of trade relations increase, questions more frequently arise requiring appeal to some tribunal, acceptable to both parties, whose decision shall be final and absolute. Until the revolt against the Church in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, this power of arbitration, as has been stated, rested in the pope. With the decline of recognition of this moral power, religious sanctions in the relations between nations have gradually lessened. Instead of a decision of the pope, bearing with it the impress of the revealed truth of religion, the agreements of modern courts of arbitration or other referees for the settlement of international disputes have for their sanction the general sense of justice existing naturally among men, strengthened by such faith in revealed religion as may exist among them irrespective of the teaching of the Church. This is the great difference between the sanction of modern international law and that existing previous to the so-called Reformation. Previous to that event the power of the Church was exercised merely in a moral way by an appeal to the faith and consciences of all men and nations, enforcing the decrees of the arbiter of Christendom — the pope.

Controversy concerning this arbitration has been carried on, at first with great violence, but since with a calmer and fairer recognition of the exceeding advantage to nascent civilization of such power as that exercised by the popes during the Middle Ages. It has been insisted that the popes not alone wished to vindicate their supreme spiritual power, but cherished a desire to reduce all princes to a condition of vassalage to the Roman See. This is a grave error. The Church has never declared it to be an article of faith that temporal princes, as such, are in temporal matters subject to the pope. The confusion of thought has arisen from the fact that in the eyes of the Church the kingly power has never been looked upon as absolute and unlimited. The rights of the people were certainly not less important than those of the ruler, who owed them a duty, as they owed a duty to him. They did not exist for his benefit, and his power was to be employed, not for his own ends, but for the welfare of the nation. He was to be, above all, the servant of God, the defender of the Church, of the weak, and of the needy. In many states the monarch was elected only on the express condition of professing the Catholic Faith and defending it against attack. In Spain, from the seventh to the fourteenth century, the king had to take such an oath, and, even when it was no longer formally administered, he was still understood to be bound by the obligation. The laws of Edward the Confessor, published by William the Conqueror and his successors, expressly provide that a king who does not fulfil his duties towards the Church must forfeit his title of king. Kings were constantly reminded that their temporal power was given them for the defence of the Church, and that they should imitate King David in their submission to God.

With this intimate relation of Church and State, the clergy, by reason of their education and force of character and the respect paid to them because of their office, took an active part in the civic affairs of the various nations, and, until the controversies arose between them and the emperors who succeeded Charlemagne, the civil and religious powers existed harmoniously in the main. Owing to the limitations of human nature, and especially because the support of both Church and State necessarily came from voluntary or enforced contributions of the people, causes of friction would arise from time to time between the two powers. The decrees of the councils of the Church were confirmed as laws of the empire to secure their being put in force by the civil power, and the sentence was pronounced at Chalcedon (451) that imperial laws that were contrary to canon law should be null and void. Freedom and religion were mutually supported because the Church, in which religion was incorporated, was at the same time the guardian of freedom. The power of the pope as Head of the Church Universal gained somewhat, but not sufficiently to affect in a very marked degree his influence as the Head of Christendom from the fact of his becoming a temporal prince during the eighth century. Again and again the popes have declared it was part of their duty to make and preserve peace on all sides; to mediate between royal families; to hinder wars or bring them to a speedy close; to defend Christendom against the incursions of the Mohammedans; to incite Christian nations to carry on the crusades for the recovery of the Holy Places of Jerusalem. Whoever felt himself oppressed turned to the Roman See, and, if it did not give him help, the pope was thought to have neglected his duty. "In an age", says Lingard, "when warlike gains alone were prized, Europe would have sunk into endless wars had not the popes striven unceasingly for the maintenance and restoration of peace. They rebuked the passions of princes, and checked their unreasonable pretensions; their position of common father of Christendom gave an authority to their words which could be claimed by no other mediator; and their legates spared neither journeys nor labour in reconciling the conflicting interests of courts, and in interposing between the swords of contending factions the olive-branch of peace" (History of England, IV, 72; quoted by Hergenröther). The great Protestant writer Grotius says: "Quot dissidia sanata sint auctoritate Romanæ Sedis, quoties oppressa innocentia ibi præesidium repent, non alium testem quam eundem Blondellum volo" (Hergenröther, "Church and State", pp. 286-7), i. e., how many quarrels were healed by the authority of the Roman See, how often oppressed innocence found support there, the same Blondel abundantly testifies.

Much misunderstanding as to the attitude of the popes has arisen from the Bull of Pope Alexander VI, when, acting at the solicitation of the sovereigns of Castile, he drew the limits of a line from the North to the South Pole, 100 Spanish leagues to the west of the most westerly island of the Azores; all that was east of the line belonged to Portugal, and all that was west of it to Spain. By this decision it has been said that the maxim "de externis non judicat ecclesia" has been violated, and also the further maxim that the conversion of subjects to the Catholic Faith takes nothing from the rights of infidel princes. The true explanation of this Bull will be found when it is remembered that the pope was acting as arbitrator between two nations of explorers, when it was most desirable that a line of demarcation should be drawn between the fields to be explored. It was intended only to prevent dissension and struggles likely to arise from rival pretensions, and, since by its terms it precluded any Christian prince from interfering within the boundaries assigned to each nation, it was a powerful preventive of wrong-doing. It being admitted that sovereignty over uncivilized peoples can be claimed under certain conditions by civilized nations, the pope sought only to regulate the rights of such nations so as to avoid war. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that the principal motive, as professed by the Spanish explorers, was not commerce or the acquisition of wealth alone, but the conversion of heathen nations to the Christian Faith.

It will appear from a review of the history of the centuries from the accession of Charlemagne to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire until modern times, the power of the pope as the supreme and common tribunal between nations has been exercised for the advantage of mankind in the extension of justice to all. In England, the excommunication of King John compelled the submission of a monarch, who, according to the Protestant writer Ward, had "by his violence and depravity drawn down upon himself the just detestation of mankind". In the example of Emperor Lothair of Lorraine in the ninth century, an instance may be found of an intervention of the pope to prevent the repudiation by this monarch of his lawful wife in order that he might marry another. The pope intervened to secure the release of Richard I of England from the prison, of the Duke of Austria and the emperor. By his interposition in 1193 he procured the liberty of the three daughters of King Tancred of Sicily; who had been unjustly carried off and retained captive by Emperor Henry VI. So in the case of the infant son of the King of Aragon. In 1214 Simon de Montfort was compelled to surrender his prisoner on the application of the prince's mother. Many other instances of equal importance show the reverence of peoples and sovereigns for the pope and for the fearless and impartial way in which his authority was exercised. The same author, from whom these instances have been quoted, speaks of the Councils of the Church. He says they were "composed of delegates from every nation of Christianity, and under this appearance Europe may fairly be said to deserve the appellation which has sometimes been bestowed upon it of a Republic of States." He points out that the two Councils of Lyons give an idea of "an almost perfect Court of Parliament of Christendom, in which the affairs of sovereigns were discussed, and sovereigns themselves proceeded against, under all the forms of a regular trial and sentence" (Ward, "Law of Nations", II, 55, 59).

The influence of the structure of the Roman State, with the emperor as the supreme ruler in temporal matters, educated the minds of the northern peoples, especially the Germans, who, on the fall of the Empire, gradually took possession of its former territory. After the acceptance of Christianity as the state religion in the reign of Constantine, it was not difficult for even the most ignorant of men to grasp an idea of the dual powers ruling human life — that of the sovereign with supreme jurisdiction in temporal matters, and that of the pope, the primate of all the bishops, the successor of St. Peter, the Head of the Church, the visible representative of the moral power of God on earth. While, in his human capacity, the pope in any given era may have been affected by the prevailing habit of thought of that era, and as a man has been subject to the limitations of our common nature, it may be safely said of the papacy that no institution has had so profound an effect upon the evolution of the laws of justice and right in the conduct of nations, and that without such a power of moral influence modern civilization would not have attained a higher plane than that of Imperial Rome. The sense of duty and obligation, which is a cardinal principle of Christianity, has been enforced among princes and peoples, so that even in our day the various nations, although to a great extent separated from the Catholic Faith, still recognize that the pope, as the head of the most venerable and most numerous body of professed Christians, embodies the moral power of Christianity and must be respected accordingly. As has been said by Hergenröther, "the perfection of international law depends upon two conditions:

1. the degree in which the notion of a common humanity is developed among nations;
2. the closeness of the connexion by which they feel themselves united.

Christendom and the Church have had a powerful influence upon both these conditions. After the fall of the Roman Empire it created amongst new States common interests and an international law, which, founded upon the principles and laws of the Church, was administered by her and her Head as an international tribunal under the protection of the penalty of the Church's ban" (Church and State, 369).

In giving an address at the conference held under the auspices of the Civic Federation in Washington on 18 Jan., 1910, Elihu Root, former Secretary of State of the United States, said: "Since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, in which the powers of Europe for the first time undertook to deal with subjects of general interest to them, as distinct from specific situations which were the results of war, up to three years ago there had been over one hundred and twenty congresses or conferences of representatives of a considerable part, practically the whole of the civilized powers of the earth, and those conferences or congresses have accomplished a great variety of things. They have established an international postal union; they have agreed upon and put into force rules for the protection of industrial property, patents, copyrights, and trademarks; they have established rules for sanitation or control, and, to some degree, the prevention of disease, under which each country binds itself to so legislate and so enforce its laws as to prevent its being a nuisance to the other countries with whom it is in conference. They have united in measures for the abolition of the slave trade, for the abolition of privateering, for the establishment of agreement upon rules of the private international law, so that private rights depending up on the laws of different countries may be recognized and dealt with under uniform rules; they have in a series of conferences held at Geneva established rules for the enforcement of humane principles for the conduct of war, and by rules adopted at The Hague, for the enforcement of humane rules in the conduct of war by sea; they have established for the greater part of the world uniform weights and measures; they have agreed upon rules designed for the prevention of the white slave trade; they have, by a series of conferences, agreed in Europe upon a number, as yet a comparatively small number, of provisions for the protection of labour; they have agreed upon rules for telegraphic communication, rules for the protection of ocean cables, rules for the government of wireless telegraphy."

It will be seen from the foregoing sketch that all these beneficent results have followed from the development of the Christian idea of the brotherhood of mankind. International law, like all other systems, will be found to be but an endeavour to bring into the affairs of life the eternal principles of right at all times taught by the Christian Church. For the actual status of the Holy See concerning conflicts and wars between Christian nations, peace, peace conferences, and international arbitration, see PAPACY; PEACE; WAR.

HERGENRÖTHER, Catholic Church and Christian State (London, 1876); JAUGEY, Dict. Apologétique de la foi catholique (Paris, 1889), s.v. Alexandre VI; WARD, Law of Nations (London, 1795); KENT. Commentaries (1884); MANNING, International Law (London, 1875); DAVIS, The Elements of International Law (New York, 1908); WHEATON, International Law, ed. ATTAY (1904); LAWRENCE, International Law (1885); American and English Encyclop. of Law (1900); PERRIN, L'ordre international (Paris, 1888); PRADIER-FODÉRÉ. Traité de droit internation (Paris, 1885); The Peacemaker of the Nations in The Month (May, 1869); Speech of LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY in the House of Lords (25 July, 1887); letter (1870) of URQUHART to Pius IX in Acta Conc. Vaticani; in Coll. Lacensis, VII; HALLS, The Peace Conference at The Hague (New York, 1900), and critique of same by SHAHAN in Cath. Univ. Bulletin, VII (1901), 1-22.

WALTER GEORGE SMITH.

Natural Law

I. ITS ESSENCE

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application–the sense in which this article treats it–the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II, Q. xciv). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

The norm, however, of conduct is not some particular element or aspect of our nature. The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see Good ). For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man's nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason. In both respects it is distinguished from the Divine positive law, which contains precepts not arising from the nature of things as God has constituted them by the creative act, but from the arbitrary will of God. This law we learn not through the unaided operation of reason, but through the light of supernatural revelation.

We may now analyse the natural law into three constituents: the discriminating norm, the binding norm (norma obligans), and the manifesting norm. The discriminating norm is, as we have just seen, human nature itself, objectively considered. It is, so to speak, the book in which is written the text of the law, and the classification of human actions into good and bad. Strictly speaking, our nature is the proximate discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine nature itself, the ultimate groundwork of the created order. The binding or obligatory norm is the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order established by the Creator. Contrary to the Kantian theory that we must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience, the truth is that reason as conscience is only immediate moral authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and imperium. The manifesting norm (norma denuntians), which determines the moral quality of actions tried by the discriminating norm, is reason. Through this faculty we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature, what kind of action it calls for, and whether a particular action possesses this requisite character.

THE CONTENTS OF THE NATURAL LAW

Radically, the natural law consists of one supreme and universal principle, from which are derived all our natural moral obligations or duties. We cannot discuss here the many erroneous opinions regarding the fundamental rule of life. Some of them are utterly false–for instance, that of Bentham, who made the pursuit of utility or temporal pleasure the foundation of the moral code, and that of Fichte, who taught that the supreme obligation is to love self above everything and all others on account of self. Others present the true idea in an imperfect or one-sided fashion. Epicurus, for example, held the supreme principle to be, "Follow nature"; the Stoics inculcated living according to reason. But these philosophers interpreted their principles in a manner less in conformity with our doctrine than the tenor of their words suggests. Catholic moralists, though agreeing upon the underlying conception of the Natural Law, have differed more or less in their expression of its fundamental formula. Among many others we find the following: "Love God as the end and everything on account of Him"; "Live conformably to human nature considered in all its essential respects"; "Observe the rational order established and sanctioned by God"; "Manifest in your life the image of God impressed on your rational nature." The exposition of St. Thomas is at once the most simple and philosophic. Starting from the premise that good is what primarily falls under the apprehension of the practical reason–that is of reason acting as the dictator of conduct–and that, consequently, the supreme principle of moral action must have the good as its central idea, he holds that the supreme principle, from which all the other principles and precepts are derived, is that good is to be done, and evil avoided (I-II, Q, xciv, a. 2).

Passing from the primary principle to the subordinate principles and conclusions, moralists divide these into two classes: (1) those dictates of reason which flow so directly from the primary principle that they hold in practical reason the same place as evident propositions in the speculative sphere, or are at least easily deducible from the primary principle. Such, for instance, are "Adore God"; "Honour your parents"; "Do not steal"; (2) those other conclusions and precepts which are reached only through a more or less complex course of inference. It is this difficulty and uncertainty that requires the natural law to be supplemented by positive law, human and Divine. As regards the vigour and binding force of these precepts and conclusions, theologians divide them into two classes, primary and secondary. To the first class belong those which must, under all circumstances, be observed if the essential moral order is to be maintained. The secondary precepts are those whose observance contributes to the public and private good and is required for the perfection of moral development, but is not so absolutely necessary to the rationality of conduct that it may not be lawfully omitted under some special conditions. For example, under no circumstances is polyandry compatible with the moral order, while polygamy, though inconsistent with human relations in their proper moral and social development, is not absolutely incompatible with them under less civilized conditions.

III. THE QUALITIES OF THE NATURAL LAW

(a) The natural law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Every man, because he is a man, is bound, if he will conform to the universal order willed by the Creator, to live conformably to his own rational nature, and to be guided by reason. However, infants and insane persons, who have not the actual use of their reason and cannot therefore know the law, are not responsible for that failure to comply with its demands. (b) The natural law is immutable in itself and also extrinsically. Since it is founded in the very nature of man and his destination to his end–two bases which rest upon the immutable ground of the eternal law–it follows that, assuming the continued existence of human nature, it cannot cease to exist. The natural law commands and forbids in the same tenor everywhere and always. We must, however, remember that this immutability pertains not to those abstract imperfect formulæ in which the law is commonly expressed, but to the moral standard as it applies to action in the concrete, surrounded with all its determinate conditions. We enunciate, for instance, one of the leading precepts in the words: "Thou shalt not kill"; yet the taking of human life is sometimes a lawful, and even an obligatory act. Herein exists no variation in the law; what the law forbids is not all taking of life, but all unjust taking of life.

With regard to the possibility of any change by abrogation or dispensation, there can be no question of such being introduced by any authority except that of God Himself. But reason forbids us to think that even He could exercise such power, because, given the hypothesis that He wills man to exist, He wills him necessarily to live conformably to the eternal law, by observing in his conduct the law of reason. The Almighty, then, cannot be conceived as willing this and simultaneously willing the contradictory, that man should be set free from the law entirely through its abrogation, or partially through dispensation from it. It is true that some of the older theologians, followed or copied by some later ones, hold that God can dispense, and, in fact in some instances, has dispensed from the secondary precepts of the natural law, while others maintain that the bearing of the natural law is changed by the operation of positive law. However, an examination of the arguments offered in support of these opinions shows that the alleged examples of dispensation are: (a) cases where a change of conditions modifies the application of the law, or (b) cases concerning obligations not imposed as absolutely essential to the moral order, though their fulfillment is necessary for the full perfection of conduct, or (c) instances of addition made to the law.

As examples of the first category are cited God's permission to the Hebrews to despoil the Egyptians, and His command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But it is not necessary to see in these cases a dispensation from the precepts forbidding theft and murder. As the Sovereign Lord of all things, He could withdraw from Isaac his right to life, and from the Egyptians their right of ownership, with the result that neither would the killing of Isaac be an unjust destruction of life, nor the appropriation of the Egyptians' goods the unjust taking of another's property. The classic instance alleged as an example of (b) is the legalization of polygamy among the Hebrews. Polygamy, however, is not under all circumstances incompatible with the essential principles of a rationally ordered life, since the chief ends prescribed by nature for the marital union–the propagation of the race and the due care and education of offspring–may, in certain states of society, be attained in a polygamous union. The theory that God can dispense from any part of the law, even from the secondary precepts, is scarcely compatible with the doctrine, which is the common teaching of the School, that the natural law is founded on the eternal law, and, therefore, has for its ultimate ground the immutable essence of God himself. As regards (c), when positive law, human or Divine, imposes obligations which only modify the bearing of the natural law, it cannot correctly be said to change it. Positive law may not ordain anything contrary to the natural law, from which it draws its authority; but it may–and this is one of its functions–determine with more precision the bearing of the natural law, and for good reasons, supplement its conclusions. For example, in the eyes of the natural law mutual verbal agreement to a contract is sufficient; yet, in many kinds of contract, the civil law declares that no agreement shall be valid, unless it be expressed in writing and signed by the parties before witnesses. In establishing this rule the civil authority merely exercises the power which it derives from the natural law to add to the operation of the natural law such conditions as the common good may call for. Contrary to the almost universally received doctrine, a few theologians held erroneously that the natural law depends not on the essential necessary will of God, but upon His arbitrary positive will, and taught consistently with this view, that the natural law may be dispensed from or even abrogated by God. The conception, however, that the moral law is but an arbitrary enactment of the Creator, involves the denial of any absolute distinction between right and wrong–a denial which, of course, sweeps away the very foundation of the entire moral order.

IV. OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW

Founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason, the moral law is known to us in the measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding. The question arises: How far can man be ignorant of the natural law, which, as St. Paul says, is written in the human heart (Rom., ii, 14)? The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason. These principles are really reducible to the primary principle which is expressed by St. Thomas in the form: "Do good and avoid evil". Wherever we find man we find him with a moral code, which is founded on the first principle that good is to be done and evil avoided. When we pass from the universal to more particular conclusions, the case is different. Some follow immediately from the primary, and are so self-evident that they are reached without any complex course of reasoning. Such are, for example: "Do not commit adultery"; "Honour your parents". No person whose reason and moral nature is ever so little developed can remain in ignorance of such precepts except through his own fault. Another class of conclusions comprises those which are reached only by a more or less complex course of reasoning. These may remain unknown to, or be misinterpreted even by persons whose intellectual development is considerable. To reach these more remote precepts, many facts and minor conclusions must be correctly appreciated, and, in estimating their value, a person may easily err, and consequently, without moral fault, come to a false conclusion.

A few theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, following some older ones, maintained that there cannot exist in anyone practical ignorance of the natural law. This opinion however has no weight (for the controversy see Bouquillon, "Theologia Fundamentalis", n. 74). Theoretically speaking, man is capable of acquiring a full kowledge of the moral law, which is, as we have seen, nothing but the dictates of reason properly exercised. Actually, taking into consideration the power of passion, prejudice, and other influences which cloud the understanding or pervert the will, one can safely say that man, unaided by supernatural revelation, would not acquire a full and correct knowledge of the contents of the natural law (cf. Vatican Council, Sess. III, cap. ii). In proof we need but recall that the noblest ethical teaching of pagans, such as the systems of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, was disfigured by its approbation of shockingly immoral actions and practices.

As the fundamental and all-embracing obligation imposed upon man by the Creator, the natural law is the one to which all his other obligations are attached. The duties imposed on us in the supernatural law come home to us, because the natural law and its exponent, conscience, tell us that, if God has vouchsafed to us a supernatural revelation with a series of precepts, we are bound to accept and obey it. The natural law is the foundation of all human law inasmuch as it ordains that man shall live in society, and society for its constitution requires the existence of an authority, which shall possess the moral power necessary to control the members and direct them to the common good. Human laws are valid and equitable only in so far as they correspond with, and enforce or supplement the natural law; they are null and void when they conflict with it. The United States system of equity courts, as distinguished from those engaged in the administration of the common law, are founded on the principle that, when the law of the legislator is not in harmony with the dictates of the natural law, equity (æquitas, epikeia) demands that it be set aside or corrected. St. Thomas explains the lawfulness of this procedure. Because human actions, which are the subject of laws, are individual and innumerable, it is not possible to establish any law that may not sometimes work out unjustly. Legislators, however, in passing laws, attend to what commonly happens, though to apply the common rule will sometimes work injustice and defeat the intention of the law itself. In such cases it is bad to follow the law; it is good to set aside its letter and follow the dictates of justice and the common good (II-II, Q. cxx, a. 1). Logically, chronologically, and ontologically antecedent to all human society for which it provides the indispensable basis, the natural or moral law is neither–as Hobbes, in anticipation of the modern positivistic school, taught–a product of social agreement or convention, nor a mere congeries of the actions, customs, and ways of man, as claimed by the ethicists who, refusing to acknowledge the First Cause as a Personality with whom one entertains personal relations, deprive the law of its obligatory basis. It is a true law, for through it the Divine Mind imposes on the subject minds of His rational creatures their obligations and prescribes their duties.

On this subject consult Ethics; Conscience; Good; Duty; Summa Theol., I-II, QQ. xci, xciv; I, Q. lxxix, a. 12; Suarez, De Legibus, II, v-xvii; Meyer, Institutiones Juris Naturalis, II. The natural law is treated in all Catholic text-books of ethics. A good exposition in English will be found in Rickaby, Moral Philosophy (London, 1888); Hill, Ethics or Moral Philosophy (Baltimore, 1888). Consult also: Robinson, Elements of American Jurisprudence (Boston, 1900); Lilly, Right and Wrong (London, 1890); Ming, The Data of Modern Ethics Examined (New York, 1897); Bouquillon, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis (Ratisbon and New York, 1890); Blackstone, Commentaries, I, introd., sec. i.

JAMES J. FOX

Roman Law

In the following article this subject is briefly treated under the two heads of; I. Principles; II. History. Of these two divisions, I is subdivided into: A. Persons; B. Things; C. Actions. The subdivisions of II are: A. Development of the Roman Law (again divided into periods) and B. Subsequent Influence.

I. PRINCIPLES

The characteristic of the earlier Roman law was its extreme formalism. From its first secret administration as the law of the privileged classes it expanded until it became the basis of all civilized legal systems. The Roman law in its maturity recognized a definite natural-law theory as the ultimate test of the reasonableness of positive law, and repudiated the concept that justice is the creature of positive law. Cicero (De leg., I, v) tells us "Nos ad justitiam esse natos, neque opinione sed natura constitutum esse jus" (i. e. Justice is natural, not the effect of opinion). Justice was conformity with perfect laws, and jurisprudence was the appreciation of things human and divine — the science of the just and the unjust, but always the science of law with its just application to practical cases. Law was natural or positive (man-made); it was natural strictly speaking (instinctive), or it was natural under the Roman concept of the jus gentium (law of nations) — natural in itself or so universally recognized by all men that a presumption arose by reason of universality. The Romans attributed slavery to the jus gentium because it was universally practised, and therefore implied the consent of all men, yet the definition of slavery expressly states that it is contra naturam, "against nature". The precepts of the law were these: to live honestly; not to injure another; to give unto each one his due. Positive law was the jus civile, or municipal law, of a particular state.

Gaius says that all law pertains to persons, to things, or to actions.

A. Persons

Man and person were not equivalent terms. A slave was not a person, but a thing; a person was a human being endowed with civil status. In other than human beings personality might exist by a fiction. Status was natural or civil. Natural status existed by reason of natural incidents, such as posthumous or already born (jam nati), sane and insane, male and female, infancy and majority. Civil status had to do with liberty, citizenship, and family. If one had no civil status whatever, he had no personality and was a mere thing. Men were either free or slaves: if free they were either free born or freedmen. Slaves were born such or became slaves either by the law of nations or by civil law. By the law of nations they became slaves by reason of captivity; by civil law, by the status of their parents or in the occasional case where they permitted themselves to be sold in order to participate in the price, if they were over twenty years of age. An ungrateful freedman, again, might become a slave, as might one condemned to involuntary servitude in punishment for crime. Freeborn, in the later law, were such as were born of a mother who was free at conception, at birth, or at any time between conception and birth. Freedmen were former slaves who had been emancipated under one of several forms. They owed obsequium — i. e., respect and reverence — to their former masters. The Lex Ælia Sentia placed restrictions on emancipation by minors and in fraud of creditors. The Lex Fusia Caninia restricted the right of manumission proportionately to the number of slaves owned.

Men were either citizens or foreigners (peregrini), perhaps more accurately "denizens". Assuming that one had civil status, he might be either sui juris (his own master) or alieni juris (subject to another). The power to which he was subject was termed a potestas: slaves were under the dominical power, and children were under the patria potestas exercised by a male ascendant; the marital power was termed manus (i. e., "the hand", signifying force).

Slaves were at first insecure in their lives, but later the master's power of life and death was taken away. They were in commerce and might be sold, donated, bequeathed by legacy, alienated by testament, or manumitted. They had nothing of their own, and whatever was acquired through them accrued to the masters. Only very rarely could they bring their masters into legal relations with third persons.

The paternal power over children (descendants) was a close patriarchal relationship, dating from remote antiquity and at first extending to life and death. Between paterfamilias and filius familias (father and son), no obligation was legally enforceable (see Prejudicial action below). During his lifetime the paterfamilias was the owner of accessions made by the filius familias. The later law, however, recognized a quasi-partnership of blood and conceded an inchoate ownership in the paternal goods, which was given expression in the system of successions. A child under power might have the administration of separate goods called his peculium. The paterfamilias did not part with the ownership. The military and quasi-military peculium became a distinct, separate property. Even the slave at his master's sufferance might enjoy a peculium. The paternal power was stripped of the power of life and death, the right of punishment was moderated, and the sale of children was restricted to cases of extreme necessity. In the earlier law, it had been permitted to the father to give over his child (as he might give over a slave) to some person injured through the act of the child, and thus escape liability. With the growth of humane sentiment, the noxal action in the case of children was abolished. Between parents and children, only affirmative or negative actions on the question of filiation or the existence of the paternal power were permitted. The paternal power was held only by males, and extended indefinitely downward during the lifetime of the patriarch: i. e., father and son were under the patria potestas of the grandfather. The potestas was in no wise influenced by infancy or majority. In the case given, upon the death of the grandfather the paternal power would fall upon the father. The patria potestas was acquired over children born in lawful wedlock, by legitimation, and by adoption.

Marriage (nuptiœ or connubium) was the association or community of life between man and woman, for the procreation and rearing of offspring, validly entered into between Roman citizens. It was wont to be preceded by sponsalia (betrothal), defined as an agreement of future marriage. Sponsalia might be verbally entered into, and required no solemnities. The mutual consent of the spouses was requisite, and the object of marriage was kept in mind so that marriage with an impotent person (castratus) was invalid: the parties must have attained puberty, and there could be but one husband and one wife. It is true that more or less continuous extra-matrimonial relations between the same man and woman in the absence of any other marriage were considered as a kind of marriage, under the jus gentium, by the jurists of the second and third centuries. The connubium, or Roman marriage, was for Roman citizens: matrimonium existed among other free persons, and contubernium was the marital relation of slaves. The latter was a status of fact, not a juridical status. Marriage might be incestuous, indecorous, or noxal: incestuous, e. g., between blood relations or persons between whom affinity existed; indecorous, e. g., between a freeman and a lewd woman or actress; noxal, e. g., between Christian and Jew, tutor or curator and ward, etc.

Cognation or blood relationship is indicated by degrees and lines; the degree measures the distance between cognates, and the line shows the series, either direct (ascending or descending) or collateral; the collateral line is either equal or unequal in the descent from the common ancestor. In the direct line, in both civil and canon law, there are as many degrees as there are generations. In the collateral line there is a difference: by civil law, brother and sister are in the second degree, although each is only one degree removed from the common ancestor, the father; by canon law, they are in the first degree. The civil law counts each degree up to the common ancestor and then down to the other collateral. The canon law measures the cognation of collaterals by the distance in degrees of the collateral farthest removed from the common ancestor. Uncle and niece are three degrees distant by civil law; by canon law they are only two degrees removed. Affinity is the artificial relationship which exists between one spouse and the cognates of the other. Affinity has no degrees. By Roman law, marriage in the direct line was prohibited; in the collateral line it was prohibited in the second degree.

Marriage was usually accompanied by the dowry, created on behalf of the wife, and by donations propter nuptias, on behalf of the husband. The dowry (dos) was what the wife brought or what some other person on her behalf supplied towards the expenses of the married state. Property of the wife in excess of the dowry was called her paraphernalia. The dowry was profective, if it came from the father; adventitious, if from the wife or from any other source. The husband enjoyed its administration and control, and all of its fruits accrued to him. Upon the dissolution of the marriage the profective dowry might be reclaimed by the wife's father, and the adventitious by the wife or her heirs. Special actions existed for the enforcement of dotal agreements.

The offspring of incest or adultery could not be legitimated. Adoption, which imitates nature, was a means of acquiring the paternal power. Only such persons as in nature might have been parents could adopt, and hence a difference of eighteen years was necessary in the ages of the parties. Adoption was of a minor, and could not be for a time only. Similar to adoption was adrogation, whereby one sui juris subjected himself to the patria potestas of another.

The paternal power was dissolved by the death of the ancestor, in which case each descendant in the first degree became sui juris; those in remoter degrees fell under the paternal power of the next ascendant: Upon the death of the grandfather, his children became sui juris, and the grandchildren came under the power of their respective fathers. Loss of status (capitis diminutio, media or maxima), involving loss of liberty or citizenship, destroyed the paternal power. Emancipation and adoption had a similar effect.

One might be sui juris and yet subject to tutorship or curatorship. Pupillary tutorship was a personal public office consisting in the education and in the administration of the goods of a person sui juris, but who had not yet attained puberty. Tutorship was testamentary, statutory, or dative: testamentary when validly exercised in the will of the paterfamilias with respect to a child about to become sui juris, but under puberty. A testamentary tutor could not be appointed by the mother nor by a maternal ascendant. The agnates, who were an important class of kinsmen, in the early Roman law were cognates connected through males either by blood relationship or by the artificial tie of agnation. Statutory tutorship was that which the law immediately conferred, as the tutorship of agnates, of patrons, etc. The first statutory tutors were the agnates and gentiles called to tutorship by the Twelve Tables. Justinian abolished the distinction in this respect between agnates and cognates, and called them promiscuously to the statutory tutorship.

Similar to tutorship, although distinct in its incidents, was curatorship. In tutorship the office terminated with the puberty of the ward. The interposition of the tutor's auctoritas in every juridical act was required to be concurrent, both in time and place. He had no power of ratification, nor could he supply the auctoritas by letter or through an agent. Curators were given to persons sui juris after puberty and before they had reached the necessary maturity for the conduct of their own affairs. Curators were appointed also for the deaf and dumb, for the insane and for prodigals. The curator of a minor was given rather to the goods than to the person of his ward; the curator's consent was necessary to any valid disposition of the latter's goods. Tutors and curators were required to give security for the faithful performance of their duties and were liable on the quasi-contractual relationship existing between them and their wards. In certain cases the law excused persons from these duties, and provision was made for the removal of persons who had become "suspect".

In the law of persons, status depended upon liberty, citizenship, and family; and the corresponding losses of status were known respectively as capitis diminutio maxima, media, and minima. The minima, by a fiction at least, was involved even when one became sui juris, although this is disputed.

B. Things

Things were divini vel humani juris (i. e., governed by divine or by human law). Things sacrœ were publicly consecrated to the gods; places of burial were things religiosœ; things sanctœ were so called because protected by a penal sanction — thus the city walls, gates, ditch, etc. were sanctœ. None of these could be part of an individual's patrimony, because they were considered as not in commerce.

Things humani juris were the things with which the private law concerned itself. Things are common when the ownership is in no one, and the enjoyment open to all. In an analogous way, things are public when the ownership is in the people, and the use in individuals. The air, flowing water, the sea, etc. were things common to all, and therefore the property of none. The seashore, rivers, gates, etc., were public. Private things were such as were capable of private ownership and could form part of the patrimony of individuals. Again, things were collective or singular. The once important distinction between res mancipi and nec mancipi was suppressed by Justinian. Res mancipi were those things which the Romans most highly prized: Italian soil, rural servitudes, slaves, etc. These required formal mancipation.

Things were either corporeal or incorporeal: corporeal were those quœ tangi possunt (which can be touched — tangible). Detention or naked possession of a thing was the mere physical faculty of disposing of it. Possession was the detention of a corporeal thing coupled with the animus dominii, or intent of ownership. It might be in good faith or in bad: if there was a just title, the possession was just: if not, unjust. A true possession was possible of a corporeal thing only; quasi-possession was the term employed in reference to an incorporeal thing, as a right. The jus possessionis was the entirety of rights which accrued to the possession as such. The advantages of possession as independent of ownership were as follows: the possessor had not the burden of producing and proving title; sometimes he enjoyed the fruits of the thing; he retained the thing until the claimant made proof; he stood in a better position in law than the claimant, and received the decision where the claim was not fully established; the possessor might retain the thing by virtue of the jus retertionis, until reimbursed for charges and outlays; the possessor in good faith was not liable for culpa (fault). One might not recover possession by violence or self-help.

A right in re was a real right, valid against all the world; a right ad rem was an obligation or personal right against a particular person or persons. Rights in re were ownership, inheritance, servitudes, pledge, etc. Ownership was quiritarian or bonitarian: quiritarian, when acquired by the jus civile only available to Roman citizens; bonitarian, when acquired by any natural, as distinguished from civil, means. This distinction was removed by Justinian. There could be co-ownership or sole ownership.

The modes of acquiring ownership were of two genera, arising from natural law and from civil law. One acquired, by natural law, in occupation, accession, perception of fruits, and by tradition (delivery). Occupation occurred in acquisition by hunting, fishing, capture in war, etc. The right of post-liminium was the recovery of rights lost through capture in war, and in proper cases applied to immoveables, moveables, and to the status of persons. Finding was also a means of occupation, since a thing completely lost or abandoned was res nullius, and therefore belonged to the first taker.

Accession was natural, industrial, or mixed. The birth of a child to a slave woman was an instance of natural accession; so also, was the formation of an island in a stream. This accrued to the riparian owners proportionately to their frontage along the side of the river towards which the island was formed. Alluvion was the slow increment added to one's riparian property by the current. Industrial accession required human intervention and occurred by adjunctio, specificatio, or commixtio, or by a species of the latter, confusio. Mixed accession took place by reason of the maxim: Whatever is planted on the soil, or connected with it, belongs to the soil.

In perception of fruits the severance or taking of revenue might be by the owner or by another, as by the usufructuary, the lessee (in locatio-conductio), by the creditor (in antichresis), and by the possessor in good faith.

Tradition was the transfer of possession and was a corporeal act, where the nature of the object permitted. Corporeal things were moveables or immoveables. In modern civil law, incorporeal things are moveables or immoveables, depending upon the nature of the property to which the rights or obligations attach. In Roman law obligations, rights, and actions were not embraced in the terms moveables and immoveables.

The vindicatory action (rei vindicatio) went to the direct question of ownership, and ownership was required to be conclusively proved. Complete proof of ownership was often extremely difficult, or impossible, and the Prætor Publicius devised the actio publiciana available to an acquirer by just title and in good faith, but who could not establish the ownership of his author. It was available to such an acquirer against a claimant who possessed infirmiore jure.

Ownership (dominium) is an absolute right in re. A servitude (sometimes called a dismemberment of ownership) was a constituted right in the property of another, whereby the owner was bound to suffer something, or abstain from doing something, with respect to his property, for the utility of some other person or thing. A servitude was not a service of a person, but of a thing, and to adjoining land or to a person. Servitudes due to land were real (predial), while servitudes due to a person as such were personal. There were servitudes which might be considered as either real or personal, and others, again, which could only be personal, such as usufruct, use, habitation, and the labour of slaves. A real servitude existed when land was servient to land. Such a servitude was either urban or rural, depending not so much on whether the servitude was exercised in the city or country as upon its relation to buildings. Servitudes consisted in something essentially passive, in patiendo vel in non faciendo; never in faciendo. Servitudes which consisted in patiendo were affirmative and those in non faciendo were negative. Servitudes could arise by agreement, last will, or prescription.

There were numerous urban predial servitudes: as onus ferendi, by which one's construction was bound to sustain the columns of another or the weight of his wall; tigni immittendi, the right to seat one's timbers in his neighbour's wall; projiciendi, the right to overhang one's timbers over the land of another, although in no way resting on the other's soil; protegendi, a similar right of projecting one's roof over another's soil. The servitudes stillicidii and fluminis recipiendi, were similar: stillicidium was the right to drip; and fluminis recipiendi, the right to discharge rainwater collected in canals or gutters. The servitude altius non tollendi was a restriction on the height of a neighbour's construction while altius tollendi was an affirmative right to carry one's construction higher than otherwise permitted. Servitudes of light and prospect were of similar nature.

Rural predial servitudes were iter, actus, via, aquœductus, and the like. The servitude of iter (way) was an eight-foot roadway in the stretches, with accommodation at the turns. It included the right of driving vehicles and cattle, and the lesser right of foot-passage. Actus was a right of trail of four feet in which cattle or suitable narrow vehicles might be driven. Iter was a mere right of path. In these servitudes the lesser was included in the greater. The nature of the right of aquœductus is obvious, as well as the various servitudes of drawing water, of driving cattle to water, of pasturage, of burning lime, of digging sand or gravel, and the like. Servitudes of this character could be extinguished by the consolidation of ownership of both servient and dominant estate in the same owner, and by remission or release; by nonuser for the prescriptive period, and by the destruction of the dominant or servient estate.

Usufruct was the greatest of personal servitudes; yet, as its measure was not the strict personal needs of its subject, it exceeded a personal servitude. During the period of enjoyment it was almost ownership, and was described as a personal servitude consisting in the use and enjoyment of the corporeal things of another without change in their substance. Ususfructus was the right utendi, fruendi, salva substantia. In a strict sense it applied only to corporeal things which were neither consumed nor diminished by such use. After Tiberius a quasi-usufruct (as of money) was recognized. 1Ioney, although not consumable naturaliter, was consumable civiliter. Usufruct could arise by operation of law, by judicial decision (as in partition), by convention, by last will, and even by prescription. The natural or civil death of the usufructuary extinguished the right, as did non-user and the complete loss of the thing.

Use and habitation were lesser rights of the same general nature. Usus was the right to use the things of another, but only to the extent of the usee's necessities, and always salva substantia. Habitation was the right of dwelling in another's building in those apartments which were intended for habitation, salva substantia (i. e., without substantial modification). The personal servitude operœ servorum embraced every utility from the labour of another's slave or slaves. The actions from servitudes were confessoria or negatoria, in assertion of the servitude or in denial of it.

Ownership might further be acquired by usucaption (usucapio) and prescription for a long period. Prescription (a slight modification of the older usucaption) is the dispensing with evidence of title, and is acquisitive when it is the means of acquiring Ownership and extinctive (divestitive) when it bars a right of action. Acquisitive prescription required

• (1) a thing subject to prescription,
• (2) good faith,
• (3) continuous possession, and
• (4) the lapse of the prescribed time.

Again, ownership could be acquired by donation, the gratuitous transfer of a thing to another person. Donations were mortis causa or inter vivos, and the former was in reality a conditional testamentary disposition and very similar to a legacy, while the latter did not require the death of the donor for its perfection. A species of donation inter vivos was the donatio propter nuptias from the husband.

The juridical consequence of ownership is the power of alienation, and yet the law limited certain owners in this respect. The husband owned the dowry, but was subject to restrictions; the pupil under tutorship was owner, but without power to alienate, except probably in the single case of a sister's dowry. Even where one was owner without these specific limitations, if he had conceded rights in re to another, he could not alienate prejudicially to such other: thus, the pledge debtor could not prejudice the rights in re of the pledge creditor.

Acquisition could be made, not only personally, but through children and slaves; and, in the later law, through a mandatory or procurator. Acquisition could be made of possession, of ownership, and of the right of pledge.

Succession

Succession to a deceased person was either testate or intestate: particular things were acquired by legacies or by trust-bequests (fidei-commissa). A universal succession was an inheritance. The Twelve Tables recognized the right of testation, and the civil law later conceived of a partnership of blood in both testate and intestate successions. The præetor's intervention was frequent in testamentary matters; and in equitable cases he softened the rigour of the law and gave the possessio bonorum. A testament was the legally declared last will in which an heir was instituted. Some departure from the strict formalities was permitted in the case of soldiers' wills. The right of testament was active and passive. Persons generally who were under no incapacity could make a will; those prohibited were such as had some defect of status, some vice or defect of mind, or even some sufficient defect of body, and those guilty of crime or improbity. The passive right of testament was the right to take under a will. Heirs were voluntary or necessary (forced). In the early freedom of the law, Romans might disinherit without cause; later, this liberty was restricted to disherison for just cause, and a legitima, or statutory provision, was prescribed. Disherison was the express exclusion from the whole inheritance of one who was entitled to the legitima. One was prœteritus who was neither instituted an heir nor disinherited. Since disherison was required to be express, one conditionally instituted was only pretermitted. Further, disherison required exclusion from all heirs and from every degree. Under the early law, Sons were required to be excluded by name; daughters and grandchildren could be excluded by class. The later law required that all children should be deprived by name. Justinian enumerated the "just" causes of disherison in Novel cxv; they are substantially the same in the modern civil codes.

The instituted heir, as successor to the universal rights of the decedent, was required to have passive testamentary capacity at the time of the will and at the time of the death; the intervening period was of no consequence. It was, however, requisite that he should retain capacity from the time of the death until the taking of the inheritance. In a conditional institution of the heir, capacity was necessary at the time of the will, at the time of the death, and at the time of the happening of the condition. Slaves as well as freemen could be instituted heirs, and, in the case of a slave the gift of liberty was implied. Uncertain and indeterminate persons might be instituted if they could be rendered certain; such were the poor, the municipalities, and licit corporations. Where coheirs were instituted without definite shares, they took equally. The heir might be instituted absolutely or conditionally, but not merely for a time. A physically impossible condition, negatively added, left the institution absolute; in general, the conditions annexed were various and quite similar to the classes of conditions known to the modern civil law. Where one of several co-heirs failed to take, his portion accrued to the others as a matter of law, without their knowledge and even against their will: this was called the jus accrescendi.

As already intimated, the testator might institute one or several heirs; if all were instituted at the same time, they were direct heirs; but one might be direct and the other substituted by way of fidei-commissum. Again, the testator could substitute an heir, in case the first should not take. Direct substitution, therefore, was the institution of a second heir, in case the first failed to take: with respect to the person making the substitution, it was either military or non-military. The case in which the substitution was intended to take place classed it as vulgar, pupilary, or quasi-pupilary: vulgar was the ordinary substitution in which one was named to take, in case the first heir defaulted or died; pupillary, was where an heir was instituted to succeed a child under puberty (since such child could not make a will, the parent in a sense made two wills, one for himself to the child and one for the child in case the latter should die before puberty).

Testaments were vitiated in several ways: nullum, void from the beginning, where there was a defect in the institution of the heir or incapacity in the testator; injustum, not legally executed and hence void; ruptum, by revocation or by the agnation of a posthumous child, either natural or civil; irruptum, where the testator had lost the civil status necessary for testation; destitutum, where the heir defaulted because dead or unwilling, or upon failure of the condition; recissum, as the consequence of a legal attack upon an undutiful will.

It has been said that heirs were either necessary or voluntary: necessary heirs were either such as could not be pretermitted or such as were forced to accept. These were again sui et necessarii or necessarii only. The former were children under the patria potestas, and they were sui because one's own, and necessarii, because the civil law made them forced heirs, although the prætor gave to such the beneficium abstinendi. Voluntary heirs were strangers who had a perfect right of election to accept or reject the inheritance. The prætor conceded to the heir a period of time in which to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the inheritance, called the jus deliberandi. Justinian added to this the benefit of inventory.

Aside from the inheritance proper, a will could contain legacies whereby things were bequeathed by a single title and by express words; they could be imperative or precative. Legacies were by vindication, where the express words justified a direct legal claim by the legatee; by condemnation, where the language condemned or ordered the heir to transmit the legacy; by prœceptio, where a legacy was left to one only of several co-heirs; and sinendi modo, by permissive words. As in the case of joint-heirs, the jus accrescendi existed also among joint-legatees.

By reason of the ambulatory character (as Heineccius terms it) of man's will, legacies and trust-bequests (fidei-commissa) were subject to ademption and transfer to another legatee. The Lex Falcidia, which created the statutory fourth portion, applied to legacies as well as to other testamentary provisions. Fidei-commissa were created by precative words addressed to the conscience of the heir, and were at first not legally enforceable. Trust-bequests were later given legal sanction; and they were universal or of single things. The modern civil law is hostile to trusts of any kind.

If a last will contained the institution of an heir, it was a testament; if it contained less, it was a codicii. Originally, codicils were only letters; later, they began to have testamentary force, containing, however, nothing which pertained to the direct institution of the heir. There could be several nonrepugnant codicils. Not only could they contain no institution of an heir, but they could not provide for disherison or substitution. They were made either in connexion with a will or, in some cases, with a view to the intestate succession of the heir.

If there was an invalid will or no will at all, the succession was intestate: in. the ancient law the basis of intestate succession was the peculiarly Roman artificial family made up of the agnates. Emancipated children and non-agnatic cognates did not succeed, since they were no part of the family. In the first rank, the heirs were the decedent's children (natural or adoptive) who took per capita, in the nearest degree and per stirpes, or by representation, in remoter degrees. Emancipated children had no claim until later, when they were aided by the prætor's edict, "Unde liberi". The Twelve Tables provided that, in the absence of children, the nearest agnate should be called: this was known as the statutory succession of the agnates. Those only were called who were bound in agnation to the deceased through males; hence females beyond sisters were not called. The prætor, however, provided for the more remote in the edict, "Unde cognati". Agnates by adoption enjoyed the same rights as agnates by nature. The nearest agnate took, and there was no right of representation, although here again the prætor made innovations which were supplemented by the legislation of Justinian. The father did not succeed to the son, consistently with the idea that the son could have nothing of his own, and, where the father took, it was by right of resumption. The father succeeded to his emancipated child, not as an agnate, but as a manumissor. The mother was not an agnate, and did not succeed to her children, nor did they succeed to her. Here, again, changes were effected by the edict, "Unde cognati", and by the Senatus-consulta Tertullianum and Orphitianum. The former senatus-consultum provided that, if a free mother gave birth to three children, or a freedwoman to four, there should be a right of succession, and this legislation was modified by Justinian even more favourably to the mother. The Senatus-consultum Orphitianum was the complement of the other, and provided that the right of succession between mother and children should be reciprocal. These rights were extended by imperial constitution to grandchildren.

If agnates were wanting, the Twelve Tables called the gentiles in the next rank, and not the cognates: the prætor, however, in the edict "Unde cognati", called the cognates in this rank.

Servile cognation (that contracted in slavery) had been an impediment of marriage; but the slave woman, manumitted with her children, could not avail herself either of the Senatus-consultum Tertullianum or of the possession of goods derived from the edict "Unde cognati". Justinian created rights of succession to remedy this defect.

The former master or, by assignment of freedmen, his children, stood in loco parentis to the freedman, and succeeded to his patrimony. Even the predeceased patron, through his nearest children (representation being excluded) succeeded to the goods of his former slave. Libertini, freedmen, were restricted. in their capacity to make a will. The prætor considered it no more than equitable that the libertinus should leave one-half his property to his former master. A higher equity arose where the freedman left children of his own, and in this case the patron might be excluded, the whole patrimony going to the freedman's children. In all other cases, and even contra tabulas, the patron took one half: later, in special circumstances depending upon the freedman's wealth, Justinian, developing the principles of the Lex Papia Poppæa, increased the patron's portion.

The prætor's intervention in succession matters did not directly overturn the provisions of the jus civile, but he devised the possessio bonorum, applicable to both testate and intestate successions. Justinian recognized and gave sanction to three kinds of possessio: first, contra tabulas (contrary to the will), where persons had been inequitably pretermitted; second, secundum tabulas; third, possession of an intestate's estate. The bonorum possessor was not an heir in accordance with jus civile, yet he enjoyed all of the privileges of an heir. Justinian placed the right of succession upon a basis of cognation, or blood relationship, and succession by right of blood occurred in four orders which may be indicated as follows:

First order

• (a) the sui heredes, or natural heirs, who succeeded in virtue of the con-dominium in the inheritance;
• (b) those whose strict legal right had been barred (as by emancipation), but whom the prætor called to the inheritance;
• (c) emancipated sons to whom Justinian's constitution restored natural rights.

Second order

• (a) statutory heirs, agnates;
• (b) persons entitled under the Senatus-consultum Tertullianum;
• (c) those entitled under the Senatus-consultum Orphitianum.

Third order

• the cognates. (Heineccius gives tables of descent both before and after Justinian's legislation).

None of these orders being entitled to take, the estate escheated to the fiscus, or public treasury. The adjective law (below, under C. Actions) supplied various forms for the hereditas petitio. Collatio, or the return of advancements, was required in order that there might be a fair distribution. This is the collation of the modern civil codes.

Another means for the acquisition of ownership was adrogation, whereby a person sui juris was adopted into the paternal power of another. Originally the obligations of the adrogatus were strictly and logically extinguished, but the injustice to creditors was the subject of remedial legislation.

Again, one might acquire the goods of another by sectio or venditio bonorum, a sale at auction for the benefit of creditors.

The rights growing out of pledge were also a means for the acquisition of property. This institution was, in its inception, only a fiduciary pact without means of enforcement, and the title passed to the pledge creditor; later, it took the form of pignus, or pledge proper, whereby the creditor was placed in possession of a moveable with certain duties towards the debtor; a form of the same contract was extended to immoveables, and this was known as antichresis. In antichresis the creditor was placed in possession of the immoveables and obliged to pay, first, his interests and charges, and then to deduct from the principal debt whatever he received as revenue. Hypotheca, or mortgage, was a development and in scientific theory is the substructure of the modern law of mortgage. Privileges were akin to modern civil-law rights of the same name and to the liens of the common law; but possession was not of prime importance.

Pledge was extinguished by the extinction of the principal debt, by express release, by expiration of the time, by destruction of the thing pledged, etc. The actions growing out of it were the Servian and general hypothecary, or quasi-Servian action.

Real rights (in re) differ essentially from personal rights (ad rem), or obligations, which have persons as their immediate objects. Even these have things as their remote objects, since they tend to the attainment of a thing through a particular person and by reason of their being usually convertible into a money value. Obligations (dismissing at once those which were purely natural and hence unenforceable) were broader than either contract or tort, and included liability arising from both. They were civil or prætorian, and could arise from contract, quasi-contract, delict, and quasi-delict. In conventional obligations some things were essential, others accidental. Contractual obligations arose through delivery of a thing, through words, through writing, or merely through the consent of the parties; and were, accordingly, contracts re, verbis, littens, or consensu.

Contracts re were the bailments, loan for use, loan for consumption, deposit, and pledge.

Contracts verbis were entered into by a formal stipulation consisting of a direct question and an adequately responsive answer. They could take immediate effect, could commence in futuro, or could be conditional. Stipulations were prætorian, judicial, common, and Aquilian: the prætorian and judicial were scarcely voluntary. The common stipulation was used in the ordinary affairs of men and by persons in fiduciary relationships (e. g., in this form the tutor gave security for the faithful discharge of his duties). The Aquilian stipulation, in connexion with acceptilatio, was a means of general release for the dissolution of any obligation. Stipulations required the same consensual elements that were necessary in other agreements, in addition to their own peculiar formalism. If a conditional response were made to a direct question, the stipulation was void; so also, if made by letter or messenger. The relation of suretyship could be created by stipulation: suretyship was an accessory contract, and the surety was known as the fidei-jussor. Sureties had the beneficium divisionis, which was conceded by Hadrian. They enjoyed also the beneficium ordinis, invented by Justinian, and the beneficium cedendarum actionum, or subrogation to the right of action of the creditor against the principal debtor, or pro rata against the co-sureties.

Contracts litteris took their juridical efficacy from writings, which evidenced the fact that an obligation subsisted or that it had been extinguished. The latter were called apochœ. Writings evidencing a subsisting obligation were syngraphic or chirographic respectively, as they expressed a mutual or a unilateral obligation. A writing in the book of the debtor which supported the creditor's entry was conclusive, and even he creditor's entry created a strong presumption.

Contracts consensu were not peculiar in that they required consent, which was requisite in all contracts. Their peculiarity was in the fact that consent alone sufficed. They were five in number: buying and selling (emptio-venditio); letting and hiring (locatio-conductio); the emphyteuticary contract; partnership (societas); and mandate (gratuitous agency). In sale, there was necessary the consent of the parties, an object and an agreed price. Letting and hiring might be considered a temporary sale, and the essential incidents of a valid contract were the same as in sale. Emphyteusis strictly was neither a sale nor a letting; it was rather a quit-rent lease dependent in its duration upon the payment of the agreed canon. Its special incidents were a quasi-ownership in the tenant and a right of pre-emption in the dominus. Similar to emphyteusis was the right of superficies; but as it applied only to the surface — that is, to buildings — it was less permanent. Partnership was general or universal; particular or special; and, finally, singular. As consent was of its essence, withdrawal of consent worked its dissolution. Partnership was an entity distinct from the individual partners; it gave rise to the actio pro socio. The leonine partnership (societas leonina) was illegal. Mandate was a consensual contract whereby one undertook gratuitously to attend to an affair for another; it was commissioned agency and was an actual contract; it was distinguishable from negotiorum gestio (uncommissioned agency) in that the latter belonged to quasi-contract. It gave rise to the actio mandati, directa, or contraria.

The contracts which had a definite name and form of action for their enforcement were nominate contracts. There were others termed innominate because they had no special names: these were summed up in the four formula: Do, ut des; Do, ut facias; Facio, ut des; and Facio, ut facias. They were enforced by the general action in factum or by the action prœscriptis verbis.

All of the foregoing contracts, nominate and innominate, were contracts in the true sense of the word, but there was another class of relations in which the law imposed duties and obligations as if the parties had actually contracted. These were the so-called quasi-contracts, and the forms were negotiorum gestio, tutorship, inheritance, administration in common, hereditatis aditio, indebiti solutio (payment under mistake of fact), and a few others of similar nature.

Obligations could be acquired through the paternal and dominical powers and through mandataries. A civil obligation once constituted could be extinguished by an exception (plea in bar) or by its own terms. Pleas in bar were divers and could arise from a will, a contract or pact, a judicial decision, etc.

The means of extinction common to all obligations were: solutio (payment); compensatio (set-off); confusio (merging of the character of debtor and creditor) oblatio et consignatio (tender); rei interitus (loss of the thing); novatio (substitution of obligations as to person or thing); prœscriptio (lapse of time); and further, in proper cases, by acceptilatio (release) and by mutuus dissensus (mutual change of intention).

The prætorian restitutio in integrum was an equitable restoration of the parties to their former situation, and could be invoked for metus (duress), dolus (fraud), minority, and generally by all who had suffered hardship through no fault of their own.

Obligations and rights of action arose also out of delictum, which was the voluntary penal violation of human law. Delicts were either actual or quasi-delicts — the former deliberate, the latter negligent. When public, they were crimes; when private, torts. Instances were: furtum (theft), either manifest or concealed; rapina (robbery with violence); damnum injuria datum (injury to property); and injuria (a kind of outrage, or defamatory wrong by word or action). In furtum, the thief could be prosecuted either civilly or criminally, and in the civil action the thing or the penalty could be recovered. The Roman criminal law imposed a fine to the fiscus and corporal or capital punishment. Justinian abolished mutilation and capital punishment for theft and substituted fines and exile. Rapina, like furtum, required a criminal intent. Where the putative owner, in the belief of ownership, sought to recover his property by violence, this was not robbery, but the offence against public order was punished by the loss of the property without, however, any fine to the fiscus. Damage to the property of another injuria datum was the subject matter of the Aquilian Law, and the damage must have been inflicted by a freedman; if by a slave, it was a noxal tort; if by a quadruped, the tort and liability were designated pauperies. The measure of damages in injuria depended upon the atrocity of the wrong and the status of the parties; the right of action accrued to the father for injuria to the son; to the husband, for the wife; to the master, for the slave, etc. Quasi-delictual obligations were torts or wrongs based on culpa (fault or negligence), and not upon dolus (evil intent). An instance was where anything was negligently or carelessly thrown from a house (dejecta vel effusa). Quasi-delictual, also, were the obligations of persons employed in a public calling, such as shipmasters and innkeepers, for the wrongful acts of their servants.

C. Actions

Adjective Law

An action was the legal means for the enforcement of a right, and the Roman law included in the term actio both the right of action and the action itself. Actions were petitory, when they sought to recover the very thing in controversy, or possessory, where the right of possession only was in issue. Specific nominate actions were provided in most of the relations between men, and where the relations were innominate there were actiones in factum, prœscriptis verbis, and condictiones ex lege.

According to their origin, actions were civil or honorary, the latter emanating either from the prætor or from the ædiles. Civil actions were either directœ or utiles: directœ, if brought in the express words of the law or by the logical parties; utiles, if brought upon equitable facts not within the strict letter, and possibly, in the case of a ceded action, by the nominal plaintiff for the use of the real plaintiff. Actions aiming to establish personal status were called prejudicial. Real actions were vindicationes; personal were condictiones.

Rei vindicatio and the Publician action went to the question of ownership. Succession gave rise to the hereditas petitio and to the querela inofficiosi. Servitudes were affirmed or denied by an actio confessoria or negatoria. In pledge, there was the Servian or quasi-Servian action. The prætor or the ædile granted equitable actions, such as the actio ad exhibendum for the production of moveables; the actio in factum de edendo, an action of account against bankers; and the redhibitoria and quanti minoris, actions for redhibition and abatement of the price. The actions based on duress, fraud, and minority were purely equitable, and there was a condictio sine causa in cases of failure of consideration. This may be considered as equitable or as growing out of quasi-contract. Indeed, all of the quasi-contractual relations had their appropriate actions. Private wrongs, too, were redressed in suitable forms of action. In delicts the recovery might be simply the value, as in the persecutory actions; or double the value, as in the actio furti nec manifesti and in the action for corrupting a slave. In some instances, a triple, or even quadruple recovery might be had.

Actions founded on the consensual contracts of sale, hire, emphyteusis, partnership, and mandate, and on the real contracts of commodatum, depositum, and pignus were actions bonœ fidei: so also, the actio prœscriptis verbis for innominate contracts and the quasi-contractual actions negotiorum gestorum, funeraria, tutelœ, etc., as well as the personal action hereditas petitio.

The actio ex stipulatu and the condictio ex chirographo were actions of strict law (stricti juris).

An arbitrary action was one in which a non-compliant party was forced to comply or be held liable in a larger discretionary sum.

Certain exemptions to judgment debtors were favoured by the Roman law; among these was the beneficium competentiœ.

Ordinarily the foundation of liability was personal, yet one might incur liability through the act of another — as a son, a slave, or even a stranger. The actio quod jussu was properly brought against father or master for an act done by his order. The master of a ship, whether freeman or slave, by a sort of necessary agency could incur liability for the ship-owner and the right of action was enforced by the actio exercitoria. Similar in theory was the actio institoria which was the proper form in which to bring an action against one who had placed another in charge of a shop for the buying and selling of wares. The age and condition of the institor were immaterial. The prætor gave an actio de peculio to persons who contracted with son or slave in respect to the peculium, and this action was effective against the father or master to the extent of the peculium.

Aside from the specific remedies sought in particular cases, actions were perpetual or temporary, depending upon the lapse of time. Perpetual actions were ordinarily such as were barred by thirty years' prescription, while temporary actions were barred by shorter periods.

Exceptions or pleas to actions, like actions themselves, were civil or prætorian; and in general were perpetuœ and peremptoriœ (complete pleas in bar); or temporariœ (only dilatory).

The developed written altercations, or pleadings, of the parties were as follows: the actor (plaintiff) brought his actio, which the reus (defendant) met with his exceptio (plea). To this the plaintiff could reply with a replicatio, which in turn might be met with a duplicatio, and in exceptional cases the pleadings might advance to a triplicatio and a quadruplicatio.

The interdicts were formulæ, or conceptions of words, whereby the prætor, in an urgent cause or in one affecting the public interest, ordered or forbade something to be done. They were, in effect, prohibitory or mandatory injunctions; they were prohibitoria, as against violence to possession, obstructing a public place, etc.; they were restitutoria, to restore possession, etc.; and, finally, exhibitoria, as for the production of a free man or for the production of a will. The object to be attained by a possessory interdict was to receive, to retain, or to recover possession. The interdicts quorum bonorum and quod legatorum had to do with successions. The Salvian and quasi-Salvian interdicts were used for foreclosure in pledge obligations.

(The subject of Roman criminal law is beyond the scope of this article; its most concise arrangement is to be found in Pothier's "Pandectæ: de pœnis.")

II. HISTORY AND SOURCES

A. Its Development

The classic period of development of Roman Law was in the second and third centuries of our era, and this is known to us for the greater part through the compilations of Justinian, in the sixth century. In the form given it by Justinian, the Roman Law, through the revival of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, spread over Europe and became the foundation of modern European law.

The history of Roman law has been variously divided into periods. One division is into the Regal Period, from the foundation of the city, the Republican, until the time of Augustus, and, finally, the Imperial, closing with the legislation of Justinian in the year 1280 (a.d. 526) from the foundation of the city (Howe). Again, the lapse of almost 1000 years, from the Twelve Tables to the reign of Justinian, has been divided into three periods: the first, A. U. C. 303-648; the second A. U. C. 648-988, the splendid age from the birth of Cicero to the reign of Alexander Severus; the third, from Alexander to Justinian, in which "the oracles of Jurisprudence were almost mute" (Gibbon). A better division, and one which more accurately corresponds with the growth of Roman political institutions, gives four periods: the first, from the foundation of the city down to the laws of the Twelve Tables; the second, to the battle of Actium (beginning of the empire); the third, from the battle of Actium to the accession of Diocletian; the fourth, from Diocletian to the death of Justinian (565). The first of these four periods is that of infancy; the second, of adolescence; the third, of mature age; the fourth, of senility and decay (Ortolan; Staedtler).

(1) From the Foundation of Rome to the Twelve Tables

Our knowledge of this period is largely conjectural, from data furnished by the subsequent period. Roman history begins with pure myth and fable, then passes through a stage of blended fable and fact, and finally becomes history properly so called. The history of Roman Law has no vital interest with the petty communities and subordinate nationalities that were finally absorbed in the three ethnological elements, Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan, with which the dawn of Rome's legal history begins. Of these three elements the Etruscan was more advanced in civilization, with definite religious and political institutions (Ortolan). The only Etruscan text we have is that of the nymph Vegoia (lasa Veku), which recognizes the right of property and protects it with the wrath of the gods (Casati). It is customary to speak of certain leges in the earliest historical period as leges regiœ: whether these were real statutes enacted during the regal period or the mere formulation of customary law is disputed (Bruns, introd. note to "Leges Regiœ" in "Fontes Jur. Rom. Antiqui"). There were some well established, though crude and radical, rules of private law, such as the harsh paternal power and the equally drastic right of the creditor over his unfortunate debtor. It may safely be affirmed that during this primitive period customary law was the only law.

Pomponius says: "At the beginning of our city, the people began their first activities without any fixed law and without any fixed rights: all things were ruled despotically by kings" (2, §1. D. 1. 2). In the next paragraph he speaks of the so-called leges regiœ as collected and still extant in the book of Sextus Papirius. Again, after the expulsion of the kings the people resorted to customary law. The great mass of historical facts prove that there was no private law other than custom down until this period closed with the enactment of the Twelve Tables (Stædtler). The lack of a precise definition of their rights was the principal grievance of the plebeians, and in A. U. C. 292 their tribune, Terentilius Arsa, proposed the nomination of magistrates to formulate written laws. In 303 decemvirs were appointed, and they agreed upon ten tables during the first year of their magistracy, and two additional tables the second year. The political object sought by the plebeians, namely, the fusing of both classes into one, was not attained: private rights, however, were given definite form. These laws of the Twelve Tables contained the elements from which, in process of time, the vast edifice of private law was developed.

(2) From the Twelve Tables to Actium

The law expanded rapidly and commensurately with the expansion of Rome in territory and civilization. The jurists, however, had not yet the imperium, or power of developing the law through judicial legislation. The growth of law was simply the result of interpretation of the Twelve Tables. The jurists of this period were skilled lawyers who penetrated the spirit of the law, but were not free to depart from it. The few leges passed by the people in assembly had practically little to do with private law. The Senate, which was really an administrative body, began to assume legislative powers, but this source of law was as yet unimportant. The activity of the jurisconsults in interpreting the Twelve Tables was the most conspicuous factor in the growth of private law, and their labours were designated by the same term which designated the Twelve Tables, i. e., jus civile. The Roman magistrate, however, did possess the imperium and, while at first he used it sparingly, he at length began to develop an equitable jurisdiction, giving remedies in a limited number of cases where the jus civile gave none. He proceeded cautiously and upon a rational theory, and, since he could not introduce chaos into the law by varying it in the particular case, he anticipated its defects in hypothetical cases and announced the relief which he would give. The prætor made an announcement in an edict upon assuming magistracy: he was bound by his edict, yet he did not discard the edicts of his predecessors, and in this sense the prætor's edict became an edictum perpetuum, i. e., permanent. When experience showed the value of an innovation, the prætor made it, and thus the honorary law became a developing system, modified and improved from year to year. In the course of time it became voluminous. Most of the changes wrought by the prætor were inroads (after the manner of the English chancellors), upon the harsh rigour of the Twelve Tables. The Twelve Tables were deferentially treated by the prætor, whose functions were constructive, and not destructive, yet, by reason of his imperium, he was not bound by the jus civile in the drafting of his edict. Hence the prætor had the power to engraft upon Roman law new ideas and new principles derived from the jus gentium. There were many non-citizens at Rome, and non-Roman relations were administered by a special magistrate, called the prœtor peregrinus, under a body of principles which were conceived to be common to all men. There was a naturalness and an equity in these principles in which all men were presumed to concur. This was in striking contrast with the jus civile, and the contact of legal ideas began to broaden and liberalize Roman law. This influence, however, had not yet overpowered the jus civile at the close of this second period.

(3) From Actium (31 b.c.) to Diocletian (died a.d. 313)

In this, the classic period, the science of law reached a high degree of perfection. Leges were very rare, and were usually measures of public policy to which some slight elements of private law were incidental; such were the legislative measures rewarding marriage and dealing with the emancipation of slaves (Stædtler). Senatus-consulta, on the contrary, became of increasing importance, and, whereas at first their constitutionality, so to speak, had been doubted, they were fully recognized as law. Other sources were the constitutiones principum, or imperial constitutions; these took the form of edicts, mandates, decrees, and rescripts. The edictal legislation of the magistrates (the honorary law) had become so voluminous that it was incapable of further growth; it was, moreover, out of harmony with changed positive legislation and with changed conditions. Salvius Julianus was commissioned by Hadrian to revise and edit it, and on this revision many of the jurisconsults made their commentaries ad edictum. In the literary splendour of the Augustan age the jurisconsults took high rank; their work was not only scientific, but literary, and it has been said that, had all its other monuments perished, classical Latin would have survived in the fragments of the jurisconsults of this period. Augustus granted to the most eminent in law the startling jus respondendi, i. e., the right of officially giving, in the name of the prince, opinions which were legally binding upon the judge. These responsa were in writing and were sealed before delivery to the judge. Among the celebrated jurisconsults were Capito and Labeo, founders of rival schools (2, § 47, D. 1. 2). Others were Salvius Julianus and Sextus Pompomus, both represented by copious fragments in the Pandects. In the second century came Gaius, of whose "Institutes" those of Justinian are only a recension. In 1816 a palimpsest was discovered by Niebuhr in the library of the cathedral chapter of Verona. On it were some compositions of St. Jerome, in places superimposed on an earlier writing, which proved to be a copy of the lost "Institutes" of Gaius. Gaius himself was a contemporary of the Emperor Hadrian, but scientific research has fixed the date of this copy of his great work as a little earlier than the time of Justinian, in the sixth century.

In the third century lived Papinian, "the Prince of the Jurisconsults". Ulpian and Paulus also were among the greatest lawyers of the period: approximately one-sixth of the Digest is made up of fragments from Ulpian, while Paulus is represented by upwards of two thousand fragments (Staedtler). Modestinus was the last of the great series. We have in manuscript part of an elementary work by Ulpian and the Institutes of Gaius. In Justinian's Digest a very large part of the writings of the classical jurists is to be found. Most of the original treatises have perished; two thousand of these, containing three million unpunctuated and unspaced lines, were abridged to one hundred and fifty thousand lines or sentences. The originals became useless in practice, and were for the greater part soon lost. A number of classic jurists are represented in a collection of 341 fragments, discovered in the Vatican Library in the early part of the nineteenth century by Cardinal Mai, and edited by him at Rome in 1823. Another edition was published in Germany in 1828, under the title "Fragmenta Vaticana". Fragments of the classic jurists are also contained in the "Collatio Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum", known also as the "Lex Dei", compiled in the fourth and fifth centuries. They are found also in the "Breviary of Alaric" or "Lex Romana Wisigothorum", which contains the Sentences of Paulus and the excerpts from Papinian's "Responsa". Fragments from the jurisconsults are found in the "Edictum Theodorici" or "Lex Romana Ostrogothorum" and in the "Lex Romana Burgundionum" (see below).

(4) From Diocletian (died 313) to Justinian (died 565)

The seat of an absolute monarchy was now shifted from Rome to Constantinople, and the Empire was divided into East and West. Constructive jurisprudence was a thing of the past, and the sources of law were merged in the will of the prince. The edicts of the prætorian prefect were given the same effect as the imperial constitutions, which were concerned principally with public law. Private law was vast and diversified, but it had long since ceased to have any stimulating growth. The jus civile, expanded by the ancient jurists in the interpretation, of the Twelve Tables, the honorary law of the magistrates, the public legislative acts of the early empire, the mass of imperial constitutions, and the writings of the classic jurisconsults, composed a heterogeneous jumble of legal materials from which a systematic jurisprudence was destined to arise. An attempt was made in the early fifth century to effect a workable system, and the law of citations was adopted by which the relative authority of the classic jurists was posthumously fixed by statute. Numerical weight of authority was done away with, and the great galaxy were the recognized authorities, although other jurists might be cited if approved by any of the five. Collections of imperial constitutions were made at an interval of fifty years, and published under the names of the Gregorian and Theodosian Codes respectively; the latter was republished in the "Breviary of Alaric". Something at least, had been done for the simplification of a difficult legal situation. The Eastern and Western emperors thenceforward agreed to mutually communicate their legislative designs for simultaneous publication in both empires, and these future projects were to be known as novellœ constitutiones.

Upon Justinian's accession there were in force two principal sources of law: the imperial constitutions and the classical jurisprudence operating under the law of citations (Staedtler). To Justinian's practical mind, the state of the law was still chaotic; the empire was poor, and it was a hardship for lawyers to possess themselves of the necessary Manuscripts. The very bulk of the law produced a situation analogous to that which exists in common-law jurisdictions to-day, and which always ushers in more or less abortive efforts towards codification. Justinian undertook to make these immense materials more accessible and more responsive to the practical needs of his empire. That, in the opinion of some, he wronged posterity by destroying the original sources, is entirely beside the mark. He has been lauded as a great lawgiver when measured by the needs of his time and situation; and, on the other hand, he has been as heartily abused and reviled for an unscientific iconoclast. The first task of the commission appointed by Justinian was to edit the imperial constitutions as a code, published under the title, "Codex Justiniani". After this the emperor directed the compilation of a complete repository of the law made up of fragments of the classical writings strung together without any too scientific arrangement. This work is the great treasury of juridical lore, and was the most valuable part of Justinian's compilation. It was called the "Digest" or "Pandects". Occasionally Tribonian, who, with two other jurists, was intrusted with the task, complacently or ignorantly modified the text. The emperor forbade commentaries and abbreviations.

Upon the completion of the Pandects, Justinian, always intelligently interested in legal education, ordered an abridgment of the Digest for the purposes of instruction; these are the Institutes of Justinian. The Institutes of Gaius (see above, under 3) furnished a ready model; indeed, the Institutes of Gaius and those of Justinian are even to-day the most essential first books of the law. The first draft of the Code was not in complete harmony with the Digest and the Institutes, and a revision of it became necessary; this was promulgated as the "Codex Repetitæ Prælectionis". The second edition of the code was intended to be final, and upon its publication Justinian announced that any new imperial legislation would take the form of detached constitutions to be known as "novels" (novellœ, i. e. "new"); of these he issued a large number, but two only (the 118th and 127th) have great importance for modern law.

The Justinian compilation is sometimes elegantly termed the Imperial Code; it is, however, more accurate to refer to it as the "Corpus Juris Civilis". It is the whole body of the civil law comprising the four books of the Institutes, the fifty books of the Digest, the twelve books of the Code, and the Novels. Early editions divide the Pandects into three parts, the Digestum vetus, the Infortiatum, and the Digestum novum. The labours of Justinian have come down to us in the form of texts of the so-called glossators during the Middle Ages. The glossators worked from earlier manuscripts and harmonized conflicting texts into a generally accepted lectio vulgata ("vulgate", or "common reading"). We have one text known as the "Florentine Pandects" which dates from the seventh century, one hundred years after Justinian. It is, however, in all probability, only one of the texts from which the glossators worked, and, when the errors of copyists are considered, its antiquity should not entitle it to overrule the vulgate. This Florentine text is the subject of legend, and the revival of the study of Roman law has been attributed to its discovery. Savigny and others have demonstrated that the revival was well under way before the discovery of this codex. The publication of a photographic reproduction of the Florentine Pandects was begun at Rome in 1902, and seven of the ten parts are already at hand.

In what had been the Western Empire, Justinian no longer held sway at the date of the promulgation of his laws; the subject race were, however, permitted by their barbarian conquerors to retain the pre-Justinian law as their personal law. The conquerors themselves caused to be made the several compilations known as the "Roman Barbarian Codes" (see LEX). Justinian did, however, effect the reconquest of Italy, and held it long enough to promulgate his laws. When the Ostrogoths again became masters they left the legislation of Justinian undisturbed, and it flourished in a less corrupted form than in the Eastern Empire, which was its logical field. The Roman law of Justinian superseded the barbarian codes and, with the revival, was taught in the medieval schools and thus spread all over Europe.

B. Subsequent Influence

In the Eastern Empire subsequent changes are of interest to the historian rather than to the jurist. There was a lull of nearly three centuries after the death of Justinian, until Leo the Philosopher revised the legislation and published what is known as the "Basilica". While Byzantine materials throw many side lights upon the Roman legal system, they are relatively unimportant, though they were of service to the Humanists. The Eastern law schools only (Constantinople and Berytus) were subject to Justinian at the time of his constitution on legal education, yet he speaks of Rome as a royal city and prohibits the teaching of law elsewhere than in these three cities (Ortolan). Professors of law had been active in all of his reforms: Tribonian was a professor of law and an able, but venal, jurist, whose career had much resemblance with that of Bacon. Theophilus was also a professor of law who, like Tribonian, had taken part in the work of Justinian, and he composed a paraphrase of the Institutes in Greek. A number of commentaries in Greek were produced and an abridgment of the Novels. The greater part of the Byzantine writings were from secondary sources and are abridgments, condensations, manuals, etc. Among others were the "Enchiridium" of Isaurian law, the "Prochiron" of Basil, and the revision entitled "Epanagoge"; and the revised Basilica from a.d. 906 to a.d. 911. In the composition of these collections it is highly probable that the sources were secondary and that the originals of Justinian were not directly consulted. The Basilica through its scholia or annotations grew so bulky that a synopsis of it was made, and this continued in high repute until the fall of the empire, in 1453, when the Greek legal authorities were supplanted by the Mohammedan Koran. Enough of personal law was suffered to the vanquished by the conqueror to constitute the historic element and principal basis of Greek civil law (Ortolan, Morey). Greek fugitives also carried over with them into Italy and elsewhere the relics of their law, and many manuscripts are still extant: of these the Humanist Cujas possessed a valuable library. Thus, the Greek texts, while of little value to the glossators, were yet a potent factor in the second renaissance of Roman law in the sixteenth century. This was of service to the historical and philological school, the inspirations and traditions of which are still active in modern scholarship, particularly that of Germany, where, as Montreuil wrote fifty years ago, the French school is refound in the labours of Reitz, Ruhneken, Biener, Witte, Heimbach, and Zacharia.

The most flourishing school of law following the first revival of Roman law was that of Bologna, towards the end of the eleventh century. Its founder was Irnerius, and he was the first of the glossators. Placentinus and Vacarius were others of the glossators. Vacarius was a Lombard, and he it was who carried the texts of Justinian to England and founded a law school at Oxford, about the middle of the twelfth century. The glossators known as the four doctors all belonged to Bologna; and that school acquired a reputation in civil law equal to that of Paris in theology and canon law. So attractive was the Roman law that the clergy had to be restrained from its study, and the study of canon law stimulated by a decretal in 1220 (Morey). The early Church had been governed by councils, synods, etc. Collections had been made in the fifth and sixth centuries, but it was only in the ninth century that a real collection of ecclesiastical legal documents was made. There began to be collections of decrees of the popes, and the revival of Roman law at Bologna in the twelfth century gave impetus to a systematic canon law. About 1130 Gratian, a Benedictine monk, made the compilation which developed into the "Corpus Juris Canonici". The external similarity of this compilation to the "Corpus Juris Civilis" is thus given by Duck: "The Roman pontiffs effected that in the Church which Justinian effected in the Roman Empire. They caused Gratian's Decree to be published in imitation of the Pandects; the Decretals in imitation of the Code; the Clementine Constitutions and the Extravagantes in imitation of the Novels; and to complete the work Paul IV ordered Launcellot to prepare Institutes which were published at Rome under Gregory XIII, and added to the Corpus Juris Canonici." (In qualification of this, see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI.)

To return to the Roman law, the school of the glossators (of whom Accursius in the middle of the thirteenth century was the last) was succeeded by the school of which Bartolus of Sasso Ferrato and Alciat were representatives. From 1340 the Bartolists flourished for two hundred and fifty years, to be succeeded in turn by the Humanist school, of which Cujas was the chief ornament. Until the sixteenth century Roman law was most cultivated in Italy; its glory then passed to France, and, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, though there were conspicuous Dutch jurists of great ability in the application of the law, it may fairly be said to belong to Germany during that period. France, Italy, Belgium, and even England, however, are awakening in the dawn of the twentieth century.

The survival of Roman-law principles was in great measure due to the principle of personality. The Roman-Greek law ha not been entirely supplanted by the Koran in the Moslem states, such as Egypt and Syria (Amos). In modern Egypt there has been a reaffirmation of many Roman principles in the Civil Code proposed by the international commission which "harmonized the rules of Arabic jurisprudence which were not repugnant to European legislation, with the chief provisions of the Code Napoleon". An interesting Syrian text has been edited by Bruns (Syrisch-Romisches Rechtsbuch aus dem 15. Jahrhundert). This principle of personality permitted by the kings of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Burgundians sufficed to keep alive the Roman law in the West. Except as to the municipalities, the Roman political system had been destroyed. The concession of personal law to Roman subjects and the influence of the clergy, who always preferred to claim the civil law, was a barrier "between Roman civilization and barbarism" (Morey). In the military tenures of feudalism, it has been attempted to trace the idea of two distinct ownerships, the dominium eminens and the dominium vulgare, to the Roman contract of emphyteusis. A collection of feudal law known as the "Consuetudines Feudorum" is contained as a kind of appendix in most editions of the "Corpus". In the Amsterdam edition of 1681, is the note after the second book: "Hic est finis Feudorum in editione vulgata" (End of the feudal constitutions in the vulgate edition). The third book is missing; fragments of the fourth are given, as well as parts of a fifth book, reconstructed by Cujas. In feudalism the institutions of Roman law and Germanic customs became merged; the impress of the former upon the latter was not simply one of terminology; with the terminology was much of interpretation and illuminating principle. It would be rash to assert that feudalism owed more to Roman public law than to theories and analogies drawn from the private law of Rome. Charlemagne favoured the civil-law ideas which savoured of imperialism, and adopted Roman methods of administration. The German emperors also found in Roman legal institutions a plausible support for their claim to the imperial power. The predominant influence in the survival of Roman private law in all the countries of central and southern Europe was that of the clergy. In all national codes there is present a large quantity of customary law; yet, in concept and in classification, all of the civil codes are Roman through and through, and this is as true of the German civil code (and, in part, of the Japanese code) as of those other national codes which trace their immediate parentage to the Code Napoléon and their remote ancestry to the Twelve Tables.

England, from a purely external point of view, is less indebted to the Roman system, but the jurist trained in both systems is at no pains to discover analogies and runs upon evidence of the common law's indebtedness at every step. Anglo-Saxon legal institutions have been jealously and persistently represented as in no wise beholden to Rome. This is to be accounted for in part by a peculiarity in the manner of administration of the common law. With its narrow tradition and its abject rule of stare decisis, it has offered until recently, at least, an unattractive field for historical jurisprudence. The courts and lawyers of the common law have always been intensely practical and have accepted their system, not only as purely indigenous, but also, in the words of the Blackstonian tradition, as "the perfection of reason". For four centuries after Cæsar's conquest Roman law held sway in Britain; her soil was trodden by the great Papinian himself, and possibly by others of the immortal five (Morey). There must indeed have remained in Britain a substantial deposit of Roman law, and it is not to be affirmed that this was completely destroyed by subsequent invasions or by the conquest. The earliest English treatises are for the most part transcriptions of Roman law: such was the book of Bracton (Güterboch). The Roman law was historically in the early English law of persons, of property, of contracts, and of procedure, although not always with equal obviousness. While it had little in common with the law of real property, we are fairly justified in maintaining that Roman law has always continued a substantial ingredient in English law, from the Roman occupation down to the time when we can cite specific decisions in which Roman law principles were engrafted in the chancery law of England. In respect to admiralty, chancery, and ecclesiastical law there has never been, nor could there well be, any disposition to withhold acknowledgment to Rome. The practice is quite common of referring to the chancellor as the prætor. This indebtedness, so begrudgingly acknowledged by many early English jurists in a mistaken sense of national pride, is now frankly admitted by all who lay claim to a knowledge of both Civil and Common law.

A complete bibliography of Roman Law is precluded by the space allotted to this article. A list (by no means exhaustive) of the more modern authoritative civilians, whose works are found on the shelves of a good American collection gives some idea of the wealth of this literature: —
AMOS; ARNDDTS; ACCARIAS; BARON; BERNARD; BONFANTE; BÖCKING; BRINI; BRINZ; BRUNS; CLARK; COLQUHOUN; CONRAT (COHN); CORNIL; COSTA; COULANGES; CUQ: DE MANGEAT; DERNBERG; DEURER; DU CAURROY; DIRKSEN; ESMARCH; ESMEIN; FADDA; FERRINI; FLACK; FITTING; FRESQUET; GIRARD; GLUCK; GÜTERBOCH; HÄNEL; HALLIFAX; HAUBOLD; HEIMBACH; HERZOG; HUNTER; HUSCHKE; IHNE; IHRING; JACQUELIN; JOBBÉ-DUVAL; JORS; LENEL; MACKELDEY; MACKENZIE; MAREZOLL; MARQUART; MOLITOR; MOMMSEN; MÜHLENBRUCK; MONTREUIL; ORTOLAN; PHILLIMORE; POSTE; PUCHTA; ROBY; SANDARS; SAVIGNY; SCHEURL; SCHMIDT; SCHULTING; STAEDTLER; VOIGT; WACHTER; WALKER; WALTER; WARNKÖNIG; WINDSCHIED; VANGEROW; VERING; ZACHARIA.
The writer of this article acknowledges special indebtedness in its preparation to STAEDTLER, Cours de Droit Romain (Louvain and Paris, 1902); and to Manuscript notes on lectures by PROF. STAEDTLER.
HEINECCIUS, Elementa Juris Civilis (Göttingen, 1787); MÜHLENBRUCH, Doctrina Pandectarum (Halle, 1839); SOHM, Inst. of Rom. Law, tr. LEDLIE (Oxford, 1901); MOREY, Outlines of Rom. Law (New York, 1893); CHAMIER, Manual of Rom. Law (London, 1893); HOWE, Studies in the Civil Law (Boston, 1896); MOYLE, Inst. of Just. (Oxford, 1883); VON SAVIGNY, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter (Heidelberg, 1822); ORTOLAN, Hist. of Rom. Law, tr. CUTLER (London 1896); AMOS, Hist. and Principles of Rom. Law (London, 1883).
Important fac-simile reproductions of original texts are the photographic copies of the Manuscript of the Florentine Pandects (Rome, 1902) and of the Manuscript of GAIUS, Institutes (Leipzig, 1909). Among the approved texts are the following:
(a) Pre-Justinian; GAIUS, tr. by MEARS (London, 1883), by POSTE (Oxford, 1875), and by TOMPKINS AND LEMON (London, 1869); Jus Civile Antejustinianeum (Berlin, 1815); Flores Juris Romani Antejustinianei (Paris, 1839); Corpus Juris Antejustinianei (Bonn, 1841); Fontes Juris Romani Antigui (Leipzig, 1893).
(b) The Justinian texts: The Institutes in English by MOYLE, SANDARS, COOPER, etc., The Digest, of which two vols. in English, by PROF. MONRO, of Cambridge, have appeared (his untimely death leaves the completion to another); The Digest has been tr. into German, French, and Spanish; Corpus Juris Civilis, of which the standard Latin text is the German ed. (Berlin, 1904-08) (Institutes by KRUEGER, Digest by MOMMSEN, Code by KRUEGER, and Novels by SCHOELL but completed after the latter's death, by KROLL). Recently Italian scholars, under the leadership of BONFANTE, have produced a similar critical text the first part of which appeared in 1908.
(c) Roman Barbarian texts: Edictum Theorodici, or Lex Romana Ostrogothorum and Lex Romana Burgundionum are given in BLUHME, Monumenta (Hanover, 1875); Lex Romana Wisigothorum, or Breviary of Alaric has been edited by HÄNEL (Leipzig, 1849) and more recently in Spain.
(d) Byzantine texts: Paraphrasis Theophili (Amsterdam, 1860); BASILICA, ed. HEIMBACH (Leipzig, 1833-1870); HAUBOLD, Manuale Basilicorum (Leipzig, 1819).

JOSEPH I. KELLY.

St. Lawrence

Martyr; died 10 August, 258.

St. Lawrence, one of the deacons of the Roman Church, was one of the victims of the persecution of Valerian in 258, like Pope Sixtus II and many other members of the Roman clergy. At the beginning of the month of August, 258, the emperor issued an edict, commanding that all bishops, priests, and deacons should immediately be put to death ("episcopi et presbyteriet diacones incontinenti animadvertantur" -- Cyprian, Epist. lxxx, 1). This imperial command was immediately carried out in Rome. On 6 August Pope Sixtus II was apprehended in one of the catacombs, and executed forthwith ("Xistum in cimiterio animadversum sciatis VIII id. Augusti et cum eo diacones quattuor." Cyprian, ep. lxxx, 1). Two other deacons, Felicissimus and Agapitus, were put to death the same day. In the Roman Calendar of feasts of the fourth century their feast day is on the same date. Four days later, on the 10th of August of that same year, Lawrence, the last of the seven deacons, also suffered a martyr's death. The anniversary of this holy martyr falls on that day, according to the Almanac of Philocalus for the year 354, the inventory of which contains the principal feasts of the Roman martyrs of the middle of the fourth century; it also mentions the street where his grave is to be found, the Via Tiburtina ("III id. Aug. Laurentii in Tibertina"; Ruinart, "Acta sincera", Ratisbon, 1859, 632). The itineraries of the graves of the Roman martyrs, as given in the seventh century, mention the burial-place of this celebrated martyr in the Catacomb of Cyriaca in agro Verano (De Rossi, "Roma Sott.", I, 178).

Since the fourth century St. Lawrence has been one of the most honoured martyrs of the Roman Church. Constantine the Great was the first to erect a little oratory over his burial-place, which was enlarged and beautified by Pope Pelagius II (579-90). Pope Pope Sixtus III (432-40) built a large basilica with three naves, the apse leaning against the older church, on the summit of the hill where he was buried. In the thirteenth century Honorius III made the two buildings into one, and so the basilica of San Lorenzo remains to this day. Pope St. Damasus (366-84) wrote a panegyric in verse, which was engraved in marble and placed over his tomb. Two contemporaries of the last-named pope, St. Ambrose of Milan and the poet Prudentius, give particular details about St. Lawrence's death. Ambrose relates (De officiis min. xxviii) that when St. Lawrence was asked for the treasures of the Church he brought forward the poor, among whom he had divided the treasure, in place of alms; also that when Pope Sixtus II was led away to his death he comforted Lawrence, who wished to share his martyrdom, by saying that he would follow him in three days. The saintly Bishop of Milan also states that St. Lawrence was burned to death on a gird-iron (De offic., xli). In like manner, but with more poetical detail, Prudentius describes the martyrdom of the Roman deacon in his hymn on St. Lawrence ("Peristephanon", Hymnus II).

The meeting between St. Lawrence and Pope Sixtus II, when the latter was being led to execution, related by St. Ambrose, is not compatible with the contemporaneous reports about the persecution of Velarian. The manner of his execution--burning on a red-hot gridiron--also gives rise to grave doubts. The narrations of Ambrose and Prudentius are founded rather on oral tradition than on written accounts. It is quite possible that between the year 258 and the end of the fourth century popular legends may have grown up about this highly venerated Roman deacon, and some of these legends have been preserved by these two authors. We have, in any case, no means of verifying from earlier sources the details derived from St. Ambrose and Prudentius, or of ascertaining to what extent such details are supported by earlier historical tradition. Fuller accounts of the martyrdom of St. Lawrence were composed, probably, early in the sixth century, and in these narratives a number of the martyrs of the Via Tiburtina and of the two Catacombs of St. Cyriaca in agro Verano and St. Hippolytius were connected in a romantic and wholly legendary fashion. The details given in these Acts concerning the martyrdom of St. Lawrence and his activity before his death cannot claim any credibility. However, in spite of this criticism of the later accounts of the martyrdom, there can be no question that St. Lawrence was a real historical personage, nor any doubt as to the martyrdom of that venerated Roman deacon, the place of its occurrence, and the date of his burial. Pope Damasus built a basilica in Rome which he dedicated to St. Lawrence; this is the church now known as that of San Lorenzo in Damaso. The church of San Lorenzo in Lucina, also dedicated to this saint, still exists. The feast day of St. Lawrence is kept on 10 August. He is pictured in art with the gridiron on which he is supposed to have been roasted to death.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Lawrence

Second Archbishop of Canterbury, d. 2 Feb., 619. For the particulars of his life and pontificate we rely exclusively on details added by medieval writers being unsupported by historical evidence, though they may possibly embody ancient traditions. According to St. Bede, he was one of the original missionaries who left Rome with St. Augustine in 595 and finally landed in Thanet in 597. After St. Augustine had been consecrated he sent St. Lawrence back to Rome, to carry to the pope the news of the conversion of King Ethelbert and his people, to announce his consecration, and to ask for direction on certain questions. In this passage of the historian St. Lawrence is referred to as presbyter, in distinction to Peter who is called monachus. From this it has been conjectured that he was a secular priest and not a monk; but this conclusion has been questioned by Benedictine writers such as Elmham in the Middle Ages and Mabillon in later times. When St. Gregory had decided the questions asked, St. Lawrence returned to Britain bearing the replies, and he remained with St. Augustine sharing his work. That saint, shortly before his death which probably took place in 604, consecrated St. Lawrence as bishop, lest the infant Church should be left for a time without a pastor. Of the new archbishop's episcopate Bede writes: "Lawrence, having attained the dignity of archbishop, strove most vigorously to add to the foundations of the Church which he had seen so nobly laid and to forward the work by frequent words of holy exhortation and by the constant example of his devoted labour." The only extant genuine document relating to him is the fragment preserved by Bede of the letter he addressed to the Celtic bishops exhorting them to peace and unity with Rome. The death of King Ethelbert, in 616 was followed by a heathen reaction under his son Eadbald, and under the sons of Sebert who became kings of the East Saxons. Saints Mellitus and Justus, bishops of the newly-founded Sees of London and Rochester, took refuge with St. Lawrence at Canterbury and urged him to fly to Gaul with them. They departed, and he, discouraged by the undoing of St. Augustine's work, was preparing to follow them, when St. Peter appeared to him in a vision, blaming him for thinking of leaving his flock and inflicting stripes upon him. In the morning he hastened to the king, exhibiting his wounded body and relating his vision. This led to the conversion of the king, to the recall of Saints Mellitus and Justus, and to their perseverance in their work of evangelizing Kent and the neighbouring provinces. These events occurred about 617 or 618, and shortly afterwards St. Lawrence died and was buried near St. Augustine in the north porch of St. Peter's Abbey church, afterwards known as St. Augustine's. His festival is observed in England on 3 February.

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, I, xxvii; Ii, iv-vii; Elmham, Historia Monasterii S. Augustini in Rolls Series (London, 1858); Acta SS. Boland., February, I; Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1862-71), giving a list of MS. lives; Haddan and Stubbs, Ecclesiastical Documents I (London, 1869), ii; Stubbs in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Laurentius (25); Hunt in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Lawrence.

EDWIN BURTON

St. Lawrence Justinian

Bishop and first Patriarch of Venice, b. in 1381, and d. 8 January, 1456. He was a descendant of the Giustiniani, a Venetian patrician family which numbered several saints among its members. Lawrence's pious mother sowed the seeds of a devout religious life in the boy's youth. In 1400 when he was about nineteen years old, he entered the monastery of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine on the Island of Alga near Venice. In spite of his youth he excited admiration by his poverty, mortifications, and fervour in prayer. At that time the convent was changed into a congregation of secular canons living in community. After his ordination in 1406 Lawrence was chosen prior of the community, and shortly after that general of the congregation. He gave them their constitution, and was so zealous in spreading the same that he was looked upon as the founder. His reputation for saintliness as well as his zeal for souls attracted the notice of Eugene IV and on 12 May, 1433, he was raised to the Bishopric of Castello. The new prelate restored churches, established new parishes in Venice, aided the foundation of convents, and reformed the life of the canons. But above all he was noted for his Christian charity and his unbounded liberality. All the money he could raise he bestowed upon the poor, while he himself led a life of simplicity and poverty. He was greatly respected both in Italy and elsewhere by the dignitaries of both Church and State. He tried to foster the religious life by his sermons as well as by his writings. The Diocese of Castello belonged to the Patriarchate of Grado. On 8 October, 1451, Nicholas V united the See of Castello with the Patriarchate of Grado, and the see of the patriarch was transferred to Venice, and Lawrence was named the first Patriarch of Venice, and exercised his office till his death somewhat more than four years later. His beatification was ratified by Clement VII in 1524, and he was canonized in 1690 by Alexander VIII. Innocent XII appointed 5 September for the celebration of his feast. The saint's ascetical writings have often been published, first in Brescia in 1506, later in Paris in 1524, and in Basle in 1560, etc. We are indebted to his nephew, Bernardo Giustiniani, for his biography.

BERNARDUS JUSTINIANUS, Opusculum de vita beati Laurentii Justiniani (Venice, 1574); SURIUS, De vitis sanctorum, ed. 1618, I, 126-35; Acta SS., January, I, 551-63; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, ed. BOLLANDISTS, II, 1708; Bullarium Romanum, ed. TAURIN., V, 107 sqq.; EUBEL, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, II, 134-290; ROSA, Summorum Pontificum, illustrium virorum . . . de b. Laurentii Justiniani vita, sanctitate ac miraculis testimoniorum centuria (Venice, 1614); BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, III (Baltimore, 1844), 416-422; REGAZZI, Note storiche edite ed inedite di S. Lorenzo Giustiniani (Venice, 1856); CUCITO, S. Lorenzo Giustiniani, primo patriarca di Venezia (Venice, 1895).

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Lawrence O'Toole

(Lorcan ua Tuathail; also spelled Laurence O'Toole)

Confessor, born about 1128, in the present County Kildare; died 14 November, 1180, at Eu in Normandy; canonized in 1225 by Honorius III.

His father was chief of Hy Murray, and his mother one of the Clan O'Byrne. At the age of ten he was taken as a hostage by Dermot McMurrogh, King of Leinster. In 1140 the boy obtained permission to enter the monastic school of Glendalough; in that valley-sanctuary he studied for thirteen years, conspicuous for his piety and learning. So great was his reputation in the eyes of the community that on the death of Abbot Dunlaing, early in 1154, he was unanimously called to preside over the Abbey of St. Kevin. Dermot, King of Leinster, married Mor, sister of St. Lawrence, and, though his character has been painted in dark colours by the native annalists, he was a great friend to the Church. He founded an Austin nunnery, of the reform of Aroaise, in Dublin, with two dependent cells at Kilculliheen (County Kilkenny) and at Aghade (County Carlow), in 1151. He also founded an abbey for Cistercian monks at Baltinglass, and an abbey for Austin canons at Ferns.

St. Lawrence, through humility, declined the See of Glendalough in 1160, but on the death of Gregory, Archbishop of Dublin (8 October, 1161), he was chosen to the vacant see, and was consecrated in Christ Church cathedral by Gilla Isu (Gelasius), Primate of Armagh, early in the following year. This appointment of a native-born Irishman and his consecration by the successor of St. Patrick marks the passing of Scandinavian supremacy in the Irish capital, and the emancipation from canonical obedience to Canterbury which had obtained under the Danish bishops of Dublin. St. Lawrence soon set himself to effect numerous reforms, commencing by converting the secular canons of Christ Church cathedral into Aroasian canons (1163). Three years later he subscribed to the foundation charter of All Hallows priory, Dublin (founded by King Dermot), for the same order of Austin canons. Not content with the strictest observance of rules, he wore a hair shirt underneath his episcopal dress, and practised the greatest austerity, retiring for an annual retreat of forty days to St. Kevin's cave, near Glendalough. At the second siege of Dublin (1170) St. Lawrence was active in ministration, and he showed his political foresight by paying due deference to Henry II of England, during that monarch's stay in Dublin. In April, 1178, he entertained the papal legate, Cardinal Vivian, who presided at the Synod of Dublin. He successfully negotiated the Treaty of Windsor, and secured good terms for Roderic, King of Connacht. He attended the Lateran Council in 1179, and returned as legate for Ireland. The holy prelate was not long in Dublin till he deemed it necessary again to visit King Henry II (impelled by a burning charity in the cause of King Roderic), and he crossed to England in September of that year. After three weeks of detention at Abingdon Abbey, St. Lawrence followed the English King to Normandy. Taken ill at the Augustinian Abbey of Eu, he was tended by Abbot Osbert and the canons of St. Victor; before he breathed his last he had the consolation of learning that King Henry had acceded to his request.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Lay Abbot

(abbatocomes, abbas laicus, abbas miles).

A name used to designate a layman on whom a king or someone in authority bestowed an abbey as a reward for services rendered; he had charge of the estate be longing to it, and was entitled to part of the income. This baneful custom had a bad effect upon the life of the cloister. It existed principally in the Frankish Empire from the eighth century till the ecclesiastical reforms of the eleventh. Charles Martel (q.v.) was the first to bestow extensive ecclesiastical property upon laymen, political friends, and warriors who had helped him in his campaigns. At an earlier period the French Merovingians had bestowed church lands on laymen, or at least allowed them their possession and use, though not ownership. Numerous synods held in France in the sixth and seventh cen turies passed decrees against this abuse of church property. The French kings were also in the habit of appointing abbots to monasteries which they had founded; moreover, many monasteries, though not founded by the king, placed themselves under royal patronage in order to share his protection, and so be came possessions of the Crown. This custom of the Merovingian rulers of disposing of church property in individual cases, as also that of appointing abbots to monasteries founded by or belonging to themselves, was taken as a precedent by the French kings for rewarding laymen with abbeys, or giving them to bishops in commendam. Under Charles Martel the Church was greatly injured by this abuse, not only in her pos sessions, but also in her religious life. St. Boniface and later Hincmar of Reims picture most dismally the consequent downfall of church discipline, and though St. Boniface tried zealously and even successfully to reform the Frankish Church, the bestowal of abbeys on secular abbots was not entirely abolished, Under Pepin the monks were permitted, in case their abbey should fall into secular hands, to go over to an other community.

Charlemagne also frequently gave church property, and sometimes abbeys, in feudal tenure. It is true that Louis the Pious aided St. Benedict of Aniane in his endeavours to reform the monastic life. In order to accomplish this it was necessary to restore the free election of abbots, and the appointment as well of blameless monks as heads of the monastic houses. Although Emperor Louis shared these principles, he continued to bestow abbeys on laymen, and his sons imitated him. The important Abbey of St. Riquier (Centula) in Picardy had secular abbots from the time of Charlemagne, who had given it to his friend Angilbert, the poet and the lover of his daughter Ber tha, and father of her two sons (see ANGILBERT, SAINT). After Angilbert's death in 814, the abbey was given to other laymen. Under such influences the Church was bound to suffer; frequently the abbeys were scenes of worldliness and revelry. Various syn ods of the ninth century passed decrees against this custom; the Synod of Diedenhofen (October, 844) de creed in its third canon, that abbeys should no longer remain in the power of laymen, but that monks should be their abbots (Hefele, "Konziliengeschichte", 2nd ed., IV, 110). In like manner the Synods of Meaux and Paris (845-846) complained that the monasteries held by laymen had fallen into decay, and emphasized the king's duty in this respect (op. cit., IV, 115). But abbeys continued to be bestowed upon laymen espe cially in France and Lorraine, e.g. St. Evre near Toul, in the reign of Lothaire I. Lothaire II, however, restored it to ecclesiastical control in 858, but the same king gave Bonmoutier to a layman; and the Abbeys of St. Germain and St. Martin, in the Diocese of Toul, were also given to secular abbots. In the Dio cese of Metz, the Abbey of Gorze was long in the hands of laymen, and under them fell into decay. Stavelot and Malmédy, in the Diocese of Liège, were in the eleventh century bestowed on a certain Count Ragin arius, as also St. Maximin near Trier on a Count Adal hard, etc. (Hauck, "Kirchengeschichte Deutschland", II, 598). In 888 a Synod of Mainz decreed (can. xxv) that the secular abbots should place able provosts and provisors over their monasteries.

Councils, however, were unable to put an end to the evil; in a synod held at Trosly, in the Diocese of Soissons, in 909, sharp complaints were made (ch. iii) about the lives of monks; many convents, it was said, were governed by laymen, whose wives and children, soldiers and dogs, were housed in the precincts of the religious. To better these conditions it was neces sary, the synod declared, to restore the regulur abbots and abbesses; at the same time ecclesiastical canons and royal capitularies declared laymen quite devoid of authority in church affairs (Hefele, op. cit., IV, 572-73). Lay abbots existed in the tenth century, also in the eleventh. Gosfred, Duke of Aquitaine, was Abbot of the monastery of St. Hilary at Poitiers, and as such he published the decrees issued (1078) at the Synod of Poitiers (Hefele, op. cit., V, 116). It was only through the so-called investitures conflict that the Church was freed from secular domination; the reform of religious and ecclesiastical life brought about by the papacy, put an end to the bestowal of abbeys upon laymen.

THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova ecclesiæ disciplina circa beneficia, part II, lib. II, c. 12 sqq. (Lyons, 1705, 586-622); Hefele, History of the Councils; Digby, Ages of Faith; FOSTER, British Monasticism; LINGARD, History of England (Dublin, 1878); D'Alton, History of Ireland; STUART AND COLEMAN, History of the Diocese of Armagh.

J.P. KIRSCH

Lay Brothers

Religious occupied solely with manual labour and with the secular affairs of a monastery or friary. They have been known, in various places and at various times, as fratres conversi, laici barbati, illiterati, or idiotæ, and, though members of their respective orders, are entirely distinct from the choir monks or brothers, who are devoted mainly to the opus Dei and to study.

There is some dispute as to the origin of lay brothers. They are first heard of in the eleventh century, and are stated by Mabillon to have been first instituted by St. John Gualbert at Vallombrosa, about 1038. But, though the name conversi is first applied to religious of this kind in the life of St. John Gualbert, written by the Bl. Andrea Strumensis about the end of the eleventh century, it seems certain they were instituted before the founding of Vallombrosa. St. Peter Damian indicates that servants who were also religious were set apart to perform the manual labour at Fonte Avellana, which was founded about the year 1000, while, at the monastery of Fonte Buono, at Camaldoli, founded about 1012, there were certainly brethren who were distinct from the choir monks, and were devoted entirely to the secular needs of the house.

In early Western monasticism no such distinction existed. The majority of St. Benedict's monks were not clerics, and all performed manual labour, the word conversi being used only to designate those who had received the habit late in life, to distinguish them from the oblati and nutriti. But by the beginning of the eleventh century the time devoted to study had greatly increased, a larger proportion of the monks were in Holy orders, while great numbers of illiterate persons embraced the religious life. At the same time it was found necessary to regulate the position of the famuli, the hired servants of the monastery, and to include some of these in the monastic family. So in Italy the lay brothers were instituted; and we find similar attempts at organization at the abbey of St. Benignus, at Dijon, under William of Dijon (d. 1031) and Richard of Verdun (d. 1046), while at Hirschau the Abbot William (d. 1091) gave a special rule to the fratres barbati and exteriores. At Cluny the manual work was relegated mostly to paid servants, but the Carthusians, the Cistercians, the Order of Grandmont, and most subsequent religious orders possessed lay brothers, to whom they committed their secular cares. At Grandmont, indeed, the complete control of the order's property by the lay brothers led to serious disturbances, and finally to the ruin of the order; but the wiser regulations of the Cistercians provided against this danger and have formed the model for the later orders. The English Black Monks have made but slight use of lay brothers, finding the service of paid attendants more convenient; but Father Taunton was mistaken in his assertion that "in those days in English Benedictine monasteries there were no lay brothers", for they are mentioned in the customaries of St. Augustine's at Canterbury and St. Peter's at Westminster.

Lay brothers are now to be found in most of the religious orders. They are mostly pious and laborious persons, usually drawn from the working classes of the community, who, while unable to attain to the degree of learning requisite for Holy orders, are yet drawn to the religious life and able to contribute by their toil to the prosperity of the house or order of their vocation. Not seldom they are skilled in artistic handicrafts, sometimes they are efficient administrators of temporal possessions, always they are able to perform domestic services or to follow agricultural pursuits. The Cistercians, especially their lay brethren, are famous for their skill in agriculture, and many a now fertile spot owes its productiveness to their unremitting labour in modern as well as in medieval times.

Lay brothers are usually distinguished from the their brethren by some difference in their habit: for instance, the Cistercian lay brother wears a brown habit, instead of white, with a black scapular; in choir they wear a large cloak instead of a cowl; the Vallombrosan lay brothers wore a cap instead of a hood, and their habit was shorter; the English Benedictine lay brothers wear a hood of a different shape from that of the choir monks, and no cowl; a Dominican lay brother wears a black, instead of a white, scapular. In some orders they are required to recite daily the Little Office of Our Lady, but usually their office consists of a certain number of Paters, Aves, and Glorias. Wherever they are found in considerable numbers they possess their own quarters in the monastery; the domus conversorum is still noticeable in many of the ruins of English monasteries.

Lay sisters are to be found in most of the orders of women, and their origin, like that of the lay brothers, is to be found in the necessity at once of providing the choir nuns with more time for the Office and study, and of enabling the unlearned to embrace the religious life. They, too, are distinguished by their different habit from the choir sisters, and their Office consists of the Little Office of Our Lady or a certain number of Paters, etc. They seem to have been instituted earlier than the lay brothers, being first mentioned in a life of St. Denis written in the ninth century. In the early medieval period we even hear of lay brothers attached to convents of women and of lay sisters attached to monasteries. In each case, of course the two sexes occupied distinct buildings. This curious arrangement has long been abolished.

BESSE, Le Moine Benedictine(Ligug, 1898), 190-1; GR TZ- MACHER in HERZOG U. HAUCK, Realencyklop die (Leipzig, 1903), s.v. Monchtum; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden u. Kongregationen. der katholischen Kirche, I (Paderborn, 1907), 268- 71; H LYOT, Dictionnaire des Ordres Rel igieux (Paris, 1863), s. v. Hirsauge; HERGOTT, Vetus Disciplina Monastica (Paris, 1726); HOFF MAN, Das Konversen-Institut des Cistercienserordens in seinem Ursprung und seiner Organisation (Freiburg, 1905); MABILLON, Acta Sanctorum O.S.B. (Venice, 1732-40), s c. III (I). v-ix; saec. VI (II), xl-xli, 281, 733; MABILLON, Annales O.S.B., IV (Lucca,. 1739), 411; MART NE, De antiquis Monachorum ritibus (Lyons, 1690); MART NE AND DURAND, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorurn (Paris, 1617), IV, 1547-1652; MITTARELLI AND COSTADONI Annales Camaldulenses O.S.B., I (Venice, 1755; App., 336-457; THOMPSON, Customary of the Benedictine Monasteries of St. Augustine, Canterbury, and St. Peter, Westminster, ed. HENRY BRADSHAW SOCIETY (London, 1902-4); Z CKLER, Askese und Monchtum, 403, 405, 407.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Lay Communion

The primitive discipline of the Church established a different punishment for certain crimes according as they were committed by laymen or clerics. The former entailed a shorter and ordinarily lighter penance than the latter, which were punished with a special penalty. The layman was excluded from the community of the faithful, the cleric was excluded from the hierarchy and reduced to the lay communion, that is to say, he was forbidden to exercise his functions. The nature of the latter punishment is not quite certain. According to one opinion, it consisted in excommunication, together with a prohibition to receive the Blessed Eucharist; according to another, the penitent was allowed to receive Holy Communion but only with the laity. Canon xv of the so-called Apostolical Canons (see CANONS, APOSTOLIC) forbids any priest, residing outside his diocese without authorization, to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, but grants him permission to receive the Eucharist along with the faithful. The canon lxii ordained that clerics who apostatized during the persecutions were to be received among the laity. In 251, a letter of Pope Cornelius to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, informs us that the pope, in presence of all the people received into his communion, but as a layman, one of the bishops guilty of having conferred sacerdotal ordination on the heretic Novatian. A letter of St. Cyprian of Carthage mentions a certain Trophimus, who was admitted to communion among the laity. It would be easy to mention similar cases, in which we find it stated that the penitent was admitted to receive communion among the laity. The Council of Elvira (c. 300) which reveals to us in many ways the religious life of an entire ecclesiastical province, in canon lxxvi, àpropos of a deacon, mentions the same discipline. This is the most ancient canonical text that speaks of the custom of lay communion. We do not cite the Council of Cologne (346) since its authenticity may yet be questioned. But from that time forward we find, in a series of councils, declarations which show conclusively that, when lay communion is mentioned, there is question of the reception of the Blessed Eucharist. Besides the Council of Sardica, those of Hippo (303), canon xli; Toledo (400), canon iv; Rome (487) canon ii, are too explicit to admit of any doubt that we have here an established discipline. We may also cite the Councils of Agde (506), canon 1; Lerida (524), canon v; Orléans (538), canon ii; etc.

Speaking generally, the expression "lay communion" does not necessarily imply the idea of the Eucharist, but only the condition of a layman in communion with the Church. But as the Eucharist was granted only to those in communion with the Church, to say that a cleric was admitted to the lay communion is equivalent to saying that he received the Holy Eucharist. The person who passed from the condition of a penitent to the lay communion, had necessarily to be received by the bishop into the bosom of the Church, before being admitted to communion. There are no grounds for supposing that this transition implied an intermediate stage in which he who was admitted to the communion was deprived of the Blessed Eucharist. This discipline applied not only to those who were guilty of a secret sin, but also to those who had for some time belonged to an heretical sect. But there was no absolute rule, since the Council of Nicæa (325) received back the Novatian clergy without imposing this penalty on them, while we see it enforced in the case of the Donatists. In modern times lay communion is sometimes imposed, but only in exceptional cases, which need not be treated of here.

SCUDAMORE in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s.v.

H. LECLERCQ

Lay confession

This article does not deal with confession by laymen but with that made to laymen, for the purpose of obtaining the remission of sins by God. It has no practical importance, and is treated merely from an historical point of view.

It is found under two forms: first, confession without relation to the sacrament, second, confession intended to supply for the sacrament in case of necessity. In the first instance, it consists of confession of venial sins or daily faults which need not necessarily be submitted to the power of the keys; in the second, it has to do with the confession of even grievous sins which should be declared to a priest, but which are confessed to a layman because there is no priest at hand and the case is urgent. In both cases the end sought is the merit of humiliation which is inseparable from freely performed confession; but in the first no administration of the sacrament, in any degree, is sought; in the second, on the contrary, sacramental confession is made to a layman for want of a priest. Theologians and canonists in dealing with this subject usually have two historical texts a basis. The optional and meritorious confession of slight faults to any Christian is set forth in Venerable Bede's "Commentary on the Epistle of St. James": "Confess your sins one to another" (Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra). "It should be done", says the holy doctor, "with discernment; we should confess our daily and slight faults mutually to our equals, and believe that we are saved by their daily prayer. As for more grievous leprosy (mortal sin), we should, according to the law, discover its impurity to the priest, and according to his judgement carefully purify ourselves in the manner and time he shall fix" (In Ep. Jacob, c.v; P.L., XCIII, 39). Clearly Bede did not consider such mutual avowal a sacramental confession; he had in mind the monastic confession of faults. In the eleventh century Lanfranc sets forth the same theory, but distinguishes between public sins and hidden faults; the first he reserves "to priest, by whom the Church binds and looses:, and authorizes the avowal of the second to all members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and in their absence to an upright man (vir mundus), and in the absence of an upright man, to God alone ("De celanda confess.", P.L., CL. 629). So also Raoul l'Ardent, after having declared that the confession of venial sins may be made to any person, even to an inferior" (cuilibet, etiam minori), but he adds this explanation: "We make this confession, not that the layman may absolve us; but because by reason of our own humiliation and accusation of our sins and the prayer of our brethren, we may be purified of our sins: (Hom. lxiv, P.L., CLV, 1900). Confession to laymen made in this way has, therefore, theological objection. The passage from Bede is frequently quoted by the Scholastics.

The other text on which is based the second form of confession to laymen, is taken from a work widely read in the Middle Ages, the "De vera et falsa poenitentia", until the sixteenth century unanimously attributed to St. Augustine and quoted as such (P.L., XL, 1122). To-day it is universally regarded as apocryphal, though it would be difficult to determine its author. After saying that "he who wishes to confess his sins should seek a priest who can bind and loose", he adds these words often repeated as an axiom: "So great is the power of confession that if a priest be wanting, one may confess to his neighbour" (tanta vis est confessionis ut, si deest sacerdos, confiteatur proximo). He goes on to explain clearly the value of this confession made to a layman in case of necessity: "Although the confession be made to one who has no power to loose, nevertheless he who confesses his crime to his companion becomes worthy of pardon through his desire for a priest." Briefly, to obtain pardon, the sinner performs his duty to the best of his ability, i.e. he is contrite and confesses with the desire of addressing himself to a priest; he hopes that the mercy of God will supply what in this point is lacking. The confession is not sacramental, if we may so speak, except on the part of the penitent; a layman cannot be the minister of absolution and he is not regarded as such. Thus understood confession to laymen is imposed as obligatory later only counselled or simply permitted, by the greater number of theologians from Gratian and Peter Lombard to the sixteenth century and the Reformation. Though Gratian is not so explicit (can. 78, Dist. I, De Poenit.; can. 36, Dist. IV, De Cons.), the Master of the Sentences (IV, dist. xvii) makes a real obligation of confession to a layman in case of necessity. After having demonstrated that the avowal of sins (confessio oris) is necessary in order to obtain pardon, he declares that this avowal should be made first to God, then to a priest, and in the absence of a priest, to one's neighbour (socio). This doctrine of Peter Lombard is found, with some differences, in many of his commentators, among them, Raymond of Penafort, who authorizes this confession without making it an obligation (Summa, III, xxxiv, 84); Albertus Magnus (in Iv, dist. xvii, aa. 58, 59), who, arguing from baptism conferred by a layman in case of necessity, ascribes a certain sacramental value to absolution by a layman. St. Thomas (in IV, dist. xvii, q. 3, art. 3, sol. 2) obliges the penitent to do what he can, and sees something sacramental (quodammodo sacrametalis) in his confession; he adds, and in this many followed him, that if the penitent survives he should seek real absolution for a priest (cf. Bonav. In IV, sent., d. 17, p. 3, a. 1, q. 1, and Alex. of Hales, in IV, q. 19 m. 1, a. 1). Scotus, on the other hand (in dist. xiv, q. 4; dist. xvii, q. 1), not only does not make this confession obligatory, but discovers therein certain dangers; after him John of Freiburg, Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, and Astesanus declare this practice merely licit. Besides the practical manuals for the use of the priests may be mentioned the "Manipulus curatorum" of Guy de Montrocher (1333), the synodal statutes of William, Bishop of Cahors, about 1325, which oblige sinners to confess to a layman in case of necessity; all, however, agree in saying that there is no real absolution and that recourse should be had to a priest if possible.

Practice corresponds to theory; in the medieval chansons de gestes and in annals and chronicles, examples of such confessions occur (see Laurain, "De l'intervetion des laiques, des diacres, et des abbesses dans l'administration de la Pénitence", Paris, 1897). Thus, Joinville relates (Hist. De S. Louis, §70), that the army of the Christians having been put to flight by the Saracens, each one confessed to any priest he could find, and at need to his neighbour; he himself thus received the confession of Guy d'Ybelin, and gave him a kind of absolution saying: "Je vous asol de tel pooir que Diex m'a donnei" (I absolve you with such power as God may have given me). In 1524 Bayard, wounded to death, prayed before his cross-shaped sword-hilt and made his confession to his "maistre d'ostel" (Hist. De Bayard par le loyal serviteur, ch. lxiv-v). Neither theory nor practice, it will readily be seen, was erroneous from a theological pint of view. But when Luther (Prop. Damn., 13) attacked and denied the power of the priest to administer absolution, and maintained that laymen had a similar power, a reaction set in. The heresy of Luther was condemned by Leo X and the council of Trent; this Council (sess. xiv, cap. 6, and can. 10), without directly occupying itself with confession to a layman in case of necessity, defined that only bishops and priests are the ministers of absolution. Sixteenth-century authors, while not condemning the practice, declared it dangerous, e.g. the celebrated Martin Aspilcueta (Navarrus) (Enchirid., xxi, n. 41), who with Dominicus Soto says that it had fallen into desuetude. Both theory and practice disappeared by degrees; at the end of the seventeenth century there remained scarcely a memory of them.

Morin, comment. Histor. De discipl. In administr. sacram. Poenit., VIII (paris, 1651), c. xxiii-iv; Chardon, Histoire des Sacrements; la Penitence, sect. II, c. vii (in Migne, Pat. Lat., XX): Laurain, op. Cit.; Martene, Deantiq. Eccl. Ritibus (Rouen, 1700), I, a, 6, n. 7; and II, 37; and Vacant, Dict. De Theologie cath., I, 182; Koniger, Die Beicht nach Casarius von Heisterbach (1906). From a Protestant pint of view, to be corrected by the foregoing, Lea, Hisotry of Auricular Confession, I (Philadelphia, 1896), 218.

A. BOUDINHON

Paul Laymann

A famous Jesuit moralist, b. in 1574 at Arzl, near Innsbruck; d. of the plague on 13 November, 1635, at Constance. After studying jurisprudence at Ingolstadt, he entered the Jesuit Order there in 1594, was ordained priest in 1603, taught philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt from 1603-9, moral theology at the Jesuit house in Munich from 1609-25, and canon law at the University of Dillingen from 1625-32. He was one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time, and a copious writer on philosophical, moral, and juridical subjects. The most important of his thirty-three literary productions is a compendium of moral theology "Theologia Moralis in quinque libros partita" (Munich, 1625), of which a second and enlarged edition in six volumes appeared in 1626 at the same place. Until the second quarter of the eighteenth century it was edited repeatedly (latest edition, Mainz, 1723), and was extensively used as a textbook in seminaries. Especially in the third edition of his "Theologia Moralis", Laymann stands up resolutely for a milder treatment of those who had been accused of witchcraft. The reason why Laymann is often represented as an advocate of the horrible cruelties practised at trials for witchcraft lies in the false assumption that he is the author of a book entitled "Processus juridicus contra sagas et vene fico." (Cologne, 1629). Quite in contrast with Laymann's "Theologia Moralis", this book is a defence of the extreme severity at trials for witchcraft. Father Duhr, S.J., has now proved beyond doubt that Laymann is not the author of this work. See "Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie", XXIII (Innsbruck, 1899), 733-43; XXIV (1900), 585-92; XXV (1901), 166-8; XXIX (1905), 190-2. At the instance of Bishop Heinrich von Knöringen of Augsburg, Laymann wrote "Pacis compositio inter Principes et Ordines Imperii Romani Catholicos atque Augustanæ Confessionis adhærentes" (Dillingen, 1629), an elaborate work of 658 pages, explaining the value and extent of the Religious Peace of Augsburg, effected by King Ferdinand I in 1555. Another important work of Laymann is entitled "Justa defensio S. Rom. Pontificis, augustissimi Cæsaris, S.R.E. Cardinalium, episco porum, principum et alioram, demum minimæ Societatis Jesu, in causa monasteriorum extinctorum et bonorum ecclesiasticorum vacantium . . ." (Dillingen, 1631). It treats of the Edict of Restitution, issued by Ferdinand II in 1629, and sustains the point that in case of the ancient orders the property of suppressed monasteries need not be restored to the order to which these monasteries belonged, because each monastery was a corporation of its own. Such property, therefore, may be applied to Catholic schools and other ecclesiastical foundations. In the case of the Jesuit Order, however, he holds that all confiscated property must he restored to the order as such, because the whole Jesuit Order forms only one corporation. His work on canon law, "Jus Canonicum seu Commentaria in libros decretales" (3 vols., Dillingen, 1666-98), was published after his death.

SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth que de La Compagnie de Jésus (Brus sels and Paris, 1890-1909),IV, 1582-94; SCIWICKERATH, Attitude of the Jesuits in the trials for witchcraft in American Cath. Quarterly Review, XXVII (Philadelphia, 1902). 493-8: SPECHT, Geschichte der Universität Dillingen (Freiberg im Br., 1902), 325, etc.

MICHAEL OTT

Lay Tithes

Under this heading must be distinguished (1) secular tithes, which subjects on crown-estates were obliged to pay to princes, or tenants, or vassals on leased lands or lands held in fief to their landlords (decimæ origine laicales), and (2) ecclesiastical tithes, which in the course of time became alienated from the Church to lay proprietors (decimæ ex post laicales s. sæcularizatæ). There is question here only of the latter. In the secularizations initiated under the Merovingians the transference of ecclesiastical property and their tithes or of the tithes alone to laymen was effected. In subsequent times church lands with their tithes, or the tithes alone, were bestowed even by bishops and abbots on laymen to secure servants, vassals, protectors against violence and defenders of their civil rights. Other church property with tithes, or the tithes alone, were forcibly seized by laymen. Finally, the development of churches, once the property of private individuals, into parish churches subject to the bishop gave rise to the landlord appropriating the tithes due to the parish church. The church soon took measures to repress this spoliation, beginning as early as the ninth century at the Synod of Diedenhofen (844; cap. iii, 5) and that of Beauvais (845; cap. iii, 6). Gregory VII revived in a stricter form these old canons at the Autumn Synod of 1078, demanding that the laity should return all tithes to the Church, even though they had been given them by bishops, kings, or other persons, and declared all who refused obedience to be sacrilegi (C. 1, C. XVI, q. 7). Succeeding popes and synods repeated this order, declaring that Church tithes to be iuris divini (C. 14, X, de decim., III, 30); that, as the inalienable source of income of the parish church, they could not be transferred to another church or monastery (C. 30, X, de decim., III,30); that they could not be acquired by a layman through prescription or inheritance, or otherwise alienated.

But it was quite impossible for the Church to recover the tithes possessed for centuries by laymen, to whom in fact they had been in many cases transferred by the Church itsclf. Laymen gave then, in preference to the monastery instead of the parish church, but this became thenceforth subject to the approval of the bishop (C. 3, X, do privil., III 33). The decision of the Lateran Council (1179), forbidding the alienation of the church tithes possessed by the laity, and demanding their return to the Church (C. 19, X. de decim., III, 30) was interpreted to mean that, those ecclesiastical tithes, which up to the time of this council were in possession of 1aymen, might be retained by them, but no further transference should take place (C. 25, X, de decim., III, 30, c. 2, A in Vito, h.t., III, 13). But even this cou1d not be carried out. There thus existed side by side with church tithes a quantity of lay tithes; the latter were dealt. with by secular courts as being purely secular rights, while ecclesiastical law was applied to ecclesiastical tithes. However, certain, of the obligations imposed by the (once) ecclesiastical tithes continued to bind the proprietor, even though he were a layman. Thys in the case of church buildings the Council of Trent declared that patrons and all "qui fructus aliquos ex dictis ecclesiis provenientes percipiunt" were bound secondarily to defray the cost of repair (Sess. XXI, De ref., c. vii; see FABRICA ECCLESLE). When there is a doubt as to whether the tithes in quetion are ecclesiatical or lay, the reasonable presumption is that they are ecclesiastical.

FERRARIS, Bibl. canonica (Rome, 1885-99), s.v. Decimar; PERELS, Die kirchl. Zehnten im karoling. Reich (Berlin, 1908); PÖSCHL, bischofsgut u. mensa epicopalis, I (Berlin, 1908), 114 sqq.; STUTZ, Das karoling. Zehntgebo (Weimar, 1908).

JOHANNES BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER

Lazarus

Lazarus (Gk. Lazaros, a contraction of Eleazaros--see II Mach., vi, 18--meaning in Hebrew "God hath helped"), the name of two persons in the N.T.; a character in one of Christ's parables, and the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania.

I. LAZARUS OF THE PARABLE

(1) The Story

The dramatic story of the rich man and the beggar (only in Luke, xvi, 19-31) is set forth by Christ in two striking scenes:

• Their Condition Here: The rich man was clothed in purple and byssus (D.V. fine linen), and spent each day in gay carousing. The beggar had been cast helpless at the rich man's gate, and lay there all covered with sores; he yearned for the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, but received none, and was left to the dogs.
• Their Condition Hereafter: The early banquet is over; the heavenly banquet is begun. Lazarus partakes of the banquet in a place of honour (cf. John, xiii, 23). He reclines his head on Abraham's bosom. The rich man is now the outcast. He yearns for a drop of water. Lazarus is not allowed to leave the heavenly banquet and tend to the outcast.

(2) The Meaning

Catholic exegetes now commonly accept the story as a parable. It is also legendary that the sores of Lazarus were leprous. The purpose of the parable is to teach us the evil result of the unwise neglect of one's opportunities. Lazarus was rewarded, not because he was poor, but for his virtuous acceptance of poverty; the rich man was punished, not because he was rich, but for vicious neglect of the opportunities given him by his wealth.

II. LAZARUS OF THE MIRACLE

This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania; all three were beloved friends of Jesus (John, xi, 5). At the request of the two sisters Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John, xi, 41-44). Soon thereafter, the Saturday before Palm Sunday, Lazarus took part in the banquet which Simon the Leper gave to Jesus in Bethania (Matt., xxvi, 6-16; Mark, xiv, 3-11; John, xii, 1-11). Many of the Jews believed in Jesus because of Lazarus, whom the chief priests now sought to put to death. The Gospels tell us no more of Lazarus (see ST. LAZARUS OF BETHANY).

WALTER DRUM

Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem

The military order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem originated in a leper hospital founded in the twelfth century by the crusaders of the Latin Kingdom. Without doubt there had been before this date leper hospitals in the East, of which the Knights of St. Lazarus claimed to be the continuation, in order to have the appearance of remote antiquity and to pass as the oldest of all orders. But this pretension is apocryphal. These Eastern leper hospitals followed the Rule of St. Basil, while that of Jerusalem adopted the hospital Rule of St. Augustine in use in the West. The Order of St. Lazarus was indeed purely an order of hospitallers from the beginning, as was that of St. John, but without encroaching on the field of the latter. Because of its special aim, it had quite a different organization. The inmates of St. John were merely visitors, and changed constantly; the lepers of St. Lazarus on the contrary were condemned to perpetual seclusion. In return they were regarded as brothers or sisters of the house which sheltered them, and they obeyed the common rule which united them with their religious guardians. In some leper hospitals of the Middle Ages even the master had to be chosen from among the lepers. It is not proved, though it has been asserted, that this was the case at Jerusalem.

The Middle Ages surrounded with a touching pity these the greatest of all unfortunates, these miselli, as they were called. From the time of the crusades, with the spread of leprosy, leper hospitals became very numerous throughout Europe, so that at the death of St. Louis there were eight hundred in France alone.

However, these houses did not form a congregation; each house was autonomous, and supported to a great extent by the lepers themselves, who were obliged when entering to bring with them their implements, and who at their death willed their goods to the institution if they had no children. Many of these houses bore the name of St. Lazarus, from which, however, no dependence whatever on St. Lazarus of Jerusalem is to be inferred. The most famous, St. Lazarus of Paris, depended solely and directly on the bishop of that city, and was a mere priory when it was given by the archbishop to the missionaries of St. Vincent de Paul, who have retained the name of Lazarists (1632).

The question remains, how and at what time the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem became a military order. This is not know exactly; and, moreover, the historians of the order have done much to obscure the question by entangling it with gratuitous pretensions and suspicious documents.

The house at Jerusalem owed to the general interest devoted to the holy places in the Middle Ages a rapid and substantial growth in goods and privileges of every kind. It was endowed not only by the sovereigns of the Latin realm, but by all the states of Europe. Louis VII, on his return from the Second Crusade, gave it the Château of Broigny, near Orléans (1154). This example was followed by Henry II of England, and by Emperor Frederick II. This was the origin of the military commanderies whose contributions, called responsions, flowed into Jerusalem, swollen by the collections which the hospital was authorized to make in Europe.

The popes for their part were not sparing of their favours. Alexander IV recognized its existence under the Rule of St. Augustine (1255). Urban IV assured it the same immunities as were granted to the monastic orders (1262). Clement IV obliged the secular clergy to confine all lepers whatsoever, men or women, clerics or laymen, religious or secular, in the houses of this order (1265).

At the time these favours were granted, Jerusalem had fallen again into the hands of the Mussulmans. St. Lazarus, although still called "of Jerusalem", had been transferred to Acre, where it had been ceded territory by the Templars (1240), and where it received the confirmation of its privileges by Urban IV (1264).

It was at this time also that the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem, following the example of the Order of St. John, armed combatants for the defence of the remaining possessions of the Christians in Asia. Their presence is mentioned without further detail at the Battle of Gaza against the Khwarizmians in 1244, and at the final siege of Acre in 1291.

As a result of this catastrophe the leper hospital of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem disappeared; however, its commanderies in Europe, together with their revenues, continued to exist, but hospitality was no longer practised. The order ceased to be an order of hospitallers and became purely military. The knights who resided in these commanderies had no tasks, and were veritable parasites on the Christian charitable foundations.

Things remained in this condition until the pontificate of Innocent VIII, who suppressed this useless order and transferred its possessions to the Knights of St. John (1490), which transfer was renewed by Pope Julius II (1505). But the Order of St. John never came into possession of this property except in Germany.

In France, Francis I, to whom the Concordat of Leo X (1519) had resigned the nomination to the greater number of ecclesiastical benefices, evaded the Bull of suppression by conferring the commanderies of St. Lazarus on Knights of the Order of St. John. The last named vainly claimed the possession of these goods. Their claim was rejected by the Parliament of Paris (1547).

Leo X himself disregarded the value of this Bull by re-establishing in favour of Charles V the priory of Capua, to which were attached the leper hospitallers of Sicily (1517).

Pius IV went further; he annulled the Bulls of his predecessors and restored its possessions to the order that he might give the mastership to a favourite, Giovanni de Castiglione (1565). But the latter did not succeed in securing the devolution of the commanderies in France. Pius V codified the statutes and privileges of the order, but reserved to himself the right to confirm the appointment of the grand master as well as of the beneficiaries (1567). He made an attempt to restore to the order its hospitaller character, by incorporating with it all the leper hospitals and other houses founded under the patronage of St Lazarus of the Lepers. But this tardy reform was rendered useless by the subsequent gradual disappearance of leprosy in Europe.

Finally, the grand mastership of the order having been rendered vacant in 1572 by the death of Castiglione, Pope Gregory XIII united it in perpetuity with the Crown of Savoy. The reigning duke, Philibert III, hastened to fuse it with the recently founded Savoyan Order of St. Maurice, and thenceforth the title of Grand Master of the Order of Sts. Maurice and Lazarus was hereditary in that house. The pope gave him authority over the vacant commanderies everywhere, except in the states of the King of Spain, which included the greater part of Italy. In England and Germany these commanderies had been suppressed by Protestantism. France remained, but it was refractory to the claims of the Duke of Savoy. Some years later King Henry IV, having founded with the approbation of Paul V (1609) the Order of Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel, hastened in turn to unite to it the vacant possessions of St. Lazarus in France, and such is the origin of the title of "Knight of the Royal, Military, and Hospitaller Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St. Lazarus of Jerusalem", which carried with it the enjoyment of a benefice, and which was conferred by the king for services rendered.

To return to the dukes of Savoy: Clement VIII granted them the right to exact from ecclesiastical benefices pensions to the sum of four hundred crowns for the benefit of knights of the order, dispensing them from celibacy on condition that they should observe the statutes of the order and consecrate their arms to the defence of the Faith. Besides their commanderies the order had two houses where the knights might live in common, one of which, at Turin, was to contribute to combats on land, while the other, at Nice, had to provide galleys to fight the Turks at sea. But when thus reduced to the states of the Duke of Savoy, the order merely vegetated until the French Revolution, which suppressed it. In 1816 the King of Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel I, re-established the titles of Knight and Commander of Sts. Maurice and Lazarus, as simple decorations, accessible without conditions of birth to both civilians and military men.

DE SIBERT, Histoire des Ordres royaux de Notre Dame de Mont-Carmel et de St-Lazare de Jerusalem (Paris, 1772); FERRAND, Pr,cis historique des Ordres de St-Lazare et de St-Maurice (Lyons, 1860). Documents: Charter of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem in Archives de l'Orient latin, II; Privilegia Ordinis S. Lazari (Rome, 1566); Provedimenti relativi all' Ordine dei SS. Maurizio e Lazaro (Turin, 1855).

CH. MOELLER

St. Lazarus of Bethany

Reputed first Bishop of Marseilles, died in the second half of the first century. According to a tradition, or rather a series of traditions combined at different epochs, the members of the family at Bethany, the friends of Christ, together with some holy women and others of His disciples, were put out to sea by the Jews hostile to Christianity in a vessel without sails, oars, or helm, and after a miraculous voyage landed in Provence at a place called today the Saintes-Maries. It is related that they separated there to go and preach the Gospel in different parts of the southeast of Gaul. Lazarus of whom alone we have to treat here, went to Marseilles, and, having converted a number of its inhabitants to Christianity, became their first pastor. During the first persecution under Nero he hid himself in a crypt, over which the celebrated Abbey of St.-Victor was constructed in the fifth century. In this same crypt he was interred, when he shed his blood for the faith. During the new persecution of Domitian he was cast into prison and beheaded in a spot which is believed to be identical with a cave beneath the prison Saint-Lazare. His body was later translated to Autun, and buried in the cathedral of that town. But the inhabitants of Marseilles claim to be in possession of his head which they still venerate. Like the other legends concerning the saints of the Palestinian group, this tradition, which was believed for several centuries and which still finds some advocates, has no solid foundation. It is in a writing, contained in an eleventh century manuscript, with some other documents relating to St. Magdalen of Vézelay, that we first read of Lazarus in connection with the voyage that brought Magdalen to Gaul. Before the middle of the eleventh century there does not seem to be the slightest trace of the tradition according to which the Palestinian saints came to Provence. At the beginning of the twelfth century, perhaps through a confusion of names, it was believed at Autun that the tomb of St. Lazarus was to be found in the cathedral dedicated to st. Nazarius. A search was made and remains were discovered, which were solemnly translated and were considered to be those of him whom Christ raised from the dead, but it was not thought necessary to inquire why they should be found in France.

The question, however, deserved to be examined with care, seeing that, according to a tradition of the Greek Church, the body of St. Lazarus had been brought to Constantinople, just as all the other saints of the Palestinian group were said to have died in the Orient, and to have been buried, translated, and honoured there. It is only in the thirteenth century that the belief that Lazarus had come to Gaul with his two sisters and had been Bishop of Marseilles spread in Provence. It is true that a letter is cited (its origin is uncertain), written in 1040 by Pope Benedict IX on the occasion of the consecration of the new church of St.-Victor in which Lazarus is mentioned. But in this text the pope speaks only of relics of St. Lazarus, merely calling him the saint who was raised again to life. He does not speak of him as having lived in Provence, or as having been Bishop of Marseilles. The most ancient Provencal text alluding to the episcopacy of St. Lazarus is a passage in the "Otia imperialia" of Gervase of Tillbury (1212). Thus the belief in his Provencal apostolate is of very late date, and its supporters must produce more ancient and reliable documentary evidence. In the crypt of St.-Victor at Marseilles an epitaph of the of the fifth century has been discovered, which informs us that a bishop named Lazarus was buried there. In the opinion of the most competent archfologists, however, this personage is Lazarus, Bishop of Aix, who was consecrated at Marseilles about 407, and who, having had to abandon his see in 411, passed some time in Palestine, whence he returned to end his days in Marseilles. It is more than likely that it is the name of this bishop and his return from Palestine, that gave rise to the legend of the coming of the Biblical Lazarus to Provence, and his apostolate in the city of Marseilles.

Notes

CHEVALIER, Gallia christ. noviss., II (Paris, 1899), 1-6; Analect. Bolland., VI (Brussels, 1887), 88-92; BOUCHE, Vindicœ fidei et pietatis Provinciœ pro cflitibus illius tutelaribus restituendis (Aix, 1644); DE CHANTELOUP, L'apttre de la Provence ou la vie du glorieux S. Lazare, premier ivjque de Marseille (Marseilles, 1864); FAILLON, Mon. inid. sur l'apostolat de Ste. Marie Madeleine en Provence et sur les autres apttres de cette contrie (Paris, 1848); DE LAUNOY, De commentitio Lazari et Maximini Magdalenœ et Marthœ in Provinciam appulsu dissertatio (Paris, 1641); DE MAZENOD, Preuves de la mission de S. Lazare ` Marseille in Annales de philos. Chrit., XIII (Paris, 1846), 338-50; TILLEMONT, Mem. pour servir ` l'hist. ecclis., II (Paris, 1694); 32-4; L. DUCHESNE, Fastes ipisc. de l'anc. Gaule, I (Paris, 1894), 324-5, 341-4; MORIN, S. Lazare et S. Maximin, donnies nouvelles sur plusieurs personnages de la tradition de Provence in Mim. de la Soc. des ant. de France, F, VI (Paris, 1897) 27-51.

LION CLUGNET

Diocese of Lead

(LEADENSIS).

The Diocese of Lead, which was established on 6 August, 1902, comprises all that part of the State of South Dakota (U.S.A.) west of the Missouri River—an area of 41,759 square miles. The residence of the bishop is at Hot Springs. The territory taken to form the diocese had previously belonged to the Vicariate Apostolic of Nebraska, and had in 1902 a Catholic population of about 6000, including the Catholic Indians of the Sioux Reservations. As first bishop, the Very Rev. John N. Stariha, Vicar-General of the Archdiocese of St. Paul, was chosen and consecrated in St. Paul, 28 October, 1902. He was born in the Province of Krain (Carniola), Austria, 12 May, 1845. Migrating to the United States he became affiliated to the Diocese of St. Paul, where for many years he was pastor of the Church of St. Francis de Sales. The opening of the Rosebud Reservation to settlers and the extension of railways across the state attracted many emigrants to South Dakota, and a number of new parishes were ebtablished, churches erected in these new towns, and missions and schools located among the Indians. In 1909, Bishop Stariha's ill health and age determined him to resign the see, and he returned to his old home in Austria on 1 May of that year. On 11 April, 1910, Pius X ratified the appointment of the Rev. Joseph F. Busch, of Excelsior, Minnesota, as bishop. The religious communities in the diocese include the Jesuit and Benedictine Fathers and the Benedictine Sisters and the Sisters of St. Francis.

Statistics (1909): priests 25 (regulars, 9); churches with resident priests, 18; missions with churches, 35 schools, 5; pupils, 1030; 1 orphan asylum, 24 inmates; Catholic population 11,000 whites and 6500 Indians. Catholic News (New Ywrk), files; Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1909).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

The League

I. THE LEAGUE OF 1576

The discontent produced by the Peace of Beaulieu (6 May, 1576), which restored the government of Picardy to the Xrotetestant Prince de CondÈ and gave him PÈronne to hold as a security, induced d'Humières, a Catholic who commanded the city of PÈronne, to form a league of gentry, soldiers, and peasants of Picardy to keep CondÈ from taking possession of the city. D'Humières also appealed to all the princes, nobles and prelates of the kingdom, and to the allies of the nations neighbouring to France. This League of PÈronne thus aspired to become international. From a religious point of view it aimed at supporting Catholicism in France politically at restoring the "ancient franchises and liberties" against the royal power. Its programme was spread throughout France by the efforts of Henri de Guise (see Guise), and Henry III, then on good terms with the Guises, declared himself its chief. Gregory XIII was apprised of the formation of the League by Jean David, an advocate of the Parliament of Paris, acting for the Guises, and he communicated the fact to Philip II. But when the Peace of Bergerac (17 September, 1577) between Henry III and the Protestants, curtailed the liberties accorded them by the Edict of Beaulieu, the king hastened to dissolve the League of PÈronne and the other Catholic leagues formed after its example. This dissolution was the cause of rejoicing to a certain number of royalists, who held that "all leagues and associations in a monarchial state are matters of grave consequence, and that it is impossibie for sujects to band themselves together without prejudicing the royal superiority". The nobility had lacked unanimity, and the cities had been too lukewarm to maintain this first league.

II. THE LEAGUE OF 1585

The death of the Duke of Anjou (10 June, 1584) having made Henry of Bourbon, the Protestant King of Navarre, heir presumptive to Henry III, a new league was formed among the aristocracy and the people. On the one hand, the Dukes of Guise, Mayenne, and Nevers and Baron de Senecey met at Nancy to renew the League, with the object of securing the recognition, as heir to the throne, of the Cardinal de Bourbon, who would extirpate heresy and receive the Council of Trent in France. Philip II, by the Treaty of Joinville (31 December, 1584), promised his concurrence, in the shape of a monthly subsidy of 50,000 crowns. At Paris, on the other hand, Charles Hotteman, Sieur de Rocheblond, "moved by the Spirit of God", PrÈvost, curÈ of Saint SÈverin, Boucher, curÈ of Saint Benoît, and Launoy, a canon of Soissons, appealed to the middle classes of the cities to save Catholicism. A secret society was formed. Rocheblond and five other leaguers carried on a propaganda, gradually organizing a little army at Paris, and establishing relations with the Guises. The combination of these two movements — the aristocratic and the popular — resulted in the manifesto of 30 March, 1585, launched from PÈronne by Guise and the princes amounting to a sort of declaration of war against Henry III. The whole story of the League has been told in the article Guise. We shall here dwell upon only the following two points.

A. Relations between the Popes and the League

Gregory XIII approved of theLeague after 1584, but abstained from committing himself to any writing in its favour. Sixtus V wished the struggle against heresy in France to be led by the king himself; the religious zeal of the Leaguers pleased him, but he did not like the movement of political independence in relation to Henry III. Events, however, drove Sixtus V to take sides with the Leaguers. The Bull of 9 September, 1585, by which he declared Henry of Bourbon and the Prince of CondÈ as Protestants, to have forfeited the succession, provoked so much opposition from the Parliament, and so spirited a reply from Henry, that the League, in its turn, recognized the necessity of a counterstrokc. Louis d'OrlÈans, advocate and a leaguer, undertook the defence of the Bull in the "Avertissement des Catholiques Angais aux Français Catholiques", an extremely violent manifesto against Henry of Bourbon. Madame le Montpensier, a sister of the Guises, boasted that she ruled the famous preachers of the League, the "Satire MÈnippÈe" presently turned them to ridicule, while in their turn the Leaguers from the pulpits of Paris attacked not only Henry of Bourbon, but the acts, the morals, and the orthodoxy of of Henry III. Such preachers were Rose, Bishop of Senlis, Boucher and PrÈvost, the aforesaid curÈs — the latter of whom caused an immense picture to be displayed, representing the horrible sufferings inflicted upon Catholics by the English co-religionists of Henry of Bourbon. Other preachers were de Launay, a canon of Soissons, the learned Benedictine GÈnÈbrard, the controversialist Feuardent, the ascetic writer Pierre Crespet, and Guincestre, curÈ of Saint-Gervais, who, preaching at Saint-BarthÈlemy on New Year's Day, 1589, made all who heard him take an oath to spend the last penny they had and shed their last drop of blood to avenge thr assassination of Guise. By these excesses of the Leaguers against the monarchical principle, and by the murder of Henry III by Jacques ClÈment (1 August, 1589) Sixtus V was compelled to assume an altitude of extreme reserve towards the League. The nuncio Matteuzzi having thought it his duty to leave Venice because immediately after the assassination of Henry III the Senate had decided to send an ambassador to Henry of Bourbon, the pope sent him back to his post, expressing a hope that the Venetians might be able to persuade Henry of Bourbon to be reconciled with the Holy See. On 14 May, 1590, the papal legate Caetani blessed, saluting them as Machabees, the 1300 monks who, led by Rose, Bishop of Senlis, and Pelletier, CurÈ of Saint-Jacques, organized for the defence of Paris against Henry of Bourbon; but, on the other hand, the pope manifested great displeasure because the Sorbonne had declared, on 7 May, that, even "absolved of his crimes", Henry of Bourbon could not become King of France. The Leaguers in their enthusiasm had denied to the papal authority the right of eventually admitting Henry of Bourbon to the throne of France. They found new cause for indignation in the fact that Sixtus V had received the Duke of Luxembourg-Piney, the envoy of Henry's party; and Philip II while in Paris, caused a sermon to be preached against the pope.

But when, after the brief pontificate of Urban VII, Gregory XIV became pope (5 December, 1590) the League and Spain recovered their influence at Rome. Several Briefs dated in March, 1591, and two "monitoria" to the nuncio Landriano once more proclaimed the downfall of Henry of Bourbon. The prelates who sided with Henry, assembled at Chartres, in September, 1591, protested against the "monitoria" and appealed from them to the pope's maturer infomation. The gradual development of a third party weakened the League and hastened the approach of an understanding between Rome and Henry of Bourbon (see HENRY IV). Briefly, the Holy See felt a natural sympathy for the Catholic convictions in which the League originated; but, to the honour of Sixtus V, he would not, in the most tragic moments of his pontificate, compromise himself too far with a movement which flouted the authority of Henry III, the legitimate king; neither would he admit the maxim: "Culpam non pænam aufert absolutio peccati" (Absolution blots out the sin, but not its penalty), in virtue of which certain theologians of the League claimed that Henry IV, even if absolved by the pope, would still be incapable of succeeding to the French throne. By this wise policy, Sixtus prepared the way far in advance for the reconciliation which he hoped for, and which was to be realized in the absolution of Henry IV by Clement VIII.

B. Political Doctrines of the League

Charles Labitte has found it possible to write a book on "La DÈmocratie sous la Ligue". The religious rising of the people soon took shelter behind certain political theories which tended to the revival of medieval political liberties and the limitation of royal absolutism. In 1586 the advocate Le Breton, in a pamphlet for which he was hanged, called Henry III "one of the greatest hypocrites who ever lived", demanded an assembly of the States General from which the royal officers should be excluded, and proposed to restore all their franchises to the cities. Ideas of political autonomy were beginning to take definite shape. The League wished the clergy to recover those liberties which it possessed before the Concordat of Francis I, the nobility to regain the independence it enjoyed in the Middle Ages, and the cities to be restored to a certain degree of autonomy. After the assassination of Guise, a crime instigated by Henry III, sixty-six doctors of the Sorbonne declared that the king's subjects were freed from their oath of allegience and might lawfully take arms, collect money, and defend the Roman religion against the king: the name of Henrv III was erased from the Canon of the Mass and replaced by the "Catholic princes". Boucher, curÈ of Saint-Benoît, popularized this opinion of the Sorbonne in his book "De justa Henriei Tertii abdicatione", in which be maintained that Henry III, "as a perjurer, assassin, murderer, a sacrilegious person, patron of heresy, simoniac, magician, impious and damnable", could be deposed by the Church; that, as "a perfidious waster of the public treasure, a tyrant and enemy of his country", he could be deposed by the people. Boucher declared that a tyrant was a ferocious beast which men were justified at killing. It was under the influence of these theories that upon the assassination of Henry III by Jacques ClÈment (1 August, 1589), the mother of the Guises harangued the throng from the altar of the church of the Cordeliers, and glorified the deed of ClÈment. These exaggerated ideas served only to justify tyranny, and did not long influence the minds of men. Moreover, the "Declaration" of Henry IV against seditious preachers (September, 1595) and the steps taken at Rome by Cardinal d'Ossat, in 1601, put a stop to the political preachings which the League had brought into fashion. The memory of the excesses committed under the League was afterwards exploited by the 1egists of the French Crown to combat Roman doctrines and to defend royal absolutism and Gallicanism. But, considering the bases of the League doctrines, it is impossible not to accord them the highest importance in the history of political ideas. Power, they said, was derived from God through the people, and they opposed the false, absolutist, and Gallican doctrine of the Divine right and irresponsibility of kings, such as Louis XIV professed and practised; and they also bore witness to the perfect compatibility of the most rigorous Roman ideas with democratic and popular aspirations.

It has been possible to trace certain analogies between the doctrines of the League and Protestant brochures like Hotman's "Franco-Gallia" and the "Vindiciæ contra tyrannos" of Junius Brutus (Duplessis Mornay), published immediately after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. Indeed, both Huguenots and Leaguers were then seeking to limit the royal power; but in the Huguenot projects of reform the tendency was to favour the aristocracy, the optimates; they would not allow the mob — the mediastinus quilibet of whom the "Vindiciæ" speak so contemptuously — any right of resistance against the king; the Leaguers, on the contrary appealed to the democracy. The Huguenots permitted no uprising of the mere private individual save with "God's special calling"; the Leaguers held that every man was called by God to the defence of the Church, and that all men were equal when there was question of repelling the heretic or the infidel. Hence, in his work, "Des progrès de la rÈvolution et de la guerre contre l'Eglise" Lamennais felt free to write (1829): "How deeply Catholicism has impressed souls with the sentiment of liberty was never more evident than in the days of the League."

See the bibliography of Guise; also LABITTE, De la dÈmocratchez les prÈdicateurs de Ligue (Paris, 1841); WEILL, Les thÈories sur le pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres du religion (Paris, 1891); TREUMANN, Die Monarchomachen; eins Darstellung der revolutionären Staatslehren des XVI. Jahrurderts, 1573-1599 (Leipzig, 1885).

GEORGES GOYAU

German (Catholic) League

Only three years before the League was established, Duke Maximilian of Bavaria (d. 1651), who was afterwards its leading spirit, declared against the formation of a confederacy of the Catholic states of the empire in Germany, proposed by the spiritual electors. Soon after, however, in 1607, he emphasized the need of such a confederacy, "in order that each may know how far he may rely on the others." There is indeed nothing more natural than the drawing together in times of discord of those who think alike. Besides, the Protestant "Union" was inaugurated in May, 1608.

Early in 1608 Duke Maximilian started negotiations with the spiritual electors and some of the Catholic states of the empire, with a view to the formation of a union of the Catholic states. On 5 May, 1608, there was a conference on this question in the Imperial Diet at Ratisbon, which amounted, however, only to an exchange of ideas. Two months later (5 July), we find the spiritual electors assembled at Andernach at the invitation of the Archbishop of Mainz. This assembly was really held to consider the question of the imperial succession, but the proposed League was also discussed, and a tendency was manifested in favour of the confederacy suggested by Maximilian. Opinions were even expressed as to the size of the confederate military forces to be raised. Maximilian, who took the most active part at the Andernach conference, afterwards sought among the neighbouring princes members for the proposed League. Salzburg showed disapproval; Würzburg's bishop was not much more encouraging, but the Bishops of Augsburg, Passau, and Ratisbon concurred. Until the end of January, 1609, however, the negotiations flagged. About this time Maximilian won over the Catholic states of Swabia to his project, and on 5 July the representatives of Augsburg, Constance, Passau, Ratisbon, and Würzburg assembled at Munich. Salzburg was not invited this time, and Eichstädt still hesitated. Here on 10 July, 1609, the participating states concluded an alliance "for the defence of the Catholic religion and peace within the Empire." The confederates might not make war on each other; their disputes must be decided either by arbitration within the confederacy, or by the laws of the Empire; should one member be attacked, the League must resort to arms, or, if prevented from doing this, must take legal steps. Duke Maximilian was to be the president of the confederacy, and the Bishops of Augsburg, Passau, and Würzburg his councillors. The League was to continue for nine years.

The foundation of the confederacy was at last laid but a substantial structure was certainly not erected at Munich. This was not the fault of Maximilian, but of the states, which, always cautious and dilatory could not be spurred to take decisive action. On 18 June, 1609, even before the Munich Diet, the Electors of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier had exchanged opinions through their envoys as to the personnel of the League and the size of the confederate army, for which they proposed 20,000 men. They had also considered the making of Maximilian president of the alliance, and on 30 August they announced their adhesion to the Munich agreement, provided that Maximilian accepted the Elector of Mainz as co-president. As the arch-chancellor of the Empire, the latter enjoyed great prestige, and was in a position to exercise great influence; consequently, his support could scarcely be termed anything less than essential to the League. Indeed, in conformity with his wishes, the emperor was informed of the foundation and aims of the confederacy. As to its precise object, the members themselves were not quite clear. Maximilian, therefore, urged the convocation of a general meeting of the confederates to remove all misunderstandings. The first was held on 10 Feb., 1610, at Würzburg. Except Austria and Salzburg, all the important Catholic states and a great number of the smaller ones sent representatives. The organization of the coalition, the raising of a confederate army, the apportionment of the contributions to the alliance, and the enlistment of foreign mercenaries, were the questions under discussion. The confederacy received the official name, Defensiv- oder Schirmvereinigung. Only after this can one really speak of a Catholic League. The foreign help on which they principally counted seemed already assured. The pope and the King of Spain, who had been informed by Maximilian of his plan through the medium of Zuniga, the Spanish ambassador at Prague, were both favourably disposed towards the undertaking.

But the success of the League depended primarily on the effective co-operation of the members themselves. This broke down when it came to the collection of contributions. In the case of very many of the members, their contribution was, in the words of Maximilian, nothing but a "poor prayer." Up to April, 1610 not a single member had paid his quota, although at that very moment, the dispute concerning the Jülich succession, and the threatening of the Rhenish principalities by the troops of the Union, urgently required a League ready for war. Disgusted with the indifference of the members, which narrowness of means on the part of a few could not excuse, Maximilian threatened to resign the presidentship. His threat at once achieved this, that Spain, which had made the giving of a subsidy dependent on Austria's enrolment in the League, waived this condition, and the pope promised a further contribution in 1611. The conduct of the Union in the Jülich disptute and the warlike operations of the Union army in Alsace, seemed to make a battle between League and Union inevitable. But the internal affairs of the League were to become still more critcal. In the year 1613 the exertions of Cardinal Klesl at an assembly of the confederates in Ratisbon (where the Imperial Diet was also sitting), against the wishes of Duke Maximilian but very much in accordance with the wishes of the Elector of Mainz, succeeded in bringing about the enrolment, of Austria in the League. The assembly now appointed no less than three war-directors: Duke Maximilian, and Archdukes Albert and Maximilian of Austria. The object of the League was now declared "eine christlich rechtmässige Defension." The division of leadership did not conduce to increasing the League's power, while, by Austria's accession, it became entangled in her difficulties, already very threatening in her hereditary domains.

Duke Maximilian, who attached great importance to the League's fitness for war, showed his disapproval of the Ratisbon resolutions by refusing to accept them and later resigned his post as president, when Archduke Maximilian, of Austria, the third director, protested against the inclusion of the Bishop of Augsburg, and the Provost of Ellwangen in the Bavarian Directory, and was supported in his protest by Mainz and Trier. On 27 May, 1617, he formed a separate league for nine years with Bamberg, Eichstädt, Würzburg, and the Provost of Ellwangen. But the position in Bohemia as in Lower and Upper Austria, gradually became so critical, that King Matthias at the end of 1618 strove hard with Mainz for the restoration of the League. A meeting of several of the eccliasiastical states met the emperor's wishes in that, at Oberwesel (Jan., 1619), they decided to reconstruct the League, but on its original basis. It was in future to have only two groups: the Rhenish under the presidency of Mainz, and the Oberland under Bavaria, the treasury and the military command were to be considered as separate. Maximilian might only lead the whole of the troops, when he had to appear in the Rhenish district. After Maximilian had made sure that Austria would not again claim the privilege of appointing a third director, he summoned the Oberland states to Munich, where on 31 May the Oberland group came again into life. The Rhenish group was already re-established at Oberwesel. The two groups bound themselves to render mutual help for six years.

The Kingdom of Bohemia, in a state of insurrection from 1618, deprived Ferdinand II of the Bohemian crown, and gave it to Elector Palatine Frederick V (26-27 Aug., 1619) Ferdinand's sole hope of recovering his lands now lay in drastic action. On the way to Frankfort on the day of the imperial election he had already consulted personally with Maximilian of Bavaria on the projected warlike preparations. After the election Ferdinand conferred with the spiritual electors at Frankfort concerning the support of the League. With the formation of a confederate army the serious activity of the League began. The critical time, which Maximilian's clear vision had foreseen, and for which, with characteristic energy, he had been long making provision, made him the undisputed leader of Catholic Germany. On 8 Oct., 1619, Ferdinand and Maximilian came to an agreement at Munich over the support of the League, and the separate support of Bavaria. The latter supplied 7000 men to the confederate army, whose strength was fixed at an assembly at Würzburg in Dec., 1619, as 21,000 infantry and 4000 cavalry.

In July, 1620, the League army totalled about 30,000 men, to which the Protestant Union could only oppose about 10,000. This superiority at once helped the League to a diplomatic victory over the Union, with which an agreement was come to, whereby, during the war in Austria and Bohemia, hostilities betwecn the parties of both alliances in Germany should cease. Bavaria and the League had thus their whole military forces free to support the emperor. On 3 July the arrangement had been made with the Union; on 24 July Tilly had already begun his march into Upper Austria. That there was no decisive battle till 8 November was due to the over-cautious and procrastinating imperial field-marshal, Buquoy. Even before Prague he was still averse to a battle. That one was fought was due to Maximilian and Tilly. With the victory of the combined confederate and imperial armies over the Bohemians at Prague the first stage of the League's activity during the Thirty Years War ended. Its subsequent history is closely involved in that of the Thirty Years War (q.v.). The strength of the League principally lay in Maximilian's personality and in the resources of his excellently administered country. But for Maximilian (q.v.) the League at the beginning of the Thirty Years War would probably have been just as disorganized a body as its opponent, the Union.

Briefe u. Atken zur Gesch. Des dreissigjahr. Krieges zur Zeit des vorwaltenden Einflusses der Wittelsbacher: vol. VII: Von der Abriese Erzh. Leopolds nach Julich bis zu den Werbungen Herzog Maxim. Von B. im M rz 1610, ed. STIEVE and revised by MAYR (Munich, 1905); vol VIII; Von den R stungen Herzog Maxim. Von B. bis zum Aufbruch der Passauer. ed. STIEVE and revised by MAYR (Munich, 1908); vol. IX: Vom Einfall des Passauer Kriegsvolks bis zum N rnburger Kurf stentag, ed. CHROUST (Munich, 1903); vol. X: Der Ausgang der Regierung Rudolfs II. u. die Anfange des Kaisers Matthias. ed. CHROUST (Munich, 1906); vol. XI: Der Reichstag von 1613, ed. CHROUST (Munich, 1909); BURGER, Ligapolitik des Mainzer Kurfursten Joh. Schweickhard v. Cronberg 1604-1613 in Wurzburger Studien etc., I; CORNELIUS, Zur. Gesch. Der Gr ndung der deutschen Liga (Munich, 1863); Gotz, Die Kriegskosten Bayerns u. der Ligast nde im dreissigjahr. Kriege in Forschungen zur Gesch. Bayerns, XII; GOTHEIN, Deutschland vor dem dreissigjahr. Kriege (Liepzig, 1908); JANSSEN-PASTOR, Gesch. Des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgange des Mittelalters, vol.V: Die kirchlichpol. Revolution u. ihre Bek mpfung seit der Verk ndigung der Konkordienformel 1530 bis zum Beginn der dreissigjahr. Krieges (15th and 16th improved ed., FREIBURG, 1902); RITTER, Deutsche Gesch. im Zeitalter der Gegenref. u. des dreissigj hr. Krieges (1555-1648), II (1586-1618) (Stuttgart, 1895). III (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1908); STIEVE, Kurfurst Maxim. I. Von B. in Abhandlungen, Vort ge u. Reden (Leipzig, 1900); IDEM, Das Contabuch der Deutschen Liga in Deutsche Zeitschr. fur Geschichtswissenschaft, X (1893); WOLF, Gesch. Maximilians I. u. seiner Zeit, II (Munich, 1807).

J. KRAFT

The League of the Cross

A Catholic total abstinence confraternity founded in London in 1873 by Cardinal Manning to unite Catholics, both clergy and laity, in the warfare against intemperance, and thus improve religious, social, and domestic conditions, especially among the working classes. The original and chief centres of the league are London and Liverpool, and branches have been organized in the various cities of Great Britain and Ireland and in Australia. The fundamental rules of the league are:

1. that the pledge shall be of total abstinence, and taken without limit as to time;
2. that only Catholics can be members;
3. that all members shall live as good, practical Catholics;
4. that no one who is not a practical Catholic shall, as long as he fails to practise his religion, hold any office in the league.

The pope has granted several indulgences to the league for its members. A conference of the league is held in August.

The Tablet (London) files; Catholic Directory (London, 1910).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Leander of Seville

Bishop of that city, b. at Carthage about 534, of a Roman family established in that city; d. at Seville, 13 March, 600 or 601. Some historians claim that his father Severian was duke or governor of Carthage, but St. Isidore simply states that he was a citizen of that city. The family emigrated from Carthage about 554 and went to Seville. The eminent worth of the children of Severian would seem to indicate that they were reared in distinguished surroundings. Severian had three sons, Leander Isidore, and Fulgentius and one daughter, Florentina. St. Leander and St. Isidore both became bishops of Seville; St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Carthagena, and St. Florentina, a nun, who directed forty convents and one thousand nuns. It has been also believed, but wrongly, that Theodosia, another daughter of Severian, became the wife of the Visigothic king, Leovigild. Leander became at first a Benedictine monk, and then in 579 Bishop of Seville. In the meantime be founded a celebrated school, which soon became a centre of learning and orthodoxy. He assisted the Princess Ingunthis to convert her husband Hermenegild, the eldest son of Leovigild, and defended the convert against his father's cruel reprisals. In endeavoring to save his country fromn Arianism, Leander showed himself an orthodox Christian and a far-sighted patriot. Exiled by Leovigild, he withdrew to Byzantium from 579 to 582. It is possible, but not proved, that he sought to rouse the Emperor Tiberius to take up arms against the Arian king: in any case the attempt was without result. He profited, however, by his stay at Byzantium to compose important works against Arianism, and there became acquainted with the future Gregory the Great, then legate of Pelagius II at the Byzantine court. A close friensdship thenceforth united the two men, and the correspondence of St. Gregory with St. Leander remains one of the latter's greatest titles to honour. It is not known exactly when Leander returned from exile. Leovigild put to death his son Hermenegild in 585, and himself died in 589.

In this decisive hour for the future of Spain, Leander did most to ensure the religious unity, the fervent faith, and the broad culture on which was based its later greatness. He had a share in the conversion of Reccared, and never ceased to exercise over him a deep and beneficial influence. At the Third Council of Toledo, where Visigothic Spain abjured Arianism, Leander delivered the closing sermon. On his return from this council, Leander convened an important synod in his metropolitan city of Seville (Conc. Hisp., I), and never afterwards ceased his efforts to consolidate the work, in which his brother and successor St. Isidore was to follow him. Leander received the pallium in August, 599. There remmain unfortunately of this writer, superior to his brother Isidore, only two works: De institutione virginum et contemptu mundi, a monastic rule composed for his sister, and Homilia de triumpho ecclesiæ ob conversionem Gothorum (P.L., LXXII). St. Isidore wrote of his brother: "This man of suave eloquence and eminent talent shone as brightly by his virtues as by his doctrine. By his faith and zeal the Gothic people have been converted from Arianism to the Catholic faith" (De script. eccles., xxviii).

Acta, S.S., 13 March: MABILLON, Acta S.S. O. S. B., s c. I; AGUIRRE, Collectio max. conc. hisp., FLORES, Espa a Sagrada, IX; BOURRET, L cole chr tienne de S ville sous la monarchie des Visigoths (Paris, 1855); MONTALEMBERT, Les Moines de d Occident, II; GAMS, Die Kirchengesch. von Spanien, II (2 ed., 1874); G RRES, Leander, Bischof von Sevilla u. Metropolit der Kirchenprov. B tica in Zeitsch. fur wissenschaftl. Theol., III (1885).

PIERRE SUAU

Leavenworth

Diocese of Leavenworth (Leavenworthensis).

Suffragan to St. Louis. When established, 22 May, 1877, it comprised the State of Kansas, U. S. A., with the Right Rev. Louis Mary Fink, O.S.B. as its first bishop. At his request, ten years later the Holy See divided the diocese into three: Wichita, Concordia, and Leavenworth. Leavenworth was then restricted to the 43 counties lying east of Republic, Cloud, Ottawa, Saline McPherson, Harvey, Sedgwick and Sumner Counties. The diocese had an area of 28,687 sq. m., with a total population in 1890, of 901,536. Authorized by the Holy See, Bishop Fink on 29 May, 1891, took up his residence in Kansas City, Kans., and the diocese was named after this city for some years. Apostolic letters dated 1 July, 1897, further diminished the territory of the diocese in favour of Concordia and Wichita. It now includes only the Counties of Anderson, Osage, Pottawatomie, Shawnee Wabaunsee, Wyandotte, Jackson, Jefferson, Linn, Lyon, Marshall, Miami, Nemaha, Atchison, Brown, Coffey, Doniphan, Douglas, Franklin, Johnson, and Leavenworth; an area of 12,594 sq. miles.

The first missionary to the wild Indians of the plains, within the present borders of Kansas, was Father Juan de Padilla. He obtained the martyr's crown just fifty years after Columbus discovered the New World. The first permanent Indian missions in these parts were established by the Jesuit Fathers among the Potawatomies and Osages. The latter originally dwelt on both sides of the Missouri. They knew of Father Marquette and had implored Father Garvier to preach to them. Two Franciscan friars had been among them in 1745. Bishop Dubourg promised them missionaries in 1820. The Pottawatomies came from Michigan and Indiana. Some hundreds of them had been baptized by the Rev. S. T. Badin of Kentucky, the first priest ordained in the United States. In Indiana, Father Deseilles was succeeded among the Potawatomies by Father Petit, who accompanied them to the confines of their new reservation in the Indian Territory, which then included Kansas. The Indian converts were confirmed by Bishop P. Kenrick in 1843, and by Bishop Barron in 1845. An Indian priest of the Oklahoma Diocese is descended from the Pottawatomies and was born in Kansas. In 1845 by the zealous efforts of the Jesuit missionaries, Catholic prayer-books in the Pottawatomie dialect were given to the Indians. Manual training schools for girls and boys had been established some years previously. The latter were conducted by the Jesuits. Bishop Rosati wrote from Europe that Gregory XVI would be delighted to have a Sacred Heart school among the Indians. In the year 1841 the Religious of the Sacred Heart opened a school among the Pottawatomies under the leadership of Mother Philippine-Rose Duchesne. Manual training schools were established among the Osages in 1847. Here also the boys' school was under the conduct of the Jesuits; but the girls' school was in charge of the Sisters of Loretto.

Kansas was under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical superiors of Louisiana until St. Louis was made an episcopal see. The Vicariate Apostolic of the Indian Territory east of the Rocky Mountains included the present states of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, that part of North and South Dakota west of the Missouri River, Wyoming, Montana, and a part of Colorado. It was placed under Rt. Rev. John B. Miège, S.J., who was appointed vicar Apostolic, and consecrated Bishop of Messenia, in St. Louis, 25 March, 1851. Accompanied by Father Paul Ponziglione, S.J., who was to devote himself for forty years to the Indians and early white settlers of the new vicariate, Bishop Miège arrived among the Pottawatomies on the Kansas River, where now stands St. Mary's College, in May of that year. The founder of the Pottawatomie mission of the Immaculate Conception, Father Christian Hoecken, S.J., while ascending the Missouri River with Father P.J. de Smedt, died of cholera, at the age of forty-three years (19 June, 1851), fifteen of which were passed among the Indians in the Missouri Valley.

Bishop Miège was born 18 September, 1815, at La Forêt, Upper Savoy, Italy. He studied classics and philosophy at the diocesan seminary of Moutiers where his elder brother Urban was a teacher for over forty years. He entered the Society of Jesus at Milan 23 Oct., 1836; was ordained priest 7 Sept. 1847, at Rome, where he was professor of Philosophy in the Roman College. Driven from Italy by the political troubles of the following year, he was sent at his own request to the Indian Missions in the United States. In 1849 he was assistant pastor of St. Charles's church at St. Charles, Missouri. In 1850 he was socius of the master of novices at Florissant. He also taught moral theology there. The vicariate subjected to his jurisdiction in 1851 consisted mostly of Indian missions. There were five churches, ten Indian Nations, and eight priests, with a Catholic population of almost 5000, of whom 3000 were Indians. He was an indefatigable missionary, traversing on horseback and by wagon for years the wild remote regions over which his people were scattered, visiting the Indian villages, forts, trading posts, and growing towns. In August, 1855, there were seven Catholic families in Leavenworth, and he moved his residence from the Pottawatomie mission, to this city for a permanent location to minister to the fast increasing tide of immigration that had turned to Kansas. In 1856 the Benedictines began a foundation at Donipfan, near Atchison, but a short time afterwards they established a priory and a college in the latter city. They were followed by the Carmelites in 1864. Father Theodore Heimann, a German, who later joined the Carmelite Fathers; Father J. H. Defouri, from Savoy; and Father Ambrose T. Butler, from Ireland were among the first secular priests to come to the assistance of Bishop Miège, who was represented at the second Plenary Council of Baltimore, and went to Rome in 1853. He assisted at provincial councils in St. Louis in 1855 and 1858. The bishop soon had a parochial school wherever there was a resident priest. He built a noble cathedral at Leavenworth. Before leaving for the (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, he appointed the Very Rev. L. M. Fink, Prior of St. Benedict's, vicar-general in spiritualibus, and Father Michael J. Corbett, administrator in temporalibus. Nebraska, part of the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana) continued until May, 1859. The increase in the Kansas Territory, which extended west to the Rocky Mountains, was steady. Desiring to return to the ranks of the Society of Jesus, Bishop Miège petitioned to be allowed to resign his episcopal jurisdiction, and in 187d1 a coadjutor was given him in the Very Rev. Louis M. Fink, prior of the Benedictine monastery at Atchison, and who had as a priest worked on the missions in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Illinois. He was consecrated at Chicago 11 June, 1871, titular Bishop of Eucarpia.

Bishop Miège then went on a begging tour in aid of the vicariate and spent three years collecting in South America. His petition to be allowed to resign was granted in December, 1874, when he returned to his order, being assigned to the house of studies at Woodstock, Maryland. In 1877 he was sent to Detroit where he founded a college and remained untl 1880, when he was appointed spiritual director at Woodstock for three years. Here he died 21 July, 1884.

In 1874 Bishop Fink took charge of the vicariate on the resignation of Bishop Miège; and 22 May, 1877, it was established as the Diocese of Leavenworth, and his title was transferred to this see. He was born 12 July, 1834, at Triftersberg, Baveria, and emigrated in boyhood to the United States. He entered the Benedictine Order in September, 1852, and was ordained priest at St. Vincent's Abbey, Beatty, Pennsylvania, 27 May, 1857. When he assumed jurisdiction in 1874, there were within the boundaries of Kansas 65 priests, 88 churches, 3 colleges, 4 academies, 1 hospital, 1 orphan asylum, 13 parish schools with 1700 pupils; and communities of Benedictine, Jesuit, and Carmelite priests; of Religious of the Sacred Heart, of Sisters of St. Benedict, of Sisters of Charity, and of Sisters of Loretto; with a Catholic population of nearly 25,000. In 1887 there were in Kansas 137 priests, and 216 churches. The decrees of the diocesan synod are admirable. The two new dioceses of Wichita and Concordia took from the diocese over 69,000 sq. miles. The parochial schools were placed under the supervision of a diocesan board that selects textbooks, and examines teachers and pupils. He fostered the Association of the Holy Childhood, the sodalities of the Blessed Virgin, and the Holy Angels; established the Confraternity of the Holy Family throughout the diocese and acted as diocesan director of the League of the Sacred Heart. Bishop Fink took part in the Third Council of Baltimore, and sedulously endeavoured to enforce its decrees. He continued to promote the progress of the Church until his death, 17 March, 1904.

There were then 110 priests, 100 churches, 13 stations and chapels, 37 parochial schools, 4000 pupils, and 35,000 Catholics. On his demise the Very Rev. Thomas Moore, who had been vicar-general since 1899, was made Apostolic administrator.

The successor of Bishop Fink was the Very Rev. Thomas F. Lillis, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Kansas City, who was born at Lexington, Missouri, in 1862, and ordained priest in 1885. He was consecrated Bishop of Leavenworth, in Kansas City, 27 December, 1904. His episcopal administration of the Leavenworth Diocese was eminently successful. The growth of the Church under his jurisdiction was marked by the foundation of new congregations, and the building of churches and parochial schools. Catholic societies were strengthened and the diocesan statutes revised to enforce the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimeore under present conditions. He adopted practical means of enforcing the papal "Motu Proprio"' on Church music. In March, 1910, he was appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Kansas City, Missouri, cum jure successionis.

Statistics

Orders of men: Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, Jesuits. Women: Sisters of St. Benedict, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of St. Frances, Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis, Sisters of St. Joseph, Oblate Sisters of Providence (coloured), Ursuline Sisters, Felician Sisters, Franciscan Sisters, Sisters of the Precious Blood. Priests, 143 (regulars, 71); churches with resident priests 76, missions with churches 46, stations 7, chapels 8, brothers 71, sisters 160; diocesan seminary, 1, seminary for religious 1; colleges and academies for boys 2, students 750; academies for young ladies 3, pupils 325, parochial schools 39, pupils 5700; high schools 2; orphan asylums 2, inmates 130; young people under Catholic care 6900; hospitals, 4; Catholic population 56,000. The Ursuline academy at Paola with 30 sisters was founded from Louisville in 1895. Mt. St. Scholastica's convent, established in 1863 subject to a prioress, has one hundred and seventy-five professed sisters with schools in the Dioceses of Cibcirduam Davenport, Kansas City, Sioux City, and Leavenworth with 3680 pupils. They conduct an academy at Atchison. The Sisters of Charity have a mother-house at St. Mary's Academy at Leavenworth since 1858. There are over 500 Sisters conducting establishments in the Archdiocese of Santa Fé, and in the Dioceses of Denver, Great Falls, Helena, and Leavenworth, with 8000 patients yearly in hospitals, 525 orphans, and 6000 pupils. St. Margaret's Hospital, Kansas City, Kansas, in charge of Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis, has 3000 patients annually.

St. Benedict's Abbey, Atchison, founded over fifty years ago, has 1 abbot, 51 monks, 11 clerics, 13 brothers. The Benedictine Fathers conduct St. Benedict's College, a boarding school with 300 pupils. St. Mary's College, a boarding school with 450 pupils, conducted by the Jesuit Fathers is the development of the Mission School which the Jesuits established among the Pottawatomie Indians in 1841. There are churches for the Croatians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Poles, Bohemians, and Germans as well as for the English-speaking congregations. The majority of the Catholics in the diocese are Irish and Germans who came to America over fifty years ago, and their descendants. A goodly proportion of the clergy ordained during the past twenty-five years are natives of the state. Several of the clergy are still active, after more than a quarter of a century of pastoral duties. The Rt. Rev. Mgr Ant. Kuhls, ordained in 1863, retired to St. Margaret's Hospital after forty-five years of zealous work.

(See Duchesne, Philippine-Rose; Kansas.)

Defouri, Original Diaries and Letters of Jesuit Missionaries; Catholic Directory, 1851-1910; Clarke, Lives of the Deceased Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States, III (New York, 1888), 611 sqq.; Reuss, Bio. Cycl. Of the Catholic Hierarchy in U. S. (Milwaukee, 1898); Western Watchman (St. Louis, Missouri), files.

J.A. SHORTER

Lebanon

Lebanon (Assyr. Labn nu; Heb. Lebanôn; Egypt. possibly, Ramunu; Gr. Libanos), modern Jebel Libnân, or "White Mountain" (Semitic root laban), so called from the snow which covers the highest peaks during almost the entire year, or from the limestone which glistens white in the distance.

The centre of the great mountain range of Central Syria, which stretches from N.N.E. to S.S.W. almost parallel with the sea for about 95 miles from 33°20' to 34°40' is separated in the south by the Qâsimiye from the Galilean hill-country; in the north, by the Nahr el-Keb r from Jebel el-Ansarieh. It consists of two parallel mountain chains of the same formation: the western, or Lebanon proper, called Jebel el-gharbi; the eastern, known as Jebel el-sharqi (the Antilibanus of the Greeks). The primeval mass was cleft asunder towards the end of the Tertiary formation (Pliocene), forming the northern part of the Jordan fissure, which extends southward to the Red Sea. Geologically there are four strata, which are easily distinguishable in the deeply rent ravines. The first stratum, consisting of a layer of limestone (Araya limestone), about 980 feet in thickness, is sparingly strewn with fossils (cidaris glandaria, corals and sponges), and belongs to the Cenoman, earliest of the Upper Jura. Above it lies a richly fossilized composite (Cephalopoda) of sandstone, from 650 to 1630 feet in thickness, and clay marl divided by layers of chalky deposit (Trigonia or Nubian sandstone) from the Cenoman. Basaltic masses of lava appear in the sandstone. Peat, iron ore, and traces of copper are also found, and fossilized resin in the coal schists. The third layer of Lebanon limestone (about 3580 feet thick) is characterized at the base by abundant oyster beds or by hippurite limestone (Cenoman-Turon). One peculiarity is the slate of Hakel, containing fossil fishes, found also in the marly limestone of Sâhil Alma. In Antilibanus (the Beqâ'a), and on the outer edges of Lebanon, a fourth stratum of Senonian (not over 330 feet in thickness) appears in flinty chalk and limestone.

The highest peaks of these mountains are in the Western chain. They rise in the Arz Libnân to a height of more than 9800 feet, as Dahr el-Qodib; Jebel Makmal; Dahr el-Dubab (Qarn Sauda), about 10,000 feet. Exact measurements are wanting. Towards the south the elevation is not so great: Jebel-el Muneitira, 9130; Jebel Sannin, 8500 feet. In Antilibanus the Tala` at Mûsa is 8710 feet in height; Hermon, 9300. Deposits due to glacier formations may be observed at the top, but no one has as yet reached the actual snow line. Between Lebanon and Antilibanus extends the table-land of Beqâ'a, 5 to 9 miles broad, about 70 miles long, never rising to any height, considered by many the true Coelig;lesyria. The plain of Lebanon (D.V. Libanus) mentioned in Jos., xi, 17, and xii, 7, is probably Merj 'Aiyun. The southern and central parts are very fertile to-day. Near Ba albek is the watershed (about 3800 feet) between south and north, between the Nahr el-`Asi (Orontes) and the Nahr el-Lîtâni (not the Leontes), which latter as Nahr el-Qâsimiye empties into the sea a little to the north of Tyre. The western slope of Lebanon has many springs and rivers which pierce the limestone after a partly subterranean course, e.g. the Nahr el-Kelb. From south to north we come in succession to the Nahr el-Zaherâni; Nahr el-'Awali; Nahr Dâmûr (Tamyras); Nahr Beirut (Magoras); Nahr el-Kelb (Lykus), at the mouth of which Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Latin inscriptions are found; Nahr Ibrâhîm (Adonis), at whose source was Afga (Apheka), the celebrated temple of Venus with its lewd and bloody cult, destroyed by Constantine; finally the Nahr el-Joz, and Nahr Qadîsha. The eastern slope and the Antilibanus are less favoured. In the north and east of Antilibanus there is great scarcity of water. Towards the south there are a few tributaries of the Lîtâni, chiefly the celebrated Baradâ, the river of Damascus (with `Ain Fîje), the Abana of Holy Writ (IV Kings, v, 12). Hermon feeds the three sources of the Jordan.

The vicinity of the sea causes proportionate dampness and warmth on the western side. The mountains are frequented as summer resorts on account of their agreeable climate, In the Beqâ`a the winter is apt to be sharp. During severe winters the snow descends to the most outlying spurs of the Lebanon. Along the coast, frost is unusual. In October the rainy season ushers itself in with sudden and violent showers. From December until February there are, on an average, twelve rainy days. In May rain is infrequent. The effects of the rainstorms, which are frequently of tropical violence and accompanied by thunder and lightning, are seen in the excessive erosion of the valleys.

The natural bridges are also the result of erosion, for instance those of Âqûra and Jisr el-Hajar (with a span of about 130 feet; more than 65 over the Neba` el-Leben). In the western region, where water is plentiful, the flora is abundant and of great variety. In prehistoric times the entire range as far as the coast was covered with forests. According to the Old Testament and profane literature, the Lebanon was renowned for its abundance of wood. Cedar, pine, maple, linden, and oak made the possession of the mountains lucrative. Solomon and Hiram, Egyptian and Assyrian, profited by these resources. To-day, through senseless plunder and the progress of cultivation, Lebanon has been largely robbed of its ancient splendour. Cedar is found in but few places, although all the climatic conditions for a successful growth are at hand.

Large tracts are now used for cultivating plants; and olive, fig, and mulberry trees constitute the wealth of to-day. Pomegranate, peach, apricot (in Damascus and vicinity), almond trees, walnuts, quinces, and other varieties of fruit flourish. The grape ripens at an altitude of nearly 5000 feet. The cultivation of the vine has developed advantageously. Grain flourishes at an altitude of 6200 feet, but, is little cultivated. A number of sweet-scented shrubs deserve mention: myrtle, oleander, sage, lavender, etc., to which fragrant plants the Old Testament attributes part of the fame of Lebanon. On the west, in general, the flora of the Mediterranean is found, and, on the heights, Alpine flora. On the eastern slope, in northern Beqâ'a and in Antilibanus, with their dry, severe climate, the flora is that of the steppes.

The prehistoric fauna was very different from that of to-day; stag, deer, bison, the wild horse, wild boar, lynx, lion, bear, and wild goat inhabited the forests. As remotely as Assyrian and Babylonian times, Lebanon was celebrated as a royal hunting-ground. To-day the number of deer is greatly diminished; bears, wolves, and panthers are rare. Hyenas, jackals, and wild boars are more frequent. The birds are not as well represented. Songsters are rare. Wild doves rock ptarmigan, eagles, and hawks are more often found. Reptiles are fairly numerous. Serpents, often venomous, abound, and also lizards (chameleon, gecko).

Traces of human occupation are found, dating from prehistoric times. Not only from the mouth of the Qâsimiye to Tripolis, but also in the mountains and in Beq a, genuine neolithic and pal olithic remains have been discovered. Broken human bones suggest the cannibalism of the aborigines. In historic times the Amorrhites appeared, whilst in the period of the Israelite kings the Phoenicians exercised dominion over the Lebanon, and Solomon had buildings erected there (III Kings, v, 6 sqq.; ix, 19). Later the Ituræans occupied Lebanon, and in Christian times the Maronites. The bloody persecutions of 1860 resulted in some improvement in the condition of part of the country, chiefly through the interference of France. The independent province of Lebanon has a Christian governor named by the sultan and approved by the Powers. Beteddîn, near Der el-Qamar, is the seat of government.

The inhabitants in 1900 numbered about 400,000; the greater part are Catholic Maronites; about 8 per cent, Greek Uniats; 13 per cent, Orthodox Greeks; 12 per cent, Druzes; 4 per cent, Shiite Metawiles; 3 per cent, Sunnites. The spirit of travel has seized the Maronites, who seek profit in Egypt, the United States, or in Latin America, returning later to their mountains. Ecclesiastically, the Maronites are subject to a patriarch who lives in the monastery of Qannobin. Numerous convents, some of them wealthy, are scattered over the hills; they maintain schools and have set up printing-presses. Higher instruction is given chiefly by European priests, but those of native birth take an active part. The American Protestant missions have long since entered into competition. For the education of the girls, native teaching sisters (Mariamettes) arc employed jointly with Europeans.

In times of peace the Christian administration has obtained good results. Safety and order have been established, and a great deal has been done for commerce. The high road from Beirut to Damascus (about 70 miles) was built in 1862, and other roads later, e.g. that following the coast, that from Beirut to Jezzîn, from Jezzîn to Saida, etc. In 1895 the first railroad was opened from Beirut to Damascus (90 miles), which in Lebanon reaches an elevation of 4850 feet, and in Antilibanus 4570 feet. The branch line from Rayâq to Haleb was opened in 1906. Further plans are being considered, principally for a better connection with Beqâ`a.

THOMSON, The Land and the Book (London, 1886), sections on Lebanon and Damascus; BURTON AND DRAKE, Unexplored Syria, 2 vols. (London, 1872); PORTER, Five Years in Damascus, 2 vols. (London, 1855); BAEDECKER, Palestine and Syria (4th ed., Leipzig, 1906); POST, Flora of Syria, Palestine, and Sinai (Beirut, 1896); RITTER, Erdkunde von Asien, VIII (Berlin, 1855); FRAAS, Drei Monate im Libanon (Stuttgart, 1876); IDEM, Aus dem Orient (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1878); DIENER, Libanon (Vienna, 1886); ZUMOFFEN, La Phoenicie avant les Phoeniciens (Beirut, 1900); CUINET, Syrie, Liban et Palestine (Paris, 1896-1902); ZUMOFFEN, L'âge de la Pierre en Phoenicie in Anthropos, III (1908), 431-55; BLANCKENHORN, Abriss der Geologie, Syriens, Altneuland (Berlin, 1905); IDEM, Ueber die Steinzeit und die Feuersteinpetrefakten in Syrien-Pal stina in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, XXXVII (1905), 447-68.

A. MERK

Lebedus

Titular see of Asia Minor, suffragan of Ephesus. It was on the coast, ninety stadia to the east of Cape Myonnesus, and 120 west of Colophon. According to Pausanius, the town was inhabited by Carians when the Ionians immigrated there under the guidance of Andræmon, a son of Codrus. Strabo, however, states it was colonized by Andropompus, and that it previously bore the name of Artis. It became a flourishing city by its commerce, and was famous for its mineral springs, but was nearly destroyed by Lysimachus, who transported the population to Ephesus. Under the Romans, however, it flourished anew, became the meeting place of the actors of all Ionia, and festivals were celebrated in honour of Dionysus. Its remains, of little interest, are seen near Hypsili Hissar, in the caza of Sivri Hissar, vilayet of Smyrna. Lebedus appears in "Notitiæ episcopatum" as an episcopal see, suffragan of Ephesus until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Three bishops only are known: Cyriacus, who witnessed the Robber Council of Ephesus, 449; Julian, represented by his metropolitan at Chalcedon in 451; Theophanes or Thomas, who attended the Council of Nicæa, 787.

LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus, I, 725; CHANDLER, Asia Minor, 125; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., s. v.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Edmond-Frederic Le Blant

French archeologist and historian, born 12 August, 1818; died 5 July, 1897 at Paris. He studied law and having qualified to practice, he obtained in 1843 a situation in the customs under the Finance Board. This position assured his future and he was free to follow his scientific inclinations. During a voyage through Italy (1847) he visited the Kircher Museum, and his intercourse with G.B. de Rossi determined him to undertake in France the scientific work which the founder of Christian archeology had undertaken in Rome. As early as 1848 Le Blant was commissioned to collect the inscriptions of the earliest days of Christianity in Gaul, and like de Rossi, he made an investigation of manuscripts, printed books, museums, churches, and the Gallo-Roinan cemeteries. In 1856 appeared the first volume of his "Recueil des inscriptions chrétienne des Gaules antérieures au VIIIe siècle". The second volume of the work (Paris, 1865) obtained for its author his election as a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. A third volume appeared in 1892 under the title of "Nouveau Recueil". In the course of his researches Le Blant did not overlook any questions raised by his documents. He wrote learned articles on the method of Christian epigraphy, on Christian art, on the origin, progress, popular beliefs, and moral influence of Christianity in ancient Gaul. When he resigned his post as sub-commissioner of the customs (1872) he continued to devote himself to his favourite studies.

He tried to gather into one "Corpus" the Christian sarcophagi of which so many have been preserved in the south of France. In 1878 he published in Paris his "Etudes sur les sarcophages chrétiens de la ville d'Arles", which was followed by a second work "Etudes sur les sarcophages chrétiens de la Gaule" (Paris, 1886). In the introduction he treats of the form, ornamentation, and iconography of these monuments; he dwells upon the relationship between the sarcophagi of Arles and those of Rome, and the difference between them and those of the south-west of France, in which he finds more distinct signs of local influence. His studies and his personal tastes led him to take an interest also in the history of the persecutions and the martyrs. In numerous writings he treats in particular of the judicial bases of the persecutions and the critical value of the Acts of the Martyrs. These studies were crowned by his fine work "Persécuteurs et Martyrs" (Paris, 1893), in which he displays his scientific knowledge of history and his deep Christian convictions. In 1883, Le Blant became director of the Ecole Française at Rome. As such, his name figures honourably between that of Geffroy and of Mgr. Duchesne. In addition to his works mentioned above we may mention his collaboration with Jacquemart in "Histoire artistique, industrielle et commerciale de la porcelaine" (Paris, 1862); "Manuel d'épigraphie chrétienne" (Paris, 1869); "Les Actes des martyrs, Supplément aux Acta sincera' de Dom Ruinart" (Paris, 1882).

R. MAERE

Charles Lebrun

French historical painter, born in Paris, 1619; died at the Gobelin tapestry works, 1690. This great designer, whose fertility was so wonderful, received his first instruction in art from his father, and at the age of eleven was placed in the studio of Vouet. There he attracted the notice of Poussin, and in 1642 accompanied him to Italy, remaining there four years. On his return, he was for a while at Lyons, and then settled down in Paris. His skill soon brought him before the notice of the eminent personages of his day, and he received an important commission from Fouquet, and painted a large picture for Queen Anne of Austria, in return gave him her portrait set in diamonds. Cardinal Mazarin introduced him to Louis XIV, and he speedily became a very popular person at court, and held almost unlimited sway over all artistic matters after the death of Le Sueur. He was intimately concerned in 1648 in the foundation of the Academy, and when the king, under the advice of Colbert, founded the Gobelin tapestry works in 1662, Lebrun was appointed director, and was styled "a person skilful and intelligent in the art of painting, to make designs for tapestry, sculpture, and other works, to see that they were correctly rendered, and to direct and overlook all the workmen employed". Lebrun was responsible for designing almost all the important cartoons for the early work of the Gobelin factory, but beyond that, he was responsible for decoration and for statues at Versailles, for a long series of allegorical paintings, and for decoration work at Sceaux, Versailles, and Marly. When Colbert died in 1683, Lebrun lost his great patron, and during the last few years of his life, he withdrew from court, and fell into a condition of melancholy which continued until the time of his death. He was a great scenic artist, inspired by grand ideas, a man of unceasing energy, with a fine colour sense, and good knowledge of decoration, but his work was somewhat heavy, and the influence he exercised over French art was not wholly to its advantage. In designing tapestry, his art was well employed, and he will be remembered more for his splendid designs for the Gobelin work than for his own paintings.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

St. Lebwin

(LEBUINUS or LIAFWIN).

Apostle of the Frisians and patron of Deveater, b. in England of Anglo-Saxon parents at an unknown date; d. at Deventer, Holland, about 770. Educated in a monastery and fired by the example of St. Boniface, St. Willibrord, and other great English missionaries, Lebwin resolved to dovote his life to the conversion of the Germans. After his ordination he proceeded to Utrecht, and was gladly welcomed by Gregory, third bishop of that place, who entrusted him with the mission of Overyssel on the borders of Westphalia, and gave him as a companion Marchelm (Marcellinus), a disciple of St. Willibrord. Hospitably received by a widow named Abachilda (Avaerhilt), he fearlessly preached the Gospel among the wild tribes of the district, and erected a little chapel at Wulpe (Wilpa) on the west bank of the Yasel. As the venerable personality and deep learning of the missionary quickly won numbers, even of the nobles, to the Faith it soon became necessary to build at Deventer on the east bank of the river a larger church, after which a residence for Lebwin was also erected. This state of undisturbed development of his little fold was not, however to continue. Lebwin's wonderful success excited great hostility among the pagans; ascribing his conversions to witchcraft, they formed an alliance with the predatory and anti-Christian Saxons, burned the church at Deventer, and dispersed the flock. Having with difficulty managed to escape, Lebwin determined to voice the claims of Christianity at the national assembly of the Saxons. To this the three estates of each gau sent twelve men as representatives, and with it the decision of all important matters rested. Setting out for Marclo near the Weser in Saxony, where the assembly was held, Lebwin was hospitably entertained by a noble named Folchert (Folkbert), apparently a Christian, who vainly strove to dissuade him from his purpose. Clad in priestly vestments and bearing the crucifix in one hand and the Gospels in the other, Lebwin appeared in the midst of the assembled Saxons, while they were engaged with their sacrifices to their false deities. Having boldly proclaimed the One True God, the Creator of all, he warned them that, if they obstinately adhered to their idolatry, "a bold, skilful, and mighty king would advance upon them like a raging torrent, destroy everything with fire and sword, bring want and banishment into their territories, send their wives and children into slavery, and make the remainder submit to the yoke of his domination." Enraged at these words, the Saxons demanded that this enemy of their religion and land should expiate his reckless offence by death, and they prepared to slay him with stakes torn from the thickets and sharpened, but he made his escape. An old nobleman, Buto, reminded the assembly that, while ambassadors from the Normans, Slavs, and Frisians had been always honourably received and dismissed in peace, they were now insulting and threatening with death the ambassador of the Highest God, of whose mightiness the present wonderful deliverance of His servant from instant death was sufficient evidence. Convinced by this speech, the Saxons promised henceforth to respect the rights of Christianity. On his return to Friesland, Lebwin rebuilt the church at Deventer, and found there his last resting-place. That he died before 776 is certain, since in that year the Saxons made a fresh inroad into the district and burnt the church, but, in spite of the most careful search for three days, were unable to discover the saint's body. St. Ludger (q.v.) rebuilt the church a few years later, and found the saint's remains. Lebwin is commemorated by the Church on 12 November.

The principal source for Lebwin's biography are; HUCBALD (918--76), Vita s. Lebuini in SURIUS Vitæ SS., VI, 277--86, and in abbreviated form In Mon. Germ. SS., II, 360--4: tr. in CRESSY Church History of Brittany XXIV, vii; RADBOD, Ecloga et Sermo (on Lebwin) in SURIUS, VI, 839; Altfrid, Vita Liutgeri in Mon. Germ. SS., II, 360 sqq. For further bibliography see GAMMACK in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Lebuinus.

THOMAS KENNEDY

Emile-Paul-Constant-Ange Le Camus

Preacher, theologian, scripturist, Bishop of La Rochelle and Saintes, b. at Paraza, France, 24 August, 1839; d. at Malvisade, near Castelnaudary, France, 28 September, 1906. He made his preparatory studies at Carcassonne, and then entered the theological seminary of St-Sulpice at, Paris. In 1861 he went to Rome, where he received his doctorate in theology, and in the following year, 20 December, 1862, he was ordained priest at Carcassonne, France. He at once revealed remarkable oratorical powers, and in 1867 he was invited to preach the Lenten sermons at Avignon, for which he was made honorary canon. This same honour was again conferred upon him somewhat later by Mgr Las Cazes, Bishop of Constantine (Algeria), who also chose Le Camus as his theologian at the Vatican Council. In 1875 Le Camus was appointed assistant director of the Dominican school at Sorez, France, but soon after he became head of the new school of St. Francis de Sales, which he established at Castelnaudary. Here he laboured until 1887, when he resigned his position as director in order to devote himself exclusively to the study of the New Testament. To equip himself properly for this study, and especially to study the topography of the Holy Land, he made his first journey to the East in the following year (1888). This was followed by several other visits, and the results of his travels and studies were published at various times. While pursuing his Scriptural studies, Le Camus also found time to preach several ecclesiastical retreats at Lyons, Montpellier, Paris, and Rome. In 1897 he was elected theological canon of Carcassonne, and on 6 April, 1901, he received his appointment as Bishop of La Rochelle and Saintes. He was consecrated at Carcassonne, 2 July, 1901, by Cardinal Lecot. Even as bishop, Le Camus continued his work on the New Testament, and also published several letters and pamphlets on ecclesiastical topics. His more important works are: "La Vie de Notre Seigneur JÈsus-Christ", 3 vols., 6th ed., 1901 (translated into English, German, and Italian); "Voyages aux Sept Eglises de l'Apocalypse"; "Notre Voyage aux Pays Bibliques", 3 vols., 1889--90; "L'Œuvre des Apôtres". 3 vols., 1905; "Les Enfants de Nazareth"; "Vraie et Fausse ExÈgèse"; "Lettre sur la Formation EcclÈsiastique des SÈminaristes"; "Lettre rÈglant la rÈorganization des Ètudes ecclÈsiastiques"; "MÈmoire addressÈ à MM. les dÈputÈs membres de la Commission des CongrÈgations ". Bulletin Trimestriel des Anciens Elèves de St-Sulpice, n. xliii (15 Nov., 1906). 450--54; New York Review, II. n. iii, 498; II, vi, 773--80.

F.X.E. ALBERT

Etienne Le Camus

French cardinal, b. at Paris, 1632; d. at Grenoble, 1707. Through the influence of his father, Nicolas le Camus, a state councillor, he was when still very young attached to the court as almoner of the king, and enjoyed the friendship of Bossuet. The Sorbonne made him doctor of theology at the age of eighteen. The fact of his consorting with such men as Benserade, Vivonne, and Bussy drew upon him the severity of Mazarin, and he was for a while exiled to Meaux. Recalled through the influence of Colbert, he retired in 1665 to La Trappe with de Rancé, and passed from his former levity to an asceticism that led him to Port-Royal. The publication of his letters by Ingold shows that Jansenism was with Le Camus more a matter of personal sympathy and spiritual discipline than of doctrinal tenets. Made against his will Bishop of Grenoble in 1671, he proved himself zealous almost to excess in reforming abuses in his diocese. In the affair of the "régale" he acted as intermediary between Rome and Versailles, and showed creditable courage before the omnipotent Louis XIV. Innocent XI, having made him cardinal instead of Harlay, presented by the king, he was not allowed till 1689 to go to Rome to receive the insignia of his dignity. Le Camus founded in the Diocese of Grenoble two seminaries and several charitable institutions. Besides a "Recueil d'ordonnances synodales" we have from him the "Défense de la Virginité perpétuelle de la Mère de Dieu" (Paris, 1680), and numerous letters published by Ingold.

BELLET, Histoire du Cardinal Le Camus (Paris 1886); SAINTE-BEUVE, Port-Royal, IV (Paris, 1901), 528; ST-SIMON, Mémoires (ed. HACHETTE), IV 59 to be corrected by LALOUETTE, Abrégé de la vie de M. le Cardinal Le Camus (Paris, 1720); INGOLD, Lettres du Card. Le Camus in Bulletin de l'Académie Delphinoise, 2nd series, I.

J.F. SOLLIER

Joseph Le Caron

One of the four pioneer missionaries of Canada and first missionary to the Hurons (q.v.), b. near Paris in 1586; d. in France, 29 March, 1632 He embraced the ecclesiastical state and was chaplain to the Duke of OrlÈans. When that prince died, Le Caron joined the Recollects and made his profession in 1611. On 24 April, 1615, he sailed from Honfleur, reached Canada on 25 May, and immediately wont to Sault St. Louis. After a short time he travelled to Quebec, provided himself with a portable altar service, returned to the Sault, and went into the land of the Hurons, being the first to visit their settlements and preach the Gospel. He stayed with them about a year, and was again among them in 1623. In 1616 he returned to France to look after the spiritual and material interests of the colony. The following spring saw him in Canada again, as provincial commissary. During the winters of 1618 and 1622 he evangelized the Montagnais of Tadousac. In 1625 he was once more in France, returned to Canada a year later, was elected superior of his order at Quebec, and filled this office until the capture of Quebec by the English in 1629, when he and his colleagues were sent back to France by the conquerors.

Le Caron was a saintly man, given to the practice of austerities, but gentle towards others. He died of the plague in the convent of Ste-Marguerite in France. We owe to him the first dictionary of the Huron language. The "Bibliotheca Universa Franciscana" of Jean de S. Antoine, II (Madrid, 1732), 243, says on the evidence of Arturus in his "Martyrologium Franciscanum" under date of 31 August, that Le Caron wrote also "Quærimonia Novæ Franciæ" (Complaint of New France).

Histoire chronol. de la province de St-Denis (Bibl. Nat., Paris); Mortuologe des RÈcollets de la province de St-Denis (late seveenteenth-century MS., in the archives of Quebec seminary); CHAMPLAIN (Euvres, ed. LAVARDIÈRE (6 vols., Quebec, 1870); SAGARD, Histoire du Canada, ed. TROSS (4 vols.. Paris, 1866); LECLERCQ, Premier Etablissment de la Foi dans la Nouvelle France (2 vols., Paris, 1691).

ODORIC-M. JOUVE

Lecce

(LICIENSIS).

Diocese; suffragan of Otranto. Lecce, the capital of a province in Terra d'Otranto in Apulia, seven and a half miles from the sea, is an industrial and commercial city (tobacco, grain, wine, oil, woven goods). Marble quarries are in the vicinity. Extensive ruins of megalithic structures in its territory prove that it was inhabited at a very remote period. It was known to the ancients as Lupiæ, and then had a port, enlarged by Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Near Lecce is the village of Rugge, the ancient Rudiæ, birthplace of Ennius. In the time of the Normans, Lecce became the seat of a countship, some of its counts being famous, notably Tancred (d. 1194), who contested with Henry VI the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and Gautier de Brienne, cousin of Tancred. Under Charles V, to whom a triumphal arch was erected in the city, Lecce received new life, and the features of that epoch are retained to this day. For this reason Lecce is one of those cities that have preserved a characteristic and uniform style of architecture. Of the more ancient buildings there remains only the church of SS. Nicola and Cataldo, outside the city, in Romanesque style (1180). The cathedral of S. Oronzio (first built in 1114 by Goffredo d'Altavilla), in its present form, and the church of S. Domenico are of the seventeenth century, S. Croce of the sixteenth—all in baroque style. The cathedral tower is about 240 feet high, and serves yet as a lighthouse for ships plying between Otranto and Brindisi. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century there was a signal on its summit to give warning of pirate ships. The Palazzo della Intendenza, once the abbey of the Celestines, is noteworthy. Mention must also be made of the manufacture of tobacco in the ancient Dominican convent. The historian Scipione Ammirati and the painter Matteo da Lecce (sixteenth century) were natives of Lecce. The Christian religion, it is said, was first introduced by St. Orontius, a Pythagorean philosopher converted by St. Paul. St. Leucius is also venerated as bishop and martyr. But a bishop of Lecce is first mentioned in 1057, in the person of Teodoro Bonsecolo. Other bishops of note were Roberto Vultorico (1214), who restored the cathedral; Tommaso Ammirati (1429); Ugolino Martelli (1511), a linguist; Giambattista Castromediani (1544), who founded the hospital and other institutions for children and the poor; Luigi Pappacoda (1639), who rebuilt the cathedral, which contains his statue in marble; Antonio Pignatelli (1672), later Innocent XII, who founded the seminary of Lecce.

The diocese has 32 parishes with 100,000 souls, 8 religious houses of men and 16 of women, 10 schools for boys, and 6 for girls.

DE SIMONE, Lecce e i suoi dintorni (Lecce, 1874); CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI.

U. BENIGNI

François Leclerc du Tremblay

A Capuchin, better known as PÈre Joseph, b. in Paris, 4 Nov., 1577; d. at Rueil, 18 Dec., 1638. Owing to the influence of his kinsman the Constable de Montmorency, he appeared at court at the age of eighteen with the title of Baron de Maffliers, and served in the armies of Henry IV against Spain. On 2 Feb., 1599 he became a Capuchin novice, he was provincial of the Capuchins of Touraine in Sept., 1613, and took part in 1616 in the negotiations of Loudun between Marie de Medicis and the malcontents led by the Prince de Condé. To the future Cardinal de Richelieu he furnished the opportunity of a conference with Condé, the first service rendered by Richelieu to Marie de Medicis and to the State. In this way Père Joseph appears at the opening of Richelieu's political career. The role of Père Joseph has recently been studied anew by Abbé Dedouvres and M. Fagniez. Their researches prove that Père Joseph remained true to the medieval idea of Christendom. He had visions of a crusade that would combine all Europe, and the purpose of his visit to Rome in 1616 was to discuss with Paul V the schemes of the Duke of Nevers, who was planning to unite against the Turks the Maniots of Morca and thc Slav populations of the Balkans, and with this enterprise in view, founded (1617) the Order of the Christian Militia. Père Joseph even wrote an epic poem on this subject, "La Turciade." But the conflict between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons, as well as the new prospects of the Mantuan succession open to Charles de Nevers caused the crusade scheme to fail. Père Joseph then became Richelieu's confidential political agent, hoping that, with the Bourbons victorious, and peace established in Europe, it would finally be possible to march against the Turks. His scheme was to weaken both the Protestants and the House of Austria, both of whom he considered enemies of the peace of Europe. He wished France to use the Protestants to weaken the House of Austria, and the House of Austria to weaken the Protestants.

Richelieu sent him to Rome in 1625, to negotiate regarding the rival claims of the Grisons and Spain in Valtellina. In 1630 he was sent to the Diet of Ratisbon to give quiet support to the opposition of the German princes to the claims of Emperor Ferdinand, and to strengthen the bonds of alliance between France and the Elector Maximilian of Bavaria, head of the Catholic League. On the morrow of the Diet of Ratisbon, Germany was divided between a powerless emperor and two parties, one Catholic, the other Protestant, both equally hostile to the empire. Père Joseph laboured to obtain the neutrality of the Duke of Bavaria and of the Catholic League in view of the invasion of Gustavus Adoiphus, protector of the Protestants; he even had hopes of forming an alliance between Maximilian and Gustavus Adolphus. After the death of Gustavus Adolphus war became inevitable between France and the Habsburgs. and it broke out in 1635. Henceforth instead of pressing on Richelieu his own broad political views, Père Joseph was content to support the makeshift policy imposed by circumstances on the cardinal. The desire for territorial expansion, which at that time governed French policy, was Richelieu's rather than Père Joseph s. The latter however, eagerly followed the progress of the French troops and, in the cardinal's name, kept up an active correspondence with the generals and ministers. Tradition represents the cardinal as bending over his dying friend and saying to him: "Père Joseph, Brisach is ours." As a matter of fact the taking of Brisach, which occurred on 17 Dec., 1638, could not have been known in Paris on the next morning, the date of the death of Père Joseph; but the tradition such as it is, symbolizes the close bond which patriotism created between these two men.

While the religious idea of a crusade inspired the secular policy of Père Joseph, intense sacerdotal and Apostolic zeal characterized him amid all his political preoccupations. At his suggestion d Orl ans-Longueville reformed the Benedictine Order at Fontevrault and founded the congregation of Our Lady of Calvary, for whose nuns he wrote many books of piety. He opposed, even more openly than Richelieu, Richer's Gallican doctrines. Père Joseph also founded Capuchin missions for the conversion of Protestants, in Poitou, Dauphiné, the Cevennes, Languedoc, Provence, and later in the East. The sending of Père Pacifique to Constantinople in 1624, with the title of "Prefect of Eastern Missions" was the beginning of vast spiritual conquests by the Capuchins in the Archipelago, the Greek peninsula, and Asia Minor. From Paris Père Joseph directed this work. and in 1633 there were ten Eastern missions. It was he alsp who, in 1633, sent Père Agathange of Vend me to found a mission in Egypt; this same father in 1637 attempted but in vain to establish a mission in Abyssinia; finally Père Joseph tried, but unsuccessfully, to establish a mission of French Capuchins in Morocco.

FAGNIEZ, Le P. Joseph et Richelieu (2 vols., Paris, 1894): DEDOUVRES. Le P. Joseph polémiste, ses premiers premiers écrits 1623-1626 (Paris, 1895); DEDOUVRES, Un précurseur de la B. Marguerite Marie. LePère Joseph et le Sacré Coeur (Angers, 1899).

GEORGES GOYAU

Chrestien Leclercq

A Franciscan Récollet and one of the most zealous missionaries to the Micmac of Canada, also a distinguished historiographer of Nouvelle France. A Fleming by birth, he joined the province of the Récollets of St. Antoine, in Artois, and went to Canada in 1673; on 11 October of that year he was put in charge of the Micmac mission by Mgr de Laval. He learned the language of that tribe and devoted himself to its evangelization. His superiors sent him to France in 1680 on business connected with the Franciscan missions in Canada; he returned in the following spring with letters authorizing the foundation of a convent in Montreal, whither he went during the summer of 1681 to carry out this work. In the month of November he went back to the Micmac mission, where he passed in all twelve years of his life. In autumn 1686 he returned finally to France, where he filled various positions of authority in the Artois province of his order. The date of his death, like that of his birth, is unknown, but he was still living in 1698. After his return to France, he completed two works which he published at Paris in 1691. They are:

(1) "Premier établissement de la foy dans la Nouvelle-France", 2 vols. in l2mo. The first volume contains fourteen unnumbered leaves and 559 pages; the second 458 pages. This work is now very rare and commands a high price. It may be divided into three parts. The first contains the early history of Nouvelle-France, the introduction of Catholicism into that country, and describes the labours of the first missionaries in Canada, the Récollets. This part ends at the year 1629 on the taking of Quebec by the English. The second part, from 1632 till 1670 inclusive, continues the history of the colony, relates the spreading of the Faith among the native tribes through the devoted labours of the Jesuit Fathers, and tells of the return of the Récollets to Canada and their new foundation of the convent of Notre-Dame des Anges at Quebec. The third part gives one of the best accounts, and in certain matters the only account of the travels and discoveries of de La Salle, and ends with the victory of the French over the English at the siege of Quebec in 1690. The work has been criticized, Charlevoix complaining that Leclercq treats only of the religious affairs in which the Récollets took part, and even ascribing to Frontenac a share in the authorship of the work; but the authenticity of the documents on which the author relied for his information has never been impugned; and it remains an important source for the history of Canada and of the Catholic Church in North America. An English translation by John Gilmary Shea, was published at New York in 1881, containing an account of the author, portraits, map, views, and facsimile.

(2) "Nouvelle relation de la Gaspésie", 1 vol. in l2mo, also published at Paris, in 1691, by Aurov, contains four unnumbered leaves and 372 pages. This book describes the scenes of the Apostolic labours of the zealous author from 1675 till 1686. It relates the missionary efforts of Leclercq and some other Récollets around the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Baie des Chaleurs, and in New Brunswick. But the author describes in particular the life, customs, and beliefs of the savages called by him by the general name of Gaspesians) who then inhabited these regions. It is an important work, though of mere local interest. From it we learn that Leclercq invented a system of writing by which he taught the Micmac Indians to read their own language. Very probably these hieroglyphics have been preserved, and are to be found in the Micmac writings which still exist. It has been translated into English by W.F. Ganong, with an account of the author and illustrations (1 vol., Edinburgh, 1910).

Archives of the Archbishopric of Quebec; LECLERCQ, Premier tablissement de la foy dans la Nouvelle France (Paris, 1691) IDEM, Nouvelle relation de la Gasp sie (Paris, 1601); HENNEPIN, Nouveau voyage, etc. (Utrecht, 1698) REVEILLAUD, Histoire chronologigue de la Nouvelle France (Paris, 1888).

ODORIC-M. JOUVE

Lecoy de La Marche

(RICHARD-ALBERT).

French historian; b. at Nemours, 1839; d. at Paris, 1897. He left the Ecole des Chartes in 1861, and was appointed archivist of the Department of Haute Savoie. In 1864 he went to Paris as archivist in the historical section of the Archives Nationales; he was also, for many years, professor of French history at the Catholic Institute in Paris. Lecoy de La Marche was gifted with rare qualities as a writer and scholar, and what is still more remarkable, he never separated the research for and the diffusion of historical truth from the defence and propagation of religious truth. His masterpiece is his "Chaire française au moyen âge" (Paris, 1868), which was awarded a prize by the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. It has served as a model for many books on this subject, but has remained to this day the standard work of its kind. It consists of three parts: "Les prédicateurs; les sermons; la société d'aprés les sermons". Part I begins with a summary of the history of preaching in the primitive Church, and in France previous to the eleventh century, and then gives an exhaustive history of the French preachers in the following centuries, especially the thirteenth. Part II deals with the audiences, the time and the place of preaching, and the various kinds of sermons. Part III, which is perhaps the most remarkable section of the book, is a study of French society in the Middle Ages as it appears in the light of the sermons. Kings, lords, bishops, priests, monks, burgesses, peasants, men and women, pass before our eves, with their characteristic traits and weaknesses. Lecoy de La Marche also published: "L'académie de France à Rome" (1874); "Le roi René, sa vie, son administration" (1873); "Anecdotes historiques, etc." (1876); "La Société au XIIIe siècle" (1880); "Saint Martin" (1881); "Les manuscrits et la miniature" (1884); "Relations politiques de la France et du royaume de Majorque" (1892), etc.

Revue des questions historiques (Paris, 1897).

PIERRE MARIQUE

Claude Le Coz

French bishop, b. at PlouÈvez-Parzay (Finistère), 1740; d. at Villevieux (Jura), 1813. Pupil, then professor, and finally principal of the Collège de Quimper, he took the constitutional oath in 1791, was elected schismatic Bishop of Ille-et-Vilaine, and wrote in defence of his election—declared null and void by the pope—"Accord des vrais principes de la morale et de la raison sur la Constitution civile du clergÈ". Elected to the Legislative Assembly he showed courage and ability in defending against the majority Catholic colleges, the ecclesiastical costume, and even Christian marriage. His moderation drew upon him the severity of the Convention, and he spent fourteen months in the prison of Mont-Saint-Michel. Later, under the Directory, the vigour with which he opposed the substitution of the decadi for the Christian Sunday came near causing his deportation. Under the Concordat, Le Coz was one of the Constitutional bishops whom the force of circumstances compelled the Holy See to recognize, and he became Archbishop of Besaneon. There is a doubt as to the nature of his retractation: Bernier, the ecclesiastical diplomat who negotiated the rehabilitation of the jurors, thought it best, in order to avoid delay, not to make a clear mention of the mannerof retractation required by Pius VII; as a consequence, Le Coz denied ever having retracted, and the awkwardness of the situation was ended only by a personal interview between Le Coz and Pius VII, in which both were seen weeping but of which neither ever spoke. As schismatic Bishop of Ille-et-Vilaine, Le Coz failed in his endeavour to organize the new province of which he was the metropolitan; otherwise he proved a zealous administrator and even a charitable pastor. As Archbishop of Besançon he displayed some good qualities, but his sad antecedents, the doubt hanging over his conversion, and the presence in his archiepiscopal palace of too many ex-juror priests, detracted considerably from the effectiveness of his ministry. The strange mixture of truth and error, of good and evil in Le Coz's life, is partly explained by his intensely Gallican education, which caused him to adopt with apparent sincerity and to maintain with unconquerable obstinacy the most schismatic views. His Gallicanism, which made him so haughty toward the pope, found him almost cringing before the various political regimes which succeeded one another during his episcopate. In an age full of confusion, we should give some credit to Le Coz for sometimes having, even against the all-powerful AbbÈ GrÈgoire, defended the cause of religion in the "Annales de la Religion", in which he was an assiduous collaborator, and in his "Correspondance", part of which has been published by his biographer.

ROUSSEL, Le Coz, Èvêque d'Ille-et-Vilaine (Paris, s.d.); IDEM, Correspondance de Le Coz (Paris, 1900); PISANI, Le Coz in RÈpertoire biographique de l'Episcopat Constitutionnel (Paris, 1907).

J.F. SOLLIER

Lectern

(Lecturn, Letturn, Lettern, from legere, to read).

Support for a book, reading-desk, or bookstand, a solid and permanent structure upon which the Sacred Books, which were generally large and heavy, were placed when used by the ministers of the altar in liturgical functions. In early days only one such structure was employed; later, two were erected, one at the northern wall of the choir, and another on the opposite side. From the former the sermon was delivered by the priest, and also by the bishop, unless he spoke from his cathedra; here decrees of synods were promulgated, censures and excommunications pronounced, the diptychs read, the Gospel chanted by the deacon, and all those parts of the liturgy were sung which belonged to the deacon's office. The other, somewhat longer but not so high, was divided into two compartments or stories--the higher, facing the altar, was used by the subdeacon when reading the Epistle; in the other, facing the nave, the other lessons were read. A third lectern was used in some churches for the sermon. Some of these were built of marble, others of wood, highly adorned with silver and gold, enamelled, and set with precious stones, covered with bronze plates and carvings in ivory. Besides those mentioned under Ambo, we find among the treasures of the Abbey of Saint-Riquier "lectoria tria ex marmore, argento et auro fabricata" (P.L., CLXXIV, 1257). One in the court of the church of St. Pantalaemon in Thessalonica is held to be the oldest. On its lower part is found in relief the Madonna and Child, seated on a throne and surrounded by shepherds and the three Magi, and on the superstructure are symbolic representations. The upper part of the lectern in S. Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna is old and fairly complete. Another, well preserved and richly decorated, a donation of Henry II, is at Aachen. Movable lecterns were also made of wood, bronze, or polished brass. A bronze lectern inlaid with ivory, made about the middle of the twelfth century by Sugar, Abbot of St. Denis, was in the shape of an eagle whose outspread wings held the book. Eagle-shaped lecterns were also numerous in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in England. Samples, but not going back later than the fifteenth century, are found at Aachen, Dusseldorf, St. Severin's at Cologne, etc. A lectern of neatly wrought iron, in the shape of an X, which can be folded, is in the Musee Cluny at Paris. The Carthusians of Dijon had a lectern which was a large column of copper, in Renaissance style, supporting a phoenix surrounded by the four animals of the Prophet Ezechiel. In some the figure of a deacon holds the book.

The Synods of Munster (1279), Liège (1287), and Cambrai (1300) prescribed that the Missal, enveloped in a linen cloth, should be laid on the altar. Towards the end of the thirteenth century a cushion came into use. The oldest notice of a stand for the Missal is found in an inventory of the cathedral of Angers of the year 1297 (Zeitschrift fur christliche Kunst, X, 175). All such lecterns were covered on festivals with rich cloths of silver and gold. At the present day lecterns are in use as Missal-stands and for the reading of the prophecies on Holy Saturday and Pentecost Saturday, for the chanting of the Passion, the singing of the "Exultet", and the reading of the lessons in choirs.

Duchesne, Christian Worship (London, 1904), 114, 169, 353; Rock, Church of Our Fathers, I (London, 1903), 106; Kraus, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, II (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 482; Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, IV, i, 70

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Lectionary

(Lectionarium or Legenda).

Lectionary is a term of somewhat vague significance, used with a good deal of latitude by liturgical writers. It must be rememered that in the early Middle Ages neither the Liturgy of the Mass, nor the Divine Office recited by monks and other ecclesiastics in choir, were to be found, as in the Missal and the Breviary of the present day, complete in one volume. Both for the Mass and for the Office a variety of books were used, for it was obviously a matter of convenience when books were both bulky and costly to produce that the prayers, e.g. which the priest had to say at the altar, should be contained in a different volume from the antiphons to be sung by the choir. The word lectionary, then, in its wider sense, is a term which may be correctly applied to any liturgical volume containing passages to be read aloud in the services of the Church. In this larger signification it would include all Scriptural books written continuously, in which readings were marked, such as the "Evangeliaria" (also often known as "Textus"), as well as books, known also as "Plenaria", containing both Epistles and Gospels combined, such as are commonly employed in a high Mass at the present day, and also those collections, either of extracts from the Fathers or of historical narrations about the martyrs and other saints, which were read aloud as lessons in the Divine Office. This wider signification is, however, perhaps the less usual, and in practice the term lectionary is more commonly used to denote one of two things: (1) the book containing the collection of Scriptural readings which are chanted by the deacon, subdeacon, or a lector during Mass; (2) any book from which the readings were taken which are read aloud in the Office of Matins, after each nocturn or group of psalms. With regard to these last the practice seems to have varied greatly. Sometimes collections were made containing just the extracts to be used in choir, such as we find them in a modern Breviary. Sometimes a large volume of patristic homilies (known also as sermonarium) or historical matter was employed, in which certain passages were marked to be used as lessons. This last custom seems more particularly to have obtained with regard to the short biographical accounts of martyrs and other saints, which in our modern Breviary form the lessons of the second nocturn. In this connection the word legenda in particular is of common occurrence. The Bollandist Poncelet is, consequently, inclined to draw a distinction between the "Legenda" and the ‘Lectionarium" (see Analecta Bollandiana, XXIX, 13). The "Legenda", also called "Passionarium" is a collection of narratives of variable length, in which are recounted the life, martyrdom, translation, or miracles of the saints. This usually forms a large volume, and the order of the pieces in the collection is commonly, though not necessarily, that of the calendar. A few such "Legendæ" come down from quite the early Middle Ages. But the vast majority of those now preserved in our libraries belong to the eleventh, twelfth. and thirteenth centuries. The earliest, is the ‘‘Codex Velseri", MS. Lat. 3514, of the Royal Library at Munich, written probably before the year 700. When these books were used in choir during Office the reader either read certain definitely marked passages, indicated by markings of which our existing manuscripts constantly show traces, or, in the earlier periods especially, he read on until the abbot or priest who presided gave him the signal to stop. After the thirteenth century however, this type of book was much more rarely transcribed. It was replaced by what may conveniently be called for distinction's sake the "Lectionarium" par excellence, a book which consisted not of entire narratives, but only of extracts arranged according to feasts, and made expressly to be read in the Office. It may be added that about the same period the still more comprehensive liturgical book, known to us so familiarly as the Breviary (q.v.) also began to make its appearance. In the early centuries the Scriptural passages to be read at Mass, whether taken from the Gospels, the Epistles, or the Old Testament, were very commonly included in one book, often called a "Comes" or "Liber Comicus". But no constant or uniform practice was followed, for sometimes the Epistles and Lessons were read from a continuous text equipped with rubrics indicating the different days for which the passages were intended — this is the case with the famous "Epistolarium" of St. Victor of Capua in the sixth century; sometimes Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels were all transcribed in their proper order into one volume, as in the case of the Liber Comicus" of the Church of Toledo lately edited by Dom Morin, or of the Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, published by Mabillon in his "Liturgia Gallicana".

BAUDOT, Les Lectionnaires in Science of Religion (Paris, 1907), nos. 463, 464; SAUER in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlex., s.v. Lektionar; MORIN, Liber Comicus, introduction (Maredsous, 1893): and many articles of the same writer in Revue BÈnÈdictine; PONCELET in Analecta Bollandiana, XXIX (Brussels, 1910), 1-48; BEISSEL, Entstehung der Perikopen des röm. Messbuches (Freiburg im Br., 1907); RANKE, Das kirch. Perikopen System (Berlin, 1847); WORDSWORTH AND LITTLEHALES, Old Service Books of the English Church (London, 1904).

HERBERT THURSTON

Lector

A lector (reader) in the West is a clerk having the second of the four minor orders. In all Eastern Churches also, readers are ordained to a minor order preparatory to the diaconate. The primary reason for a special class of readers was the need of some persons sufficiently educated to be able to read the books in church, for the Christians continued the Jewish practice of reading the Sacred Books publicly. The first mention of a Christian liturgical reader is by Justin Martyr (d. about 165) in I Apol., lxvii, 3, 4. The homily known as "II Clem. ad Corinthios" also contains a reference to a lector, anaginoskon (xix, 1). The position of reader was honourable and dignified. It involved a higher standard of education than that of most offices. Although Justin says that the bishop preached the sermon, it appears that the reader himself often went on to expound what he had read. As the idea obtained that a special blessing and dedication should be given to everyone who performs an office for the Church, the reader too was instituted by prayers and some ceremony. Readers were blessed and set apart, as were the fossores who dug graves, the notarii who kept registers, and widows. All the group of rituals that depend on the "Apostolic Constitutions" contain the rite of ordaining readers. "Apost. Const.", vii, xxii, tells the bishop to ordain a reader by laying on his hand and saying a prayer, which is given. The derived documents however forbid an imposition of hands. ("Epitome Const. Ap.", xiii; Funk, "Didascalia", Paderborn, 1905, II, p. 82; see also the "Egyptian Church Order", V, ib., p. 105).

During the first centuries all the lessons in the liturgy, including the Epistle and Gospel, were read by the lector. Cornelius I (251-53) in a letter to Fabius of Antioch mentions that the Church of Rome has forty-two acolytes and fifty-two exorcists, readers and doorkeepers. (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 45). In the fourth century in Africa the Church of Cirta had four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and seven readers. The account of the persecution ("Gesta apud Zenophilum" printed in the appendix to Optatus of Mileve in the Vienna edition of "Corp. Script. eccl. lat.", XXVI, 185-97) describes how the readers kept the sacred books which the magistrate demanded to be given up (p. 187). An old set of Western canons, ascribed (wrongly) to a supposed Council of Carthage in 398, but really of the sixth century, gives forms for all ordinations. Canon 8 is about our subject: "When a reader is ordained let the bishop speak about him (faciat de illo verbum) to the people, pointing out his faith and life and skill. After this, while the people look on, let him give him the book from which he is to read, saying to him: Receive this and be the spokesman (relator) of the word of God and you shall have, if you do your work faithfully and usefully, a part with those who have administered the word of God" (Denzinger, op. cit., n. 156). But gradually the lectorate lost all importance. The deacon obtained the office of reading the Gospel; in the West the Epistle became the privilege of the subdeacon. In the Eastern Churches this and other lessons are still supposed to be read by a lector, but everywhere his office (as all minor orders) may be supplied by a layman. The lector is still mentioned twice in the Roman Missal. In the rubrics at the beginning it is said that if Mass be sung without deacon and subdeacon a lector wearing a surplice may sing the Epistle in the usual place; but at the end he does not kiss the celebrant's hand (Ritus celebr. Missam", vi, 8). On Good Friday the morning service begins with a prophecy read by a lector at the place where the Epistle is usually read (first rubric on Good Friday).

Everywhere the order of reader has become merely a stepping-stone to major orders, and a memory of early days. In the Roman Rite in is the second minor order (Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus). The minor orders are conferred during Mass after the first Lesson; but they may be given apart from Mass, on Sundays or doubles, in the morning. The lectorate involves no obligation of celibacy or of any other kind. The Byzantine Office will be found in the "Euchologion" (Euchologion to mega, Venetian 8th edition, 1898, pp. 186-87). The Armenians (Gregorian and Uniate) have adopted the Roman system of four minor orders exactly. Their rite of ordaining a reader also consists essentially in handing to him the book of the Epistles.

WIELAND, Die Genetische Entwickelung der sog. Ordines minores in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten in Römische Quartalschrift, Suppl. no 7 (Rome, 1892); HARNACK, Über den Ursprung des Lectorats u. der anderen niederen Weihen in Texte u. Untersuchungen, II, 5.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Miecislas Halka Ledochowski

Count, cardinal, Archbishop of Gnesen-Posen, b. at Gorki near Sandomir in Russian Poland, 29 October, 1822; d. at Rome, 22 July, 1902. After studying at Radom and Warsaw, he entered the Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici in Rome in 1842, and was ordained priest 13 July, 1845. He became domestic prelate of Pius IX in 1846, auditor of the papal nunciature at Lisbon in 1847, Apostolic delegate to Colombia and Chile in 1856, nuncio at Brussels and titular Archbishop of Thebes in 1861, and finally Archbishop of Gnesen-Posen in December, 1865. He was preconized on 8 January, 1866, and enthroned on 22 April of the same year. Being on friendly terms with the King of Prussia, he was sent to Versailles by Pius IX in November, 1870, to ask the services of Prussia for the re­establishment of the Pontifical States, and to offer the services of the pope as mediator between France and Germany, but his mission proved fruitless.

Shortly after the outbreak of the German Kulturkampf, the Prussian Government, without the knowledge or co­operation of Ledochowski, passed an ordinance that, after Easter, 1873, all religious instruction in Posen should be imparted in the German language only. It was but natural that the Polish people should object to such an unjust ordinance, especially since most of the children were either entirely ignorant of the German language or understood it only with difficulty. When the Government ignored the urgent request of the archbishop to revoke the ordinance, he issued a circular on 22 February, 1873, to the teachers of religion at the higher educational institutes, ordering them to use the vernacular in their religious instructions in the lower classes, but permitting the use of the German language in the higher classes, beginning with the secunda. Pius IX approved this act of the archbishop in a Brief dated 24 March, 1873. All the teachers of religion were obedient to their archbishop and, in consequence, the Government deprived them of their positions. Religion being thus no longer taught at many institutions, the archbishop erected private religious schools, but in an ordinance of 17 September, 1873, the Government forbade all pupils of the higher institutions to obtain religious instruction at those private schools. As all protests of the archbishop proved useless, he disregarded the unjust ordinances of the Government, and, after being fined repeatedly, he was finally ordered on 24 November, 1873, to present his resignation. The archbishop's answer was that no temporal court had the right to deprive him of an office which God had imposed upon him through His visible representative on earth. Before he was formally deposed, he was arrested between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning of 3 February, 1874, and carried off to the dungeon of Ostrowo, because he refused to pay the repeated fines imposed upon him. While in prison, he was created cardinal by Pius IX on 13 March, 1874. The Prussian Government declared him deposed on 15 April, 1874. On 3 February, 1876, he was released from prison, but was ordered to leave Prussia. He continued to rule his diocese from Rome, and was sentenced to imprisonment for "arrogating episcopal rights" on three occasions, viz., 9 Feb. and 26 May, 1877, and 7 Nov., 1878. After being appointed secretary of papal Briefs in 1885 he voluntarily resigned his archdiocese in the interests of peace. In 1892 he became Prefect of the Propaganda, an office which he held until his death. An official reconciliation between the cardinal and the Prussian Government took place when Emperor William II visited Rome in 1893.

BrÜck, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert, IV (Mainz, 1901), 147-50 et alibi; Hogan in The Irish Ecclesiastical Review, fourth series, XII (Dublin, 1902), 289-301.

Michael Ott.

Leeds

(LOIDIS; LOIDENSIS).

Diocese embracing the West Riding of Yorkshire, and that part of the city of York to the south of the River Ouse. Though one of the fourteen dioceses now comprised in the Province of Westminster, it was not erected at the time of the restoration of the English hierarchy by Pius IX in 1850. For in that year the Holy See, whilst anticipating and providing for its ultimate division, created for Yorkshire the See of Beverley, with jurisdiction over the entire county then known to the ecclesiastical authorities as the Yorkshire District. As that of Lancashire, this vicariate had been made in 1840 by Gregory XVI out of a portion of the original Northern District, first established by Innocent XI, in 1688.

Dr. John Briggs, President of St. Cuthbert's College, Durham (1832-36), and last vicar Apostolic of this extensive territory, which included seven counties of the North of England, and the isle of Man, was, in 1833, consecrated as Bishop of Trachis in partibus, and coadjutor of the Northern District, to which he succeeded in 1836. In 1839 he returned the number of Catholics within his vicariate as about 180,000, of whom only 13,000 were in Yorkshire. Having in 1840 been appointed to the Yorkshire District, Dr. Briggs, by a decree of Propaganda approved by Pius IX, 23 Sept., 1830, was translated from Trachis to Beverley, which see he resigned, 7 Nov., 1860. He died at York, 4 Jan., 1861. Eventually senior bishop of the restored hierarchy, his episcopate was one long, heroic struggle to provide schools and churches for an ever-growing destitute Catholic population—the outcome of many years of Irish immigration. So early as 1838, Bishop Briggs deplored that great numbers of his people were without pastors, without chapels, and without schools for their children; of whom, in 1845, he stated that, in Yorkshire alone, no less than 3000 were receiving no Catholic education whatsoever—a class, ten years later, known to have numbered, throughout England and Wales, 120,000.

Dr. Briggs was succeeded in the See of Beverley by Dr. Robert Cornthwaite, canon of Hexham and Newcastle, and formerly rector of the English College, Rome (1851-57). He was consecrated by Cardinal Wiseman, 10 Nov., 1861. Subsequently, Dr. Cornthwaite obtained from Rome a Brief, dated 20 Dec., 1878, though not published until 6 Feb., 1879, dividing the Diocese of Beverley into those of Leeds and Middlesbrough—that of Leeds lying, for the most part, to the south of a line running east and west through the County of Yorkshire, marked by the courses of the Humber, the Ouse, and the Ure, but embracing also a small portion of the county north of the Ouse included within the parliamentary division of the West Riding. Of the 152 clergy of Beverley (who in 1850 had numbered 69) 98 were transferred to Leeds; of its 123 churches and chapels (which twenty-nine years before were 61) Beverley surrendered to Leeds 85; whilst of its 141 schools (in 1850 in all 31) 105 were transferred to the larger of the two new dioceses, carrying with them more than four-fifths of the 15,677 children formerly in attendance within the Diocese of Beverley.

Dr. Cornthwaite having petitioned, the Holy See for assistance, he received as coadjutor Dr. William Gordon, a member of the Leeds Chapter, and afterwards his vicar-general, and rector of the diocesan seminary. The last priest ordained by Dr. Briggs in 1859, he was consecrated as Bishop of Arcadiopolis in partibus, and coadjutor of Leeds cum jure successionis, 24 Feb., 1890, to which see he succeeded upon the death of his predecessor, 16 June, 1890. His coadjutor, Dr. Joseph Robert Cowgill, was appointed fifteen years later cum jure succesionis. At that time financial agent of the diocese, and canon of the Chapter, he was consecrated as Bishop of Olenus in partibus, 30 Nov., 1905.

With an estimated Catholic population of about 106,000, mostly operatives, the Diocese of Leeds now contains 138 churches and chapels, served by 163 clergy, of whom 36 are members of religious orders and congregations. Of its 150 elementary and other schools, 70 are taught by religious. Among other memorials of Dr. Cornthwaite's episcopate, besides 39 churches and chapels, and its diocesan seminary at Leeds, the diocese possesses houses of the Little Sisters of the Poor, for the aged and infirm, at Sheffield and Leeds; industrial schools for boys and girls at Shibden and Sheffield; St. Mary's Orphanage for Girls and St. Vincent's Working Boys' Home, at Leeds; and, at Boston Spa, St. John's Institution for the Deaf and Dumb—one of the largest of its kind, and in efficiency second to none in the kingdom. During Dr. Gordon's government of the diocese, much-needed secondary schools for boys have been established at Leeds and Bradford; of these, St. Michael's College, Leeds, being erected 1908-1909 at a cost of upwards of £18,O00. Provision has also been made, during this period, for the higher education of girls at Sheffield, Leeds, and Bradford-- the Leeds Centre and Teachers' Training College, under the care of the Sisters of Notre Dame (Namur), representing an outlay of about £15,000.

Among the 35 religious houses for women, within the Diocese of Leeds, special interest attaches to the seventeenth-century Bar Convent, of the Institute of Mary, in York, rich in Catholic associations and in relics of the English martyrs. Of the numerous churches more recently built, particular mention should be made of the cathedral, dedicated to St. Anne, and erected at Leeds, in 1902-04, from the designs of J.H. Eastwood, A.R.I.B.A., a small but unique example of "developed Gothic"; and, among the churches of earlier date architecturally remarkable, St. Mary's, Sheffield (1850) and St. Mary's, Leeds. (1857), are both fine examples of the Gothic revival of the last century. And with these may be associated St. Edward's, Clifford (1850), a small church in the Norman style, worthy of the ages of Faith, erected principally through the piety of descendants of the Venerable Ralph Grimston, martyred under Elizabeth at York, in 1598.

Diocesan Archives of Beverley and Leeds; BRADY, English Catholic Hierarchy (London. 1883): WAUGH, The Leeds Missions (London, 1904); LANE-FOX, Chronicles of a Wharfedale Parish (Fort Augustus, 1909).

N. WAUGH

Camille Lefebvre

Apostle of the Acadians, b. at St. Philippe, P. Q., 1831; d. at St. Joseph, N. B., 1895. The son of sturdy French-Canadian peasants, he attended the village school and academy until he was seventeen, became a primary teacher for several half-yearly terms, prosecuted his study of Latin at St. Cyprien, and in 1852 entered the Congregation of the Holy Cross, at St. Laurent, near Montreal. Ordained priest in 1855, he served successively as curate at St. Eustache and St. Rose, professor at St. Laurent College, and missionary in the Diocese of St. Hyacinth, this last office coming to him as the natural result of his quite exceptional ability as a pulpit orator. His real life-work, however, began only in 1864, when, in accordance with an agreement between his religious superiors and Bishop Sweeney of St. John, he took charge of the principal Acadian parish, Memramcook, N. B., and forthwith began the foundation of St. Joseph's College. Half a century ago, the French Acadians of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island were admittedly an unimportant factor in the social life and polity of those provinces. From the time of the great expulsion in 1755, they had been constructively deprived of all means of instruction, in public, professional, or even commercial life; in consequence, an Acadian name rarely if ever became prominent. Unquestionably looked down upon by their English and non-Catholic neighbours as a race naturally inferior to Anglo-Saxons and Celts, they apparently acquiesced in the fate that doomed them to be mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. With the advent among them of Father Lefebvre and the establishment of St. Joseph's College, there dawned a new era, and in the brief space of three decades there was wrought a veritable transformation.

Thanks mainly to his initiative, his personal service, and the enthusiasm with which he imbued his fellow-workers in the college and the leaders of the people themselves, Father Lefebvre lived to see the practical servitude and inferiority in which he found the Acadians replaced by genuine equality and freedom. In ever-increasing numbers his students took prominent places in the business, educational, or professional world, gave themselves to the altar or pleaded at the bar, entered the provincial legislative assemblies and the federal parliament, and graced the bench of the Supreme Court. From 1864 to 1875 the Apostle of the Acadians encountered trials, reverses, and difficulties which nothing but indomitable energy, coupled with unwavering confidence in God, could have enabled him to survive. During these years, in addition to his duties as college president and pastor of Memramcook, he preached missions throughout Acadia, served several terms as Provincial of his Congregation, founded the Little Sisters of the Holy Family, and was honoured with the degree of Doctor of Divinity by Laval University and the title of Apostolic Missionary by Pius IX. His death occurred in January, 1895; and within two years St. Joseph's Alumni erected at Memramcook in his honour a handsome stone edifice, the Lefebvre Memorial Hall. After God, says his Acadian biographer, "he loved especially the Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Acadian people. He is perhaps the purest glory of the former; he is certainly the greatest benefactor of the latter."

POIRIER. Le Père Lefebvre et l'Acadie (Montreal, 1898); SORIN, Circular Letters (Notre Dame, Ind., 1880); Album Souvenir (Montreal, 1894).

ARTHUR BARRY O'NEILL

Family of Lefèvre

There were various members of the Lefèvre family engaged in tapestry weaving in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We hear of one Lancelot Lefèbvre as one of the masters of tapestry weaving in Brussels and in Antwerp in 1655; and in Italy, in 1630, we read of a certain Pierre le Fèvre, a master tapestry worker, who was a native of Paris. It is not known whether these two men were connected one with the other, and of their personal history we know very little. Pierre died in 1669, leaving a son Philip, who was working in Florence in 1677. In 1647, Pierre was attracted by some offers made him on the part of Henry IV of France, and left Florence for Paris. There he received considerable emoluments, was styled Tapissier to the King, and provided with a workshop in the Garden of the Tuileries. He is known to have gone back to Florence in 1650, but to have returned to Paris five years later; he probably lived in Florence for about ten years, returning there for the last short period of his life. His son Jean, who came with him, does not appear to have ever quitted France, and he had the signal honour, on the establishment of the Gobelin factory, of directing with Jean Jans the high warp looms. Jans was a Flemish weaver, but had come to Paris to work in the royal l)uildings in 1654, and he had charge of the largest workshop of the new factory, giving employment to sixty-seven weavers, exclusive of apprentices. The second workshop, which was erected in the Garden of the Tuileries, was the one conducted by Jean Lefèvre, and he appears to have had full charge of it until 1770, and to have earned for the Government a very large sum of money. The fine tapestry entitled "The Toilet of a Princess", which was in the Spitzer collection, was the work of Jean Lefèvre, and three other pieces, representing Bacchanalia, hear his name on their selvedge One of his most wonderful works was entitled "The Toilet of Flora", a shcet of tapestry now preserved at the Garde-meuble. Cardinal Mazarin possessed one of his hangings entitled "The History of St. Paul", and he was probably largely responsible for the two series entitled "The History of Louis XIV", and "The History of Alexander".

MUNTZ, History of Tapestry (London, 1885); THOMSON, History of Tapestry (London, 1906); LACORDAIRE, Notice historique sur les Manufactures impÈriales de Tapisseries des Gobelins (Paris, 1853,1873), various articles in La Gazette des Beaux Arts.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Jacques Le Fèvre

A French theologian and controversialist, b. at Lisieux towards the middle of the seventeenth century; d. 1 July, 1716, at Paris. He became archdeacon of his native city and vicar-general of the Archbishopric of Bourges, and in 1674 received the doctorate in theology from the Sorbonne. His works are the following: "Entretiens d'Eudoxe et d' Euchariste sur les histoires de l'arianisme et des iconoclastes du P. Maimbourg" (Paris, 1674). The first of these dialogues was condemned and burned. "Motifs invincibles pour convaincre ceux de la religion prÈtendue rÈformÈe" (Paris, 1682), in which Le Fèvre endeavours to show that there is fundamental agreement between Catholic and Protestant teachings, the differences being of slight importance and mostly verbal. These conciliatory views were attacked by Arnauld, and, in answer, Le Fèvre wrote "RÈplique a M. Arnauld pour la dÈfense du livre des motifs invincibles" (1685). Amongst Le Fèvre's other works are "ConfÈrence avec un ministre touchant les causes de la separation des protestants" (Paris, 1685); "Instructions pour confirmer les nouveaux convertis dans la foi de 1'Èglise" (Paris, 1686); "Recucil de tout ce qui s'est fait pour et contre les protestants en France" (Paris, 1686); "Lettres d'un docteur sur ce qui se passe dans les assemblÈes de la facultÈ de thÈologie de Paris" (Cologne, 1700). These letters were published anonymously when the work of the Jesuit Father Lecomte, "MÈmoires sur Ia Chine", was referred to the faculty of theology. To Father Lallemant, who had defended his confrère in the "Journal historique des assemblÈes tenues en Sorbonne", Le Fèvre replied in his "Anti-journal historique . . ."; and he also produced "Animadversions sur l'histoire ecclÈsiastique du P. Noël Alexandre ", the first volume of which was printed at Rouen without date about 1680; it was seized and destroyed, and the other volumes were not published.

HURTER, Nomenclator; Nouvelle biographie gÈnÈrale, XXX (Paris, 1858), 344.

C.A. DUBRAY

Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie

French Orientalist and poet; b. near Falaise in Normandy, 9 August, 1541; d. in 1598 in the house in which he was born. At an early age he devoted himself to the study of Oriental languages, particularly Hebrew and Syriac. After much travelling in different provinces of France he settled down to uninterrupted study under the guidance of the Orientalist Guillaume Postel, who was a professor in the College de France. Guy was an earnest student and his scientific ardour was intensified by the religious enthusiasm of his character. He was convinced that deep study and full knowledge were the surest natural mainstays of faith. He felt, too, that if this was true generally, it was true in a very special way in regard to Biblical work. He became an Orientalist therefore, like many others, because he was an apologist. He selected Syriac and Aramaic generally as his special department that he might come nearer to the mind of Christ by the study of Christ's vernacular. His first published work of importance was a Latin version of the Syriac New Testament published in 1560. This work attracted much attention, and in 1568 Guy was invited by Arias Montanus to assist in the production of the Antwerp Polyglot. Guy accepted the invitation and proceeded to Antwerp with his brother Nicolas who was also an Orientalist.

The work assigned to Guy by Arias Montanus was the editing of the Syriac New Testament. He examined for this purpose a new Syriac MS. of the New Testament which Guillaume Postel had brought from the East. In 1572 appeared in the fifth volume of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible the result of Lefèvre's work, entitled "Novum Testamentum syriace, cum versione latinâ". This work included the collated Syriac text and Lefèvre's previously published (and now amended) Latin version. This work was republished by Le Jay in 1645 in the Paris Polyglot. In 1572 Lefèvre published at Antwerp a short Syriac text which lie had found accidentally thrown together with the Eastern Biblical MS. above mentioned. This text, furnished with a Latin translation, appeared under the title "D. Seven, Alexandrini, quondam patriarchæ, de Ritibus baptismi et sacræ synaxis apud Syros Christianos receptis liber". Lefèvre tells us (Epistola dedicatoria, p. 4 f.) that he published this text to illustrate the agreement of the ancient Eastern Church with the Western in the important matter of sacramental ritual. To make the little text useful.for beginners in Syriac Lefèvre vocalized the text and added at the foot of the page a vocalized transliteration in Hebrew characters. In the sixth volume of the Antwerp Polyglot appeared a further work by Lefèvre, "Grammatica chaldaica et Dictionarium Syro-Chaldaicum". In the same year 1572, Lefèvre published, also at Antwerp, a short introduction to Syriac, "Syriacæ 1inguæ prima elementa". This work has no scientific value: it is little more than an account of the names of the consonants and vowel signs with a few easy texts. On completing his work in Antwerp in 1572 Lefèvre returned to France where he soon obtained the post of secretary and interpreter to the Duke of Alençon. In this position he was brought into close contact with the somewhat radical thought of the period. His associates were men like Baïf, Dorat, Ronsard, Vauquelin de La Fresnaye etc.

But Lefèvre remained, in spite of all, a strong Catholic and a steady enemy of Protestantism. in 1584 he published a transliteration in Hebrew characters of the Syriac New Testament, "Novum J. Chr. Testamentum, syriace litteris hebraicis, cum versione latinâ interlineari". In this work the Vulgate and Greek texts were printed at the foot of the page. But Lefèvre was not merely a philologist; he was also a poet. his poetic flights, however, were not high, and in his poetry, as in his Orientalia, the apologetic trend of his thought is clear, he was as his friend Vauquelin de La Fresnaye said of him poète tout chrestien. Among his more important poetic performances are: "L'Encyclie des secrets de l'EternitÈ" (Antwerp, 1571), an apology of Christianity; "La Galliade, ou de la rÈvolution des arts et sciences" (Paris, 1578; 2nd ed. 1582). which celebrates the return to France of the banished sciences; "Hymnes ecclÈsiastiques" and "Cantiques spirituels et autres mÈlanges poÈtiques" (Paris, 1578-1582), many of which are translations from the Italian L'Harmonie du Monde" (Paris, 1582), a translation of Latin work. Lefèvre published in his last years an immense number of translations from Latin, Italian, Spanish etc., in verse and prose. Most of these translations are apologetic, and few of them are of any value. Lefèvre shows by the choice of his life-work that his thoughts were ahead of his time. Of his life, apart from his writings, we know next to nothing. It has been conjectured from some words of his in a poem addressed to Marguerite de France that he was an ecclesiastic; and it has been said that Pope Clement VIII wished to make him a cardinal. But Lefèvre would not allow himself to be led away in his last days from his books to the Roman Court. He died in the peaceful family mansion of La Boderie in 1598. An epitaph which he wrote for himself sums up his life work simply and well:

Tandisque j'ai vescu, j'ai toujours souhaitÈ
Non d'amasser trÈsors, mais chercher VeritÈ.

DE LA FERRIÈRE-PERCY, Les La Boderie (Paris, 1857); NÈVE, Guy Le Fèvre de La Boderie (Brussels, 1862); NICERON, MÈmoires Vol. XXXVIII, 303--314; COUJET, Bibliotèque Française VI, XIII.

P. BOYLAN

Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples

Frequently called "Faber Stapulensis."

A French philosopher, biblical and patristic scholar; b. at Etaples in Picardy, about 1455; d. at Nérac, 1536. He pursued his classical studies at the University of Paris, graduating as master of arts. In 1492 he made a journey to Italy. His protracted visits to Florence, Rome, and Venice were devoted chiefly to the study of the works of Aristotle. On his return to Paris he displayed considerable activity as professor in the college of Cardinal Lemoine. Among his disciples were the Protestant reformer Farel and the later bishops Briçonnet, Roussel, D'Arande, Poncher. In 1507 he was invited to the monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés near Paris, by the abbot Brinonnet. Here he resided till 1520, assiduously studying the Bible. The first-fruit of his labours was his "Psalterium Quintuplex, gallicum, romanum, hebraicum, vetus, conciliatum" (Paris, 1509). In 1517 and 1519 he published at Paris two critical essays on Mary Magdalen, "De Maria Magdalena" and "De tribus et unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda." In these writings he endeavoured to prove that Mary, sister of Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, and the penitent woman who anointed Christ's feet (Luke, vii, 37) were three distinct persons. This opinion, new at the time, gave rise to a violent controversy; refutations by Noël Bédier, syndic of the University of Paris, and John Fisher, the martyr-bishop of Rochester, appeared; they were followed by the condemnation by the Sorbonne in 1521. The preceding year, Lefèvre had left Paris for Meaux, where his friend, Briçonnet, now bishop of this city, was to appoint him his vicar-general in 1523. He continued his biblical studies, publishing the "Commentarii initiatorii in quartuor Evangelia" (Paris, 1522); a French translation of the New Testament (Paris, 1523) and of the Psalms (Paris, 1525); an explanation of the Sunday Epistles and Gospels (Meaux, 1525). As these works contained some erroneous views and revealed the author's sympathies for the doctrines of the so-called reformers, they again brought him into conflict with the Sorbonne. His commentary on the Gospels was condemned in 1523, and only the timely interposition of the king shielded him temporarily from further molestation. But during the captivity of Francis I, which followed the battle of Pavia (February, 1525), further proceedings were instituted against Lefèvre for his novel doctrines, and he sought safety in flight. After the king's release, he was recalled from exile and appointed librarian in the royal castle of Blois (1526). Here he worked at his translation of the Old Testament, which appeared at Antwerp in 1528. In 1531, he accompanied Marguerite, Queen of Navarre, to Nérac, where he spent the last years of his life. Lefèvre was a strong advocate of ecclesiastical reforms but did not deem a separation from the Catholic Church, of which he always remained a member, necessary for the attainment of this end. Among his non-biblical writings the following may be considered: "Theologia vivificans, Dionysii coelestis hierarchia, Ignatii XV epistolae, Polycarpi epistolai" (Paris, 1498); "Opera complura St. Hilarii episcopi" (Paris, 1510); "Liber trium virorum Hermae, Uguetini et Roberti triumque spiritualium virginum Hildegardis, Elizabethae et Mechtildis" (Paris, 1513).

Graf, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis in Zeitsch. für Hist. Theol. (1852), 3-86, 165-237; Barnaud, J. Lefèvre d'Etaples (Cahors, 1900); Proosdig, J. Lefèvre d'Etaples, voorganger van Calvijn (Leyden, 1906); Baird, The Rise of the Huguenots, I (New York, 1907), 67-98.

N.A. WEBER

Legacies

(Latin Legata).

I. DEFINITION

In its most restricted sense, by a pious legacy or bequest (legatum pium) is understood, the assigning, by a last will, of a particular thing forming part of an estate, to a church or an ecclesiastical institution. It differs from a testament in favour of pious works (testamentum ad pias causas) in this, that in a testament the favoured institution is made the true heir of the testator, continuing as it were his person. Moreover, a testament deals with the whole property, the patrimony of the testator. It results from this that a pious legacy or bequest need not necessarily be made the body of a will; it can be inserted in a codicil. A pious bequest differs likewise from a "donatio mortis causa", which is a contract, whereas thc bequest is made by a unilateral act. It is distinguished, finally, from a foundation, which can be made during life as well as by provision in a will, and which always imposes on the favoured establishment obligations, either perpetual or of fairly long duration. A legacy may be but is not necessarily a foundation.

II. RIGHT OF THE CHURCH TO RECEIVE LEGACIES

Natural law, no less than Divine, ordains that the will of the faithful, bequeathing part of their wealth to the Church should be respected (Instruction of Propaganda, 1807, in "Collectanea S.C. de P. F.", I, Rome, 1907, n. 689). The Church was established by God as a necessary and perfect society, since its object is to lead men to their last end, consequently, it can uphold its right to acquire all the means necessary to realize the object for which God instituted it. Being an external and visible society, it must be able to dispose of temporal goods for the needs of Divine service, the support of its ministers, the propagation of the Faith, the care of the poor, etc. Therefore, it may acquire these goods by all legitimate means, and among these means are included pious bequests or legacies. Natural right demands that the goods of parents dying intestate should pass to their children, and in many cases it is a duty for parents to leave part of their patrimony to their children; canon law recognizes and approves of this duty. But there is no serious reason for depriving parents of the right to dispose by will, for a pious purpose, of those goods that are at their free disposal as long as they are alive. While profitable to the Church, pious bequests are not less so to the donors "for the salvation of their souls", in the words of the usual testamentary formula of the Middle Ages (Fournier, "Les officialitÈs au moyen âge", Paris, 1880, p. 87). The Council of Trent (Sess. XXVI, Decr. de Purgatorio) declares that pious foundations are a means of relieving the sufferings of purgatory. The First Provincial Council of Halifax applies to pious bequests those words of the Gospel: "Make unto you friends of the Mammon of iniquity; that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings" (Luke xvi, 9; "Collectio Lacensis", III, Freiburg, 1875, 746). Pious bequests are a means by which generous souls can continue, after their decease, their good works, and provide for the future of the institutions that they have founded or enriched. Those who have omitted during life to fulfill the precept of charity can find therein a way of repairing their negligence ("First Provincial Council of Westminster", 1852, XXV, II; "Collectio Lacensis", III, 942). Those, finally, who, owing to daily cares and anxieties, found it impossible to be bountiful during life, may yet, if only at the hour of death, cooperate in the relief of the unfortunate, and assure their neighbour the spiritual advantages of Divine service.

III. HISTORY

The charity of the first Christians led them to despoil themselves while alive of their superfluous goods; consequently, mention is rarely made of pious legacies before the time of Constantine. After that emperor's conversion they became more prominent, especially after the law of the year 321 allowed churches to receive all kinds of legacies, and granted them the "factio testamenti passiva", i.e. the right of being made heirs (Theodosian Code, XVI, II, lit. iv). Authors are not agreed on the import of a law of Theodosius dated June, 390, forbidding deaconesses, who were widows and had children, to dispose of their goods in favour of churches or the poor (ibid. xxvii). Many authors consider it an important restriction of the right recognized by Constantine as belonging to the churches (Fourneret, "Les biens d'Eglise après les Èdits de pacification; Ressources dont l'Eglise disposa pour reconstruire son patrimoine", Paris, 1902, p. 84). Others see in it only a means of protecting, against the abuse of maternal power, the rights of the children to the succession of their parents (Knecht, "System des Justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechtes", Stuttgart, 1905, 75-76). In any case, Emperor Marcian restored the right to the churches in 485 (Justinian Code, I, II, xiii). Among the Teutonic peoples, testamentary liberalities properly so-called seem to have been unknown, but they had an arrangement resembling the "donatio mortis causa" of the Romans, i.e., the "cessiones post obitum", donations which the donor bound himself not to retract, but which took effect only on his death.

In virtue of the Teutonic principle of the personality of law, the inhabitants whom the Teutons found settled in the old provinces of the empire they conquered could continue to follow the Roman law. In this way the power to bequeath to pious establishments was introduced among the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Bavarians, while in Gaul pious bequests were tolerated in fact before being authorized by law (Loening, "Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts", II, Strasburg, 1878, 655). Several synods of the Frankish period even declare the validity of testaments, especially those of ecclesiastics, in which the formalities prescribed by the civil law had not been observed (Bondroit, "De capacitate possidendi Ecclesiæ ætate merovingica", Louvain, 1900, 87 and 105). (See DONATIONS.)

The bishops retained in the Middle Ages the right of supervising the execution of pious bequests, which had been recognized by the Justinian Code (I, III, xlv). This right was even extended, and in several regions the ecclesiastical tribunal judged of the validity of wills and supervised their execution (Fournier, op. cit., 87; Friedberg, "De finium inter Ecclesiam et Civitatem regundorum judicio quid medii ævi doctores statuerint", Leipzig, 1861, 124). It was in virtue of this right that Alexander III determined the conditions for the validity of wills in non-ecclesiastical matters (c. x., "De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus", X; III, xxvi. See Wernz, "Jus Decretalium", III, Rome, 1901, 309). This same pope ordained, following the example of St. Gregory, that the ecclesiastical judge was to decide the validity of pious bequests not in accordance with the provisions of the Roman law but with the decrees of canon law (cc. iv, xi, "De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus", X, III, xxvi).

The practice of pious bequests was so common in the Middle Ages that it seemed impobable that any person would have dispensed himself from it. This was the origin of the right of bishops in certain places, particularly in France and Southern Italy, to dispose, in favour of pious objects, of part of the goods of an intestate deceased person (Fournier, op. cit., 89). The generosity of the faithful built and endowed those wonders of art, the monasteries and churches as well as the many charitable institutions that were the glory of the medieval Church, and that the official charity of the State has succeeded neither in rivalling nor in replacing. It was not until the close of the medieval period that the civil power began to restrict the acquisition of property by religious mortmain. In modern times, even in Catholic countries, wills were withdrawn from the judicial authority of the Church, and the civil power finally deprived the latter of the right to adjudicate even on testamentary questions relating to pious bequests.

IV. ACTUAL CANONICAL LEGISLATION

The Church reserves to itself, even now, an exclusive authority in the matter of pious wills and legacies; it has its own legislation, the Roman law modified on several points by canon law, and its ecclesiastical tribunals to examine the questions connected therewith.

(1) Besides persons who by natural law or in virtue of the enactments of Roman law are incapable of making a will, the Church refuses to accept the pious bequests of usurers (c. ii, De usuris, in VI°, V, 5), of heretics and their accomplices (c. xiii, De hereticis, X, V, 7), and of those who are guilty of attacks on the cardinals (c. v, De pœnis, in VI°, V, 9). In practice, the Church refuses at the present time, to accept the bequests of sinners who die impenitent, and especially of usurers, in order not to be enriched by their ill-gotten goods (Santi, "Prælectiones juris canonici", III, Rome, 1898, 224-25). Religious who make solemn vows of profession are permitted to make wills only during the two months preceding their solemn profession; other religious must conform to the rules of their congregation. The rules (normœ) drawn up by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the approbation of institutes bound by simple vows (Rome, 1901) forbid the making of wills after religious profession without the permission of the Holy See or, in case of urgency, without the authorization of the bishop or the superiors (Art.. 120 and 122. See Vermeersch, "De religiosis", I, Bruges, 1902, 148).

(2) It is not alone bequests made to churches that enjoy the prerogatives established by canon law, but also those made to monasteries, religious houses, and all institutions, whether purely religious or of a charitable character subject to the direction of religious authorities. However, certain religious orders, either because they practise poverty in a stricter manner, or in virtue of their constitution, have only a restricted right to acquire property by legacy or will (Santi, op. cit., III, 238-9; Wernz, op. cit., III, 322).

(3) The heirs of the testator are obliged to execute pious bequests, even if they have not been made in accordance with the formalities prescribed under penalty of nullity by the civil law, provided canon law considers them to have been made validly. The State has an incontestable right to prescribe the formalities requisite for the validity of wills in all matters falling within its jurisdiction, but pious legacies and bequests for pious purposes are under the exclusive control of the Church. This principle was clearly enunciated by Alexander III in the decretal "Relatum" (c. xi, De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus, X, III, xxvi). It is true this decretal was addressed to the judges of Velletri, a town in the Papal States, but its force cannot be restricted solely to the territory under the temporal power of the pope, and the insertion of the decretal in the "Corpus Juris", or general law of the Church, deprives the objection of all force. It has been urged that a contrary custom had abrogated this canonical enactment, and that, moreover, only natural equity and the favour shown by the Church to pious bequests have caused pious legacies made with a neglect of solemn formalities to be considered valid. The constant practice of the Holy See proves that this argument is not conclusive. On 10 January, 1901, the Sacred Penitentiaria declared that, as a general rule, it considers valid and binding in conscience pious bequests which the civil law declares void on account of the omission of extrinsic formalities prescribed by the civil law. Nevertheless, in such a case the ecclesiastical authorities are generally disposed to come to terms with the heirs ("Acta Sanctiæ Sedis", XXXIV, Rome, 1902, 384). (See, in the same sense, the decrees of the S. C. C. ‘‘in caus. Arimin.", 13 September, 1854; "in caus. Hortana", 29 February, 1855; and reply of the Penitentiaria, 23 June, 1844.)

According to the common opinion of theologians, for a pious bequest to be obligatory in conscience it suffices that the wish of the testator be well established, e.g. by a holograph or a writing merely signed by the testator, by a verbal declaration made to the heir himself or before two witnesses (a single testimony other than that of the heir would be insufficient). If it be urged that the testator has revoked his bequest, the fact must be proved The Congregation of the Council decided, 16 March, 1900, that a writing containing erasures, which is only a draft of a will, is not a sufficient proof that the testator wished to revoke a previous will ("Acta Sanctæ Sedis", XXXII, Rome, 1900-01, 202). The contrary opinion is now held only by a few authorities (Carrière, "De contractibus", n. 586, Louvain, 1846; D'Annibale, "Summula theologiæ moralis", II n 339, Rome, 1892; Boudinhon in "Le Canoniste contemporain", XXIV, Paris, 1901, 734). By Roman law, if a testator knowingly bequeathes a thing not in his possession, it was equivalent to ordering the heir to purchase the thing for the legatee or, if that were impossible, to give him its value. A decree of Gregory I seems to overrule this decision (c. v. De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus, X, III, xxvi). But it may be replied that this decree, while admitting the principle of the Roman law, intended only to declare that natural equity will often dispense the heir from carrying out the wish of the testator in the matter (Santi, op. cit., III, 242--245). This provision of Roman law being not generally known in our day, it is lawful to presume that the testator made a mistake, and that the bequest is therefore void.

(4) The Church approved the provision of the Roman law prohibiting the testator from disposing of the "pars legitima" which the laws ordered to be preserved to the heirs, this being conformable to natural law. Although in our modern codes the "pars legitima" is greater than it was in the Roman law, it may he presumed that the Church recognizes the ruling of our codes in the matter. All bequests exceeding the amount which the civil law allows to be disposed of freely by the testator may therefore be reduced. The provisions of the Corpus Juris (cc. xiv, xv, xx, De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus, X, III, xxvi) granting the bishop the "portio canonica"—i.e. the quarter of all pious bequests not affected by the testator to a definite purpose—are no longer in force. (5) The bishop can compel the heirs or the executors to fulfil the last wishes of the deceased in the matter of pious bequests (c. ii, v, xix, "De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus", X, III, xxvi; Council of Trent, Sess. xxii, "De reformatione", c. viii). He is also the judge of the first instance in testamentary cases submittcd to ecclesiastical tribunals. In virtue of this he has the right to interpret the terms of the will, but any change properly so called of the wishes of the deceased is reserved we think, to the Holy See, which can make such change only for grave reasons (c. ii, "De religiosis domibus III, 11, in "Clem."). The Council of Trent (Sess, XXII, De reformatione, c. vi) recognizes in bishops only the right of executing a change in the will made by the pope; this, however, does not prevent a bishop from applying to another object, a legacy left for a definite purpose which can no longer be executed in accordance with the wish of the testator. Propaganda grants vicars Apostolic the right of making changes in the will of a testator, in countries where communication with Rome is very difficult, and in cases where it is impossible to carry out the testator's wish; but it obliges them in each case to obtain a subsequent approval of their act by the Holy See (Instruction of 1807, in "Collectanea", I, n. 689). The Constitution "Romanos pontifices" of 8 May, 1881, lays down certain rules concerning the interpretation of the terms of a last will (" Acta et decreta concilii plenarii Baltimorensis III ", Baltimore, 1886, 46, 225-- 227).

V. WILLS OF ECCLESIASTICS

While canon law has never forbidden ecclesiastics to dispose freely of their own private property, it has always maintained the principle that the superfluous revenues derived from church property ought to he devoted to religious or charitable purposes. If they have not been so disposed of during his lifetime by the person who was in receipt of them, after his death they should be distributed either as canonical legislation enacts or as a pious bequest. During the first centuries of the Church, when bishops alone had the administration of ecclesiastical property, measures were taken by the ecclesiastical authorities to prevent its dissipation by the heirs of the bishops. Justinian forbade bishops to dispose of the goods acquired by them after their promotion to the episcopacy, excepting, of course, their own patrimonial estate (Novellæ, CXXXI, c. xiii). The Third Council of Carthage (397) had already legislated in a similar sense with regard to ecelesiastics (Bruns, "Canones apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti", I, Berlin, 1839, 134). Moreover, the Theodosian Code assigned to the Church the goods of clerics dying intestate, and not leaving children or relatives (V, III, lib. i). These regulations were confirmed by the popes and the councils (see Decretum Gratiani, II, c. Xii, q. 5, "An liceat clericis testamenta conficere"). But, as early as the sixth century, we learn from the decrees of councils that abuses had already crept in: ecclesiastics and even bishops were attempting to seize ecclesiastical property on the death of their confrères (Decret. Gratian, loc. cit., q. 2); later, it was the turn of the laity; emperors, princes, lawyers, and patrons claimed a right to the spoils (Jus spolii or exuviarum).

To remedy this state of affairs, the reforming popes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries forced the emperors to renounce explicitly their right to the spoils, and the Third Council of Lateran (1179) as well as Alexander III made certain enactments regarding the estates of ecelesiastics; the latter were free to dispose of their own patrimony, the "peculium patrimoniale" as canonists call it, i. e., all goods which ecclesiastics acquired by inheritance, will, or any kind of contract soever, but independently of the ecclesiastical character. They might dispose likewise of the "peculium industriale" or "quasi patrimioniale", i.e. the property acquired by their own personal activity. To this was likened the "peculium parsimoniale", or that portion of the revenues coming from ecclesiastical benefices, which the beneficiary might reasonably have spent on himself, but which he economized (Santi, op. cit., III, 210). But he was forbidden to dispose of the "peculium beneficiale", the superfluous revenue of the benefices he held, and which he did not distribute in good works during his life. In principle this was to pass to the church in which the ecclesiastic held the benefice. However, Alexander III does not blame the custom, where it exists, of bequeathing some part of this "peculium" to the poor, or to ecclesiastical institutions, or even, as a reward for services rendered, to persons, whether relatives or not, who have been in the service of the deceased cleric (cc. vii, viii, ix, xii, De testamentis et ultimis voluntatibus, X,III, xxvi).

It does not follow, of course, that the law was observed; the "spolium" remained customary among ecelesiastics, especially abbots of monasteries, chapters, and bishops (c. xl, "De electione in VI°, 6; c. ix, "De officio ordinarii" in VI°, I, 16 c i De excessibus prælatorum in Clem. V, vi) The popes themselves saw in it a means of increasing their revenues. As early as the fourteenth century they reserved to the Holy See that portion of the property of ecclesiastics which the latter could not dispose of freely, with certain exceptions. These fiscal measures reached their highest limits during the Western Schism. They met with vigorous opposition in France, where the kings refused to admit the right of the pope, and also in the councils of the fifteenth century. Nevertheless the popes maintained their claims for a long time (see the Constitution of Pius IV "Grave nobis", 26 May, 1560 in "Bullarum amplissima collectio", ed. Cocquelines, IV, ii, I8; that of Pius V "Romani pontificis providentia", 30 August, 1587, Ibidem, 394; and of Gregory XIII, ‘Officii", 21 January, 1577, Ibidem, IV, iii, 330). On 19 June, 1817, Pius VIII declared that Propaganda was entitled to all revenue of the "spolium" (Collectanea, I, n. 724). On the other hand, even when the legislation of Alexander III was introduced, it was not always enforced in the same way; in some places the ecclesiasties could dispose of their "peculium beneficiale" in favour of pious purposes; in others they were granted full testamentary liberty, provided they made a legacy in favour of pious objects, or else paid a certain sum to the bishop who allowed them to make the will. These practices, together with the difficulty of distinguishing, in the inheritance of an ecclesiastic, the amount of the "patrimonium beneficiale", eventually left ecclesiastics testamentary freedom.

However, the canonical legislation is yet substantially unchanged; ecclesiastics are even now obliged to bequeath for pious purposes the superfluous part of the revenues from their benefices which they have not distributed during their life. This principle, recalled by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De reformatione, c. i), is reasserted in most provincial councils of the nineteenth century. It is commonly admitted that it imposes no obligation of justice, but merely one based on ecclesiastical precept (Santi, op. cit., III, 211; Wernz, op. cit., III, 210--11). This obligation does not exist in countries where there are no benefices, or where benefices strictly so called are notoriously insufficient for the support of the clergy who enjoy them. Under these circumstances, pious bequests are earnestly recommended to ecclesiastics, but they are never obligatory in conscience. For the special rules regulating the wills of cardinals, see Santi, op. cit., III, 227--34. The obligations imposed on ecclesiastics, needless to say, are binding on their heirs in case they die intestate. Sometimes this matter is decided by local custom. The Provincial Councils of Vienna (1858) and of Prague (1860) decree that the estate of an ecclesiastic deceased intestate is to be divided into three parts: one for the Church, one for the poor, and the third for the relatives of the deceased. If the deceased was not possessed of any ecclesiastical benefices, only one-third of the estate is subject to the above rule, and that is to be distributed among the needy, but should the heirs of the deceased belong to that class, said portion may be given to them.

See the commentaries of the canonists on the Third Book of the Decretals, titles xxv, xxvi, and xxvii; SCHMALZGRUEBER, Jus canonicum universum, III, ii (Rome, 1844), 462-607; REIFFENSTUEL, Jus canonicum universum, IV (Paris, 1867), 362--567; SANTI, Prœlectiones juris cononici, III (Rome, 1897), 209--247; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, III (Rome, 1901), 199--218, 306--327; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1904), 764, 787--92; THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova ecclesiœ disciplina, pt. III, bk. II (Paris, 1691), cc. xxxviii--lvii; WAGNER, Dissertatio de testamento ad pias causas (Leipzig, 1735); THOMAS, Das kanonische Testament (Leipzig, 1897); WOLFF VON GLANVELL, Die letzwillige Verfügungen nach gemeinem Kirchlichen Rechte (Paderborn, 1900); FÉNELON, Les fondations et les Ètablissements ecclÈsiastiques (Paris, 1902); SCHMIDT, Thesaurus juris ecclesiastici, IV (Heidelberg, 1727), 382--440; SENTIS, De jure testamentorum a clericis secularibus ordinandorum (Bonn, 1862); EISENBERG, Das Spolienrecht am Nachlass der Geistlichen (Marburg, 1886); HOLLWECK, Das Testament der Geistlichen nach kirclichen und burgerlichen Recht (Mainz, 1901); SAMARAN, La jurisprudence pontificale en matière de drot de dÈpouille (jus spolii) dans la seconde moitiÈ du XIVe siècle in MÈlanges d'archÈologie et d'histoire (Ecole française de Rome) XXII, (Paris, 1902), 141 sq.

A. VAN HOVE

Legate

(Lat. legare, to send).

Legate, in its broad signification, means that person who is sent by another for some representative office. In the ecclesiastical sense it means one whom the pope sends to sovereigns or governments or only to the members of the episcopate and faithful of a country, as his representative, to treat of church matters or even on a mission of honour. Hence the legate differs from the delegate, taking this term in a strictly juridical sense, since the delegate is one to whom the pope entrusts an affair or many affairs to be treated through delegated jurisdiction and often in questions of litigation, whereas the legate goes with ordinary jurisdiction over a whole country or nation. The canon law treats of delegates of the Holy See, delegati Sedis Apostolicæ (Decret., lib. I, tit. xxix), and in this sense even bishops, in certain cases determined by the Council of Trent (Sess. V, cap. i, De Ref., etc.), may act as delegates of the Holy See. Nevertheless, as will be seen later, according to the present discipline of the Church, a delegate, inasmuch as he is sent to represent the Holy See in some particular country, really fills the office of a legate. Since the jurisdiction of a legate is ordinary, he does not cease to be legate even at the death of the pope who appointed him, and even if he arrived at his post after the death of that pope.

The pope, by virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction, has the right to send legates to provide for the unity of Faith and for ecclesiastical discipline, and to choose them at will. Though self-evident, this authority of the pope has been contested from a very early period. Gregory VII (1073-85) reproved the claims of those who wished to have only Romans as legates and not representatives from other countries. Pasehal II (1099-1118), in a letter to Henry II of England, grievously deplores the vexations inflicted on the pontifical. legate, and maintains the right of the pope to send such representatives. John XXII (1316-34) declares unreasonable and contrary to the authority of the pope the refusal to admit a papal legate without the approval of the sovereign. And there are not wanting writers who denied, some wholly, others in part, such a right on the part of the pope, e.g. Marc' Antonio de Dominis, Richer, Febronius, Eybel, and others. This erroneous claim was upheld in the eighteenth century by four archbishops of Germany, those of Mainz, Trier, Cologne, and Salzburg, to whom Pius VI made the famous reply of 14 November, 1789, in which we read that one of the rights of primacy of St. Peter is that "By virtue of his Apostolic prerogative, while providing for the care of all the lambs and the sheep confided to him, the Roman Pontiff discharges his Apostolic duty also by delegating ecclesiastics for a time or permanently as may seem best, to go into distant places where he cannot go and to take his place and exercise such jurisdiction as he himself, if present, would exercise." Worthy of attention also are the diplomatical note of Cardinal Consalvi to the Spanish Government (9 January, 1802), which treats of the character of the Apostolic nuncio, and the letter of Cardinal Jacobii (15 April, 1885) to the same Government. The Vatican Council, in stating the true doctrine concerning the primacy of the pope (Sess. IV, cap. iii), condemned implicitly the said errors. The Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", moreover, contains (no. 5) an excommunication reserved speciali modo to the pope against those who harm, expel, or unlawfully detain legates or nuncios.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND DIVISION

The popes have made use of this right from the earliest ages of the Church. The first example was the sending by Sylvester I of legates to the Council of Nicæa (325); afterwards those sent to the Council of Sardica (345); and those sent by Zosimus I to Africa (418), to settle certain ecclesiastical matters. In the fourth century we find the first example of a papal representative sent in an official character, i.e. the apocrisiarius (q.v.), or responsalis. According to Hincmar of Reims, the apocrisiarius dates back to. the time of Constantine, but according to De Marca (De Ord. Palatii, cap. xiii), the office dates from the Council of Colchis (451). From the letters of Gregory I, himself an apocrisiarius, and from a letter of Leo I to Julianus of Cos, whom he appointed apocrisiarius, can be deduced the powers of this officer and his duties, i.e. to look after the observance of ecclesiastical discipline, to resist the spread of heresy, and to defend the rights of the pope. For three centuries such a papal intermediary existed at the Byzantine Court. During the Iconoclast troubles of the eighth century this office disappeared, but was temporarily revived in the West when the empire was restored by Leo III (795-816). Finally, however, the necessity and frequency of extraordinary legations, the weakening and later division of the empire among the successors of Charlemagne, rendered useless and almost impossible the presence of Apostolic legates at the Frankish court.

Legati Nati

Almost contemporaneously with the apocrisiarius, the popes established in the fourth century another class of legates, of a purely ecclesiastical character, known eventually as legati nati, or perpetual legates. They may be regarded as originating from the "Apostolic vicars" established by Popes Damasus I (366-84) and Siricius (384-99). To provide more expeditiously for ecclesiastical discipline and to facilitate the dispatch of ecclesiastical affairs the aforesaid popes deemed it opportune to attach to certain sees (and first to Thessalonica) the title and duties of Apostolic vicar. The same title and duties were conferred by later popes on other sees. The prelates who successively occupied those sees came to be known as legati nati, inasmuch as by their election to the said sees they became ipso facto Apostolic legates, that office being attached to the see itself. In the course of time legati nati became very numerous; in France those of Arles (545), Sens (876), Lyons (1097); in Spain those of Tarragona (517), Seville (520), Toledo (1088); in Germany those of Trier (969), Salzburg (973); in Italy that of Pisa; in England that of Canterbury, etc. In the beginning the faculties of legati nati were very ample, namely, the right of visiting the dioceses of the province, of examining the status of candidates for bishoprics, of consecrating the metroipolitan, etc.; eventually, however, these faculties were much lessened, and in the eleventh century the legati nati practically ceased to exist. In our day the sees to which was annexed such privilege have no longer any extraordinary jurisdiction, though some enjoy an honorary distinction; the Archbishop of Salzburg, for example, may wear the cardinalatial purple, even in Rome.

Legati Missi

The ecclesiastical conditions of the tenth and eleventh centuries were responsible for the cessation of the office of legati nati. Ecclesiastical life was then in many ways and places ill-regulated, and ecclesiastical discipline very lax; the legati nati proved incapable of remedying these evils, either because some times times their own conduct was not exemplary or because they were negligent in the discharge of their duties. The Holy See was obliged to combat these abuses by choosing and sending into various countries persons who could be depended upon to secure the desired results (Luxardo, "Das päpstliche Vordekretalen-Gesandschaftsrecht", 1878). Thus came into existence the legati missi, or special envoys. Later all those whom the Holy See sent on a special mission were called legati missi, even those who were to preside at some solemn ceremony, e.g. a royal baptism or marriage; those appointed to meet anemperor or a sovereign visiting Rome, etc. This title was also given to those who were chosen to rule some provinces of the Pontifical States, e.g. the legate of Bologna, of Urbino, etc.

Legati a Latere

About the same time another form of legation was established, which became and is the highest, i.e. the legati a latere. The legate a latere is always a cardinal, and this name arises from the fact that a cardinal, being a member of the senate of the pope, is considered as an intimate, one attached to the very side of the Roman Pontiff. Other authorities derive this title from the custom of receiving the insignia and the office in the presence, or at the side, of the pope. Such legates are sent on missions of the greatest importance, e.g. the legate a latere sent to France by Pius VII, in the person of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Caprara, to execute the famous Concordat of 1801. The last legate a latere was also sent to France in 1856, in the person of Cardinal Patrizi, to baptize the Prince Imperial. The "Diario di Roma" of that year gives all the particulars of the proclamation of the appointment in a consistory of 27 August, and of the ceremonies which accompanied the departure of the legate. The same Cardinal Patrizi on that occasion was deputed to present the Golden Rose to the Empress EugÈnie. The powers of the legate a latere are of the most ample character, both in matters of litigation and favours. He journeys with an imposing suite; immediately after leaving Rome the cross is borne before him, and in his presence not even patriarchs have the right that their cross should precede them; bishops cannot give episcopal blessings without his consent. According to the present usage, however, a cardinal sent on a mission does not always bear the title of legate a latere, as in the case of a cardinal sent by the pope to represent him at some religious gathering, like the Eucharistic Congresses of Westminster, Cologne, and Montreal. The Decretals and the Council of Trent clearly defined the powers of legates missi and legates a latere. Since the latter were sent only for very important matters, the custom of sending legati missi became more frequent.

Nuncios

In the thirteenth century legati missi came to be known as nuncios, by which name they are yet called. After the Council of Trent nuncios were established permanently in various countries. Besides an ecclesiastical mission, they have also a diplomatic character, having been from their origin accredited to courts or governments. Their jurisdiction is ordinary, but it is customary at present to grant them special faculties, according to the needs of the country to which they are sent; such faculties are conveyed in a special Brief. They are also given credential letters to be presented to the ruler of the country, and particular instructions in writing. The nuncios are usually titular archbishops; occasionally, however, bishops or archbishops of residential sees are appointed to the office. Some nuncios are of the first and some of the second class, the only difference between them being that, at the end of their mission, those of the first class are usually promoted to the cardinalate. Vienna, Madrid, and Lisbon have nuncios of the first class. Paris was also of this class, but, on account of the rupture of diplomatic relations between France and the Vatican which took place in 1907, it has at present no representative of the Holy See. Bavaria, Belgium, and Brazil have nuncios of the second class. There is no specified period for the duration of the term of a nuncio's office; it depends on circumstances and the will of the pope.

Internuncios

According to the present discipline, there are also internuncios, who in the order of pontifical diplomacy follow immediately after nuncios. These also are frequently titular archbishops, always have a diplomatic character, and are sent to governments of less importance. They are equivalent to ministers of the second class, have the same faculties as nuncios, and are furnished with similar credentials and instructions. At present there are internuncios in Holland, Argentina, and Chile. In Holland, however, because of the exclusion of the Holy See from the Peace Conference of 1899, the internuncio, Monsignor Tarnassi, was recalled, and now there is only a papal chargé d'affaires. The internuncio of Holland is also accredited to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.

Apostolic Delegates and Envoys Extraordinary

Actually there are also papal representatives known as Apostolic delegates and envoys extraordinary. Apostolic delegates, strictly speaking, are always ecclesiastical in character, and are usually sent by the Congregation of Propaganda to missionary countries. However, the pontifical secretariate of state is accustomed to send Apostolic delegates purely ecclesiastical in character to countries which have not diplomatic relations with the Holy See; at the same time when sending an Apostolic delegate to a country which has diplomatic relations with the Holy See there is added the title of envoy extraordinary, by which title he is accredited to the Government. Such are the Apostolic delegates and envoys extraordinary to South America, e.g. to Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, etc. Other Apostolic delegates, purely ecclesiastical in character, are those sent to the United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Philippines, Cuba, and Porto Rico. The Apostolic delegation to the United States deserves special mention. First, on account of its importance it is practically equivalent to a nunciature of the first class, as may be inferred from the Encyclical of 6 January, 1895, addressed by Leo XIII to the archbishops and bishops of the United States, which declares:

When the Council of Baltimore had concluded its labours, the duty still remained of putting, so to speak, a proper and becoming crown upon the work. This we perceived could scarcely be done in a more fitting manner than through the due establishment by the Apostolic See of an American legation. Accordingly, as you are well aware, we have done this. By this action, as we have elsewhere intimated, we wished, first of all, to certify that in our judgment and affection America occupied the same place and rights as other states, however powerful and imperial.

Moreover, from the beginning all the incumbents of this office have been elevated to the cardinalate. Second, the Apostolic delegation to the United States has the power to decide appeals by definitive sentence; in other words it is a tribunal of third instance, and from its decision there is regularly no appeal to the Holy See. This power, although granted from the beginning, has been recently confirmed by a declaration of the Consistorial Congregation to an inquiry of the Apostolic delegate at Washington, as to whether the original papal grant of authority was to be continued, in view of the transfer of the United States from the jurisdiction of Propaganda to the common law of the Church (Sapienti Consilio, 4 November, 1908). The said reply, given 8 May, 1909, establishes once for all that the parties are free to appeal from a sentence of a diocesan or metropolitan curia directly to Rome or to the delegation, but, an appeal once made to the delegation, the sentence pronounced by the delegate is to be considered definitive.

The Delegation of the United States was established by Leo XIII, 24 January, 1893. The first delegate was Monsignor Francesco Satolli, who in 1892 had been selected to represent the Holy See in the United States at the World's Fair in Chicago, as papal commissioner. He was born at Marsciano, Archdiocese of Perugia, Italy, in 1839; d. at Rome, 8 Jan., 1910. Acknowledged as one of the leading theologians of the day, he was appointed by Leo XIII a professor in the most famous theological schools of Rome, the Propaganda college and Roman seminary. He was later made president of the Academy of Noble Ecelesiastics in Rome (1886), and titular Archbishop of Lepanto (1888); promoted to the cardinalate 29 November, 1896, he received the biretta in February, 1896, at the cathedral of Baltimore, from Cardinal Gibbons. Cardinal Satolli was succeeded 27 Aug., 1896, by Monsignor Sebastian Martinelli, an Augustinian. Born in August, 1848, he entered the Augustinian Order in 1863 and was ordained priest in 1874. He occupied many prominent positions in his order, and was elected prior general for the second term in 1895. While in Nice he was appointed Apostolic Delegate to the United States and created Archbishop of Ephesus in August, 1996. He was made cardinal 15 April, 1901, and received the biretta 9 May of that year, in the cathedral of Baltimore, from Cardinal Gibbons. The present Apostolic delegate (1909), Monsignor Diomede Falconio, a Franciscan, succeeded Cardinal Martinelli 30 September, 1902, and took possession on 21 November, 1902. he was born 20 September, 1842, at Pescocostanzo in the Abruzzi, Italy, and entered the Franciscan Order 2 September, 1860. On the completion of his studies he was sent as missionary to the United States to the mother-house of the Franciscans at Alleghany, New York, and was ordained priest by Bishop Timon of Buffalo, 4 January, 1S66. After filling several important positions, he was sent, November, 1871, to Newfoundland, as rector of the cathedral, and secretary and chancellor to the bishop. He left Harbor Grace in 1882, and in 1883 returned to Italy. In 1889 he was chosen procurator-general of his order, and in July, 1892, was preconized titular Bishop of Lacedonia. A few years later, he was promoted to the archiepiscopal See of Acerenza and Matera in Southern Italy. Monsignor Falconio was appointed first permanent Apostolic Delegate to Canada, 3 August, 1899, and on 30 September, 1902 was nominated Apostolic Delegate to the United States.

The Holy See is also accustomed, according to circumstances, to send so-called Apostolic vicars, who may be either bishops or prelates or simply members of religious communities. Such representatives have always an ecclesiastical mission only, and are sent to examine the status of a diocese or seminaries, or some religious body.

To nunciatures and Apostolic delegations is attached a staff composed of an auditor and a secretary. They are nominated by the Holy See, and are either of the first or second class. Sometimes the Holy See sends also to nunciatures a counsellor and an attachÈ. In the absence of nuncio or delegate the auditor takes his place with the title of chargé d'affaires.

Among the envoys of the Holy See should be mentioned also the Apostolic ablegate and the bearer of the Golden Rose. The Apostolic ablegate is generally a Roman prelate or private chamberlain, sent to bear the cardinal's biretta to a new cardinal who is absent from the residence of the pope. He is accompanied by a member of the Noble Guard, who carries the zucchetto, and by a private secretary. The ceremony of conferring the biretta is performed either by the head of the State, if in diplomatic relation with the Holy See, or by the highest ecclesiastical dignitary in the country. The bearer of the Golden Rose is appointed to carry the Golden Rose (blessed by the pope on Lætare Sunday of each year) to sovereigns or to distinguished individuals or to some famous church. In 1895 this office was established permanently.

RIGHT OF PRECEDENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HOLY SEE

The question of precedence among the various diplomatic representatives to foreign countries was treated at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and it was decided that it always appertains to the representatives of the Holy See. Hence nuncios are by right and in fact deans of the diplomatic body. Some objections were afterwards made, especially by England and Sweden, as to the precedence of Apostolic delegates and internuncios, these not being mentioned in the Congress of Vienna; however, it ended in their practical recognition as included in the decision of said congress.

SOURCES.--Decret. Grat., dist. xxi, c. xi, xxxvi, C. II, q. vi; Compl. I. 1. I, t. xxii, dc off. legati.; II, I, t. xiii; see also Decret. Gregor., IX; and Liber Sextus, I. t. xv; Conc. Trid. Sess. XXII, cap. vii, De Ref.; and SEss. XXIV, cap. xx, De Ref.; Pius VI, Responsio ad Metropolitanos Mogunt., Trev., Colon., et Salisburg.(14 Nov., 1789); Pius IX, Const. Apost. Sed., no. 5; Acta SS., XVII, 861.
Authors.—Commentators on the Corpus Juris at this title; ZECH, Hier. Eccles., XXV, De Leg. et Nunt.; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, I, n. 30; DE LA TORRE, De auctoritate . . . legatorum a latere; FERRARIS, s. v. Legatus; BOUIX, De Curia Romana, 579 sqq.; see also THOMASSIN, VeTus et Nova Eecles. discipline, I, 1.II, cvii sqq.; and DE LUISE, De jure pabl. seu diplom. Ecci.Cath.: AUDISIO, Idea stor. e rag. della Diplom. Eccles.; WERNZ, Jus Decr., II; GIOBBIO, Lezioni di Diplom. Eccles., I: PINCHETTISANMARCHI, Guida Diplom. Eecles., II (Rome, 1908); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (St. Louis, 1906), s.v.

B. CERRETTI

Literary or Profane Legends

In the period of national origins history and legend are inextricably mingled. In the course of oral transmission historic narrative necessarily becomes more or less legendary. Details are emphasized or exaggerated, actions ascribed to different motives, facts are forgotten or suppressed, chronological and geographical data confused, and traits and motifs from older tales are added. Gradually this tradition, passing from mouth to mouth, takes on a more definite shape and a more distinct outline, and finally it passes into literature and receives a permanent and fixed form. We are seldom able to give a clear and connected account of the origin and development of a saga or legend. In most cases the literary sources on which we depend for our knowledge are of comparatively late date, and even the earliest of them present the legend in an advanced phase of evolution. Of preceding phases we can form an opinion only through a critical analysis and comparison of the sources. In this process of reconstruction much must be left to conjecture; uncertainty necessarily prevails, and difference of opinion is unavoidable.

We shall treat here of the following legends:

• Germanic Heroic Saga
• Legends of Charlemagne
• Roland
• Geneviève (Genovefa) of Brabant
• Arthur (Artus)
• Tristan and Isolde
• Lohengrin, the Knight of the Swan
• Tannhauser
• Robert the Devil
• The Wandering Jew
• The Flying Dutchman
• William Tell
• Faust

Germanic Heroic Saga

A brief notice of this vast subject must suffice. The Euhemeristic method of interpretation, which attempts to explain the sagas on a purely historical basis, is now generally discredited. A blending of mythic and historic elements is now conceded to be a necessary process in all saga-formation. But the view, until recently generally accepted, which interprets the mythical traits as due to the personification and symbolization of natural phenomena, has been criticized on good grounds. No doubt, nature symbolism plays a large rôle in mythology proper, but it seems to have little, if anything, to do with the development of the primitive hero-tales. Their roots seem to lie rather in fairy-lore. Thus in the greatest and oldest of Germanic heroic sagas, that of Siegfried, the nucleus is apparently a primitive Low German tale of greed and murder and cruel vengeance, amplified by motifs like those of the dragon-fight and the Sleeping Beauty. Siegfried, who owns a treasure, is murdered by his covetous brother-in-law Hagen. Grimhild (Kriemhild), Siegfried's widow, marries another king, who actuated by greed, murders Hagen. Grimhild in revenge murders her second husband. This seems to be the bare outline of the old tale which was combined with a new historic saga, traceable to the destruction of the Burgundians by the Huns in 437, and the sudden death of the great Hunnish leader, Attila, after his marriage to a German princess, Ildico (i.e. Hilde), in 452. Now, when the two sagas were fused, Ildico was conceived as a Burgundian princess who slew Attila in revenge for the destruction of her kin. Sweeping changes in the action and the motives of the story were a necessary consequence of this fusion. The Norse version ("Edda", "Volsungasaga") and the German version of the "Nibelungenlied" both tell of Grimhild's revenge. But in the former she kills her husband, the slayer of her brother, as in the older form of the legend; in the latter version she kills her brothers, in revenge for the murder of her husband (see GERMANY, sub-title Literature, III).

While Siegfried is a mythical figure, Dietrich of Bern is historic. He is the famous East-Gothic king, Theodoric, who ruled over Italy (493-526). Dietrich and Bern are the German forms of Theodoric and Verona. The heroic figure of the king became the centre of the great mass of Gothic tradition, and a whole cycle of sagas gathered about his name. Many local legends were drawn into this cycle. The basic historic facts were completely distorted in process of legendary formation, and when the great Dietrich saga appeared in literature, in the Old High German "Hildebrandslied", in numerous Middle High German epics (see GERMANY, sub-title Literature, III), and the" Thidrekssaga" (which, though written in Norse about 1250, is based on Low German tradition), little that is historical remained.

Myth and history are also combined in the Beowulf saga, which forms the subject of the oldest English epic. Beowulf, a prince of the Geátas, comes to help the Danish king, Hrothgar, against Grendel, a fiendish monster, who had ravaged the Danish realm. In two mighty combats he slays Grendel and Grendel's mother. Returning, he becomes king of his people, over whom he rules happily for fifty years. Once more the aged hero goes forth, to battle with a fire-breathing dragon that devastates the land. He kills the monster, but dies of injuries sustained in the fight. It is generally believed that the Beowulf saga is of Scandinavian origin. But whether the epic arose in Scandinavia or in England is a question that has not been decided.

Legends of Charlemagne

It was inevitable that Charlemagne should become the hero of romance and legend. His actual exploits were magnified and additional ones were invented or transferred to him from other popular heroes, especially Frankish kings of the same name, like Charles Martel and Charles the Bald. The formation of legend relating to Charlemagne began even during the lifetime of the great ruler. In the book of the so-called Monachus Sangallensis, which was written after 883 on the basis of oral tradition, he appears already as a legendary figure. Among the stories there related are those of the Iron Charles entering Pavia, where the Langobardian King Desiderius, and Otker the Frank await his coming, and the latter swoons at the sight of the mailed emperor; or of the giant Eishere who, in battle against the Slays, spears seven to nine heathens like frogs on the point of his lance; of the ruthless slaughter of all those captured Saxons whose stature exceeded the measure of the emperor's sword. Unlike the heroic sagas, the Charlemagne legends from their very inception show an ecclesiastical tinge. In this connexion we may recall the canonization of Charles by the antipope Paschal III in 1165, which, of course, never possessed validity.

When the Franks lost their Germanic character their hero became identified with the French nationality. Stories connected with his name were more or less current in various parts of Germany. It was said that he did not die but resided in the Odenberg, Hessia, or the Untersberg (near Salzburg), whence he would reappear to bring back the empire to glory. His justice also was proverbial, as is attested by the story, told in German chronicles, of the serpent ringing the bell that Charles had set up before his palace for all those having a grievance to bring to his attention. But he never became prominent in German literature, whereas in France he became the very centre of the national heroic épopées. His legendary deeds and those of his paladins were celebrated in numerous epics or "Chansons de Geste" ("Chanson de Roland", "Pèlerinage", "Aspremont", "Fierabras", "Ogier", Renaud de Montauban", etc.). At first these poems were only loosely connected; later on attempts were made at cyclic unification, resulting in such compilations as the "Charlemagne" of Girard d'Amiens (c. 1300), the German "Karimeinet", the Norwegian "Karlamagnússaga" and the Italian prose romance "Reali di Francia" of Andrea de' Magnabotti. Much legendary material is also found in chronicles, like those of the above-mentioned monk of St. Gall, of the monk of Saintonge, of Alberic de Trois Fontaines (c. 1250), of Philippe Mousket (c. 1241), and the German chronicle of Enenkel.

What is related of Charlemagne in these sources is a medley of fact and fiction. The story of his parents, Pepin the Short and Bertha (in "Berte aux grands pieds"), is the familiar theme of virtue slandered but in the end vindicated. To escape the persecutions of his bastard brothers, Charles takes refuge in Toledo with the heathen king Galafre, whose daughter Galienne he marries, after he has punished his wicked brothers and regained his father's kingdom ("Charlemagne", "Karlmeinet", "Karleto", "Cronica general"). Possibly this reflects historical events from the period of Charles Martel, who was of illegitimate birth and experienced difficulties in his accession to he throne. At any rate, Pepin and Bertha are historic personages. Wholly fabulous, however, is the story of the pilgrimage undertaken by the emperor and his peers to the Holy Land, whence they bring back the Passion relics, which were deposited in the Church of St. Denis. Probably the legend arose in connexion with these relics, which were actually presented by the Patriarch of Jerusalem about 800.

In the poems and romances that deal with the wars of Charlemagne in Spain [(778) "Chanson de Roland"] and Italy [(773) "Ogler", "Fierabras", "Aspremont"] the principal rôle is assigned not to Charles, but to his paladins (Roland, Olivier, Turpin) or vassals (sons of Aimon, Ogier). The Saxon wars have left little trace in French poetry [Bodel's "Saisnes" (c. 1200), and an older "Guitalin", known only from the Norse version in the "Karlamagnússaga"]. In Germany their memory is preserved by many a legend concerning the heroic Widukind (Wittekind). In French versions the conversion of the Saxon chieftain is represented as insincere and of short duration, in German legend, on the contrary, it is glorified by miracle. While Widukind in the disguise of a beggar attends the Easter celebration in the Frankish camp, he sees the image of the Christ-Child at the moment of the elevation of the Host during Mass and his conversion is the result (Grimm, "Deutsche Sagen", 448). In a narrative of the life of the Empress Mathilde (974) Widukind is made to fight in single combat with Charles, and on being defeated turns Christian. The French version also knows of this combat, but here Guiteclin is killed. The name of Frankfort (the ford of the Franks) is explained by a German legend which relates how the hard-pressed Franks were saved by a hind that showed them a place where they could cross the River Main in safety (Grimm, op. cit., 449).

In the older French epics, devoted to the glorification of royalty, Charlemagne is represented as the incarnation of majesty, valour, and justice, the champion of God's Church against the infidel. In the later epics, the so-called feudal épopée ("Ogier", "Renaud de Montauban", "Doon de Mayence", etc.), which reflect the historic struggles of the monarchy with turbulent vassals, the great emperor appears in quite a different light, as a vindictive tyrant and unjust oppressor. Nor does he appear to advantage in the vanous legends that tell of his love affairs, among which is the well-known German legend of his attachment to a dead woman due to the magic power of a jewel hidden in her mouth. This legend was localized at Aachen. A courtier who had gained possession of the talisman dropped it in a hot spring. Henceforth the emperor felt an irresistible love for this spot and caused Aachen to be built there.

Through French mediation the Carlovingian romances came to other nations. In England, Caxton published "The Lyfe of Charles the Grete" (1485) and "The four sonnes of Aymon" (1486). Lord Berners translated "Huon of Bordeaux" in 1534. In Germany the "Rolandslied" of Konrad der Pfaffe the poem of Stricker (thirteenth century), the "karlmeinet" (fourteenth century), and the chap-books of the fifteenth century, in Scandinavia the "Karlamagnússaga" (c. 1300), in the Netherlands numerous translations like "Carel ende Elegast" show the spread of the Charlemagne legend. In Italy it was especially favoured. There it inspired the Franco-Italian epics and the bulky romance of Magnabotti, and culminated in the famous chivalric epics of Boiardo and Ariosto.

Roland

Of the paladins, usually twelve in number, with whom legend surrounds Charlemagne, the most famous is Roland, whose heroic death forms the theme of the "Chanson de Roland" (c. 1080). This poem relates how the rear-guard of the Frankish army, returning from a victorious campaign against the Saracens in Spain, is treacherously surprised by the enemy at Roncevaux, and how Roland, Olivier, and Turpin, after incredible deeds of valour, are slain before the emperor arrives to bring help. The events narrated here have a historical basis; the battle of Roncevaux (Roncesvalles) actually took place on 15 August, 778. According to Einhard (Vita Caroli Magni, IX) the Frankish rear-guard was cut to pieces by Basque marauders, among the slain being Hruodlandus, prefect of the March of Brittany. In the poem the defeat is laid to the treason of Ganelon; the vengeance which the emperor exacts from the enemy and the punishment of the traitor are vividly narrated. The legend represents Roland as Charlemagne's nephew, the son of the emperor's sister Bertha and of Duke Milo; of Aglant. The story of their romantic love, their quarrel with the emperor, and their ultimate reconciliation to him figures prominently in Italian versions ("Reali di Francia"). Roland is a paragon of knightly virtue. Quite young he distinguishes himself in wars against the Saracens in Italy ("Aspremont") and the Saxons, in both campaigns saving his uncle from threatened disaster.

In Italian literature Roland becomes the chief hero of the chivalric épopée represented at its best by Pulci's "Morgante maggiore" (1482), Boiarde's "Orlando innamorato" (1486), and Ariosto's "Orlando Furioso" (1516). In Spain the tradition underwent a complete change; the defeat of the Franks was regarded as a Spanish victory, and the real hero of Roncevaux is the national champion, Bernalde del Carprio, Roland's opponent. The German poem of Konrad der Pfaffe has been mentioned above.

Geneviève (Genovefa) of Brabant

This legend may be discussed in connexion with the Carlovingian cycle, inasmuch as the events therein related are usually assigned to the eighth century, to the period of the wars of Charles Martel against the Saracens. It has for its theme the familiar story of persecuted innocence, and is therefore closely akin to the legends of Griseldis, Hildegard, Hirlanda of Brittany, and other heroines of suffering. According to the usual version, Geneviève is the wife of the Count Palatine Siegfried, residing in the region of Trier. When he is called away on an expedition against the infidels, he entrusts his wife and castle to the care of his major-domo Golo. Inflamed with sinful passion, Golo makes advances to the countess, and on being repulsed, falsely accuses her to her absent lord of adultery. The count sends word to put his wife and her new-born son to death, and Golo bids two servants execute this command. But moved by pity they let her go, and she takes refuge in a cave in the Ardennes together with her child, who is miraculously suckled by a roe. At the end of six years Count Siegfried, who has in the meantime repented of his rash deed, is led to this cave while pursuing the roe, and a happy reunion is the result. Golo dies a traitor's death, his limbs being torn asunder by four oxen. The legend adds that a chapel was built and dedicated to Our Lady at the very spot where the cave was. It is the Chapel of Frauenkirchen, near Laach, and there Geneviève is said to be buried.

The origin of the legend is wholly unknown. The oldest versions are found in manuscript dating from the fifteenth century, most of them hailing from Laach. An account was written in 1472 by Matthias Emichius (Emmich) a Carmelite friar, later auxiliary Bishop of Mainz. The learned antiquarian Marquard Freher appended a version of the legend drawn from a Laach manuscript to his "Origines Palatinæ" (1613). The legend is told in connexion with the foundation of the chapel of Frauenkirchen. In all these versions the time of action is that of a Bishop Hildulf of Trier. But no such bishop is known. Nor is it possible to identify Geneviève with any historic personage. As for Siegfried, there were several counts of that name, but nothing is known of them to permit of an identification. An historical basis for the legend has not been found. The arguments for a mythical origin are futile. So the opinion has been advanced (by Seuffert) that the legend is the fabrication of a monk from the monastery of Laach, and dates from the fourteenth century.

The fame of the story is due to the work of the French Jesuit René de Cerisiers. His book, entitled "L'Innocence reconnue ou Vie de Sainte Geneviève de Brabant", won immediate popularity. The oldest datable edition is from 1638. Two years later this story, together with those of Jeanne d'Arc and Hirlanda, was reprinted in "Les trois états de l'innocence affligée", etc. In Cerisiers' version the legend has been considerably amplified; its pious character is emphasized, especially through the copious introduction of miracles. Here also the child receives the Biblical name Benoni (i.e. son of my sorrow, Gen., xxxv, 18) whence the "Schmerzenreich" of the German version. Reference to Charles Martel fixed the eighth century as the time of action.

Cerisiers' work inspired a number of Dutch and German books on the legend, in all of which the material is treated with more or less freedom. The authors of the first two German versions are Jesuits; these versions were followed by the "Auserlesenes History-Buch" (Dillingen, 1687) of Father Martin of Cochem (d. 1712), a Capuchin friar. Here the story of St. Geneviève is given among a number of pious legends, and it was this version that made the legend popular in Germany, where it became the subject of chap-books. Some of these books base their account on Dutch versions, the first of which had appeared in 1645. In these Protestant influence is unmistakable; the miracles, already curtailed in the German version, are here completely expunged. Of English versions we have at least two, one of which "The Triumphant Lady, or the Crowned Innocence" (London, 1654) is by Sir W. Lower.

Arthur (Artus)

A famous legendary King of the Britons, and the central figure of a great medieval cycle of romance. His court is represented as a model court for the cultivation of every knightly virtue. He himself presides over the famous Round Table, about which is assembled a band of chosen knights. The adventures of these knights form the subject-matter of the numerous romances of the Arthurian cycle.

The history of the origin and development of the Arthurian legend is not clear. The very existence of Arthur has been doubted, and attempts have been made to reduce him to a myth. But it is now well known that he was an historic figure, a British chieftain of the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century a.d., who championed the cause of the native Britons against the foreign invaders, especially the Angles and Saxons.

The oldest British chronicler of Wales, Gildas, in his "De Excidio Britanniæ" (c. 540) knows of the great victory of the Britons at Mount Badon, but makes no mention of Arthur. The first record of him is found in the "Historia Brittonum" (written 796), ascribed to Nennius. There he appears already as a legendary figure, the champion of an oppressed people against the cruel invaders, whom he defeats in twelve great battles, the last being fought at Mons Badonis. So by the end of the eighth century the legend of a great champion was already current among the Celtic population of the British Isles and Brittany and this legend was further developed and amplified by the addition of new legendary traits.

It received its literary form in the "Historia regum Brittanniæ", a Latin chronicle, written between 1118 and 1135 by the Welsh monk Godfrey (Galfridus, Gruffydd) of Monmouth. This work, purporting to give a history of the British kings from the mythical Brutus to Cadwallo (689), is a curious medley of fact and fable. The exploits related of Arthur are wholly fabulous. His father is Uther Pendragon (Uther dragon-head), his mother Igerna, wife of the Duke of Cornwall. Merlin the Wizard by a trick has effected their union. Arthur becomes ruler at the age of fifteen and at once enters upon his career of victory by defeating the Saxons. He marries Guanhumara (Gwenhwyvar Ginevra, Guinevere) and establishes a court the fame of which spreads far and wide. In a series of wars he conquers Scotland, Ireland, Norway, and Gaul. Finally he makes war against Rome, but, though victorious, is compelled to turn back to protect his wife and kingdom from the treacherous designs of his nephew Mordred. In the battle of Camlan (Cambula) the latter is killed, but Arthur, too, is mortally wounded and mysteriously removed to the Isle of Avalon, whence he will reappear (so other chronicles relate), some day to restore his people to power.

It is not known with certainty what sources Godfrey used. Probably he drew his information from Welsh chronicles, as well as from oral tradition preserved by Breton story-tellers. Much, also, is his own invention. The work won immediate favour, and became the basis of several other rhymed chronicles, such as the "Brut" of Wace (or Gace) written about 1157, and that of Layamon (c. 1200), the first English work in which the legend of Arthur appears. In Godfrey's history mention is made of Arthur's court as far-famed, but the first explicit reference to the Round Table is found in Wace's "Brut". From this reference it is perfectly clear that this legendary institution was already well known in Brittany when Wace wrote. At a later period, when the Grail legend was fused with that of Arthur, the Round Table was identified with the Grail table instituted by Joseph of Arimathea, and was then said to have been founded by Uther Pendragon at the suggestion of Merlin (so in the Grail romance of Robert de Boron).

Towards the end of the twelfth century the Arthurian legend makes its appearance in French literature in the epics of Chrestien de Troyes. How this material, the matière de Bretagne, was transmitted, is one of the most difficult and disputed questions in connexion with the history of medieval French literature. It is admitted that Godfrey and the chroniclers cannot have been the only sources; the subject matter of the romances is too varied for that, and points to the influence of popular tradition. Moreover, the material has been entirely transformed under the influence of the ideals of knight-errantry and courtly love. These deeds dominated all the Arthurian romances, and gave them their immense vogue with the polite society of the Middle Ages. Arthur plays but a passive rôle in them; the chief stress falls on the adventures of the Knights of the Table Round. Of these Gawain (Gwalchmai, Gauvain) already figured prominently in the history of Godfrey, where he is called Walgannus. Perceval, the Peredur of Welsh folk-tales and of Godfrey, has become especially famous as the hero of the quest of the Holy Grail. Originally his legend, like that of the Grail, was wholly independent of that of Arthur. Other famous legendary heroes like Lancelot and Tristram were also joined to the company of the Table Round, and their legends likewise incorporated into that of Arthur. So the great cycle of Arthurian romances gradually came into existence.

Though French mediation these romances spread through Europe. In Germany they inspired the courtly epics (see GERMANY, sub-title Literature, III). They also came to Italy, Spain, and Norway. In England Sir Thomas Malory gathered them and used them for his famous prose romance "Morte Arthure" (finished 1470, printed by Caxton, 1485). To Malory the legend of Arthur owes its popularity in England. Its influence is felt in Spenser's "Faerie Queene", and Milton, as is well known, thought of writing an English Arthuriad. In modern times Tennyson has revived the legend in his "Idylls of the King".

Tristan and Isolde

Among the knights of Arthur appears also Tristan (Tristram), whose love for Isolde and its tragic end are the subject of some of the most famous romances in literature. Here, too, we have an originally independent legend of Celtic origin, but elaborated by French poets into a love romance. The names Tristan and Mark point to Celtic heroic saga as the root of the story -- Drust or Drustan as a name of Pictish kings can be traced as far back as the eighth century. The name of Morholt is probably Germanic; so is Isold (i.e. Iswalda) or Iselt (i.e. Ishilt). These Germanic elements date from the period of Viking rule in Dublin during the ninth and tenth centuries. The legend, no doubt, took shape in Britain and then wandered to Brittany, experiencing in the course of its development various modifications. New motifs, like that of the love potion, the story of the vicarious wooing, the trick whereby Isolde successfully undergoes the ordeal, were added. They are familiar from story-literature. Other motifs, such as the ship with black sails, are clearly traceable to antique romance, in this case to the Theseus legend. By the middle of the twelfth century a full-fledged Tristan romance existed, but the literary versions that we possess are of a later date. It is known that Chrestien de Troyes wrote a poem about Mark and Isolde, but it is lost. The French versions extant are those of Bérol a Breton jongleur, or glee-man, and of Thomas, an Anglo-Norman trouvère, who wrote between 1160 and 1170. Bérol's version, the date of which is a matter of dispute, is the basis of the German "Tristan" of Eilhard von Oberg, while Gottfried von Strassburg followed Thomas. Both versions agree for the main traits of the legend, however much they differ in detail.

Lohengrin, the Knight of the Swan

In Wolfram's Parzival", where a brief outline of the story of Lohengrin is given at the close, the legend appears as a part of the Grail cycle, and therefore also of the Arthurian cycle. But originally it was wholly independent of both. In the oldest literary versions, the French poems of the "Chevalier au cygne" (the earliest dates from the beginning of the thirteenth century), the tale of the Knight of the Swan is connected with Godfrey of Bouillon, and the French poems themselves are part of an epic cycle dealing with the Crusades. How this connexion came about is not known. But it was certainly well known by the end of the twelfth century, as is proved by an allusion to it in the history of the Crusades written by Bishop William of Tyre (d. about 1184). The purpose was evidently to glorify the House of Bouillon by ascribing to it a supernatural origin. The story as given in the French poems is as follows: before Emperor Otto holding court at Nymwegen the Duchess of Bouillon pleads for justice against the Saxon Duke Renier, who has made grave charges against her. She cannot find a champion to prove her innocence in single combat, when suddenly an unknown knight appears in a skiff drawn by a swan. He defeats her opponent and marries her daughter Beatris. But he imposes the condition that his wife must never ask his name or lineage. When, after seven years of wedded life, she breaks this command, the unknown knight leaves her. A daughter named Ida has resulted from this union. She marries Count Eustache of Boulogne and becomes the mother of Godfrey of Bouillon.

The kernel of this legend seems to be an old genealogical myth, such as that told of Scyld in "Beowulf". A mysterious stranger arrives in a rudderless ship among a people becomes their ruler and the ancestor of the reigning house. When his time is fulfilled, he departs as mysteriously as he has come. Such a myth was current among Germanic tribes inhabiting the sea-coast. Possibly the mysterious stranger originally was a solar deity and the swan a symbol of the cloud. The story was designed to show the divine descent of the ruling house. Its origin, whether Celtic or Germanic, is in dispute. The theme of the Lohengrin legend, the union between a supernatural being and a mortal, is of frequent recurrence in mythology and folk-lore.

With the tale of the swan-knight was combined an old Germanic fairy tale of some children changed into swans by the evil arts of a wicked stepmother. Only the little girl escapes and becomes the means of rescuing her brothers. this story is familiar to readers of Grimm's fairy tales. In the French poems on this subject, the children are the offspring of a union between a king and a fairy, and the king's mother plays the villain's part. Their transformation into swans is the result of their being deprived of the necklaces which they had when they were born. When these are restored they regain their human form, all but one, who has lost his necklace. He remains a swan and henceforth draws the skiff of his brother, who is therefore called the knight of the swan. It is clear that this story was added to account for the mysterious origin of the hero. Its earliest literary record occurs in the Latin romance "Dolopathos", a collection of stories, mostly of Oriental origin written by Jean de Hauteseille (Johannes de Alta Silva) at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Here the characters are as yet unnamed. In the French poem known as "Elioxe" (end of twelfth century) the hero is a king named Lothair, the fairy is called Elioxe (Eliouse). In the versions of the "Chevalier au cygne" the king's name is Oriant, his wife is called Beatris, his mother Matabrune.

Through French mediation the legend passed into other lands. In England we have the poem of the "Chevalere Assigne" and the prose romance of "Helyas, Knight of the Swan" (edited by Thoms in "Early English Prose Romances"). In Spain the legend was incorporated in the "Gran Conquista de Ultramar" (xlvii sq.). There are also versions in Italy and Iceland. Of special interest is the development of the legend in Germany.

In the French versions the swan-knight is called Helias (Elie). In Konrad von Würzburg's epic "Der Schwanritter" (c. 1260) he remains unnamed. The lady in distress is the Duchess of Brabant, the emperor is Charlemagne. The swan-knight is not the ancestor of Godfrey of Bouillon, but of the dukes of Cleves. Konrad's version is based on an unknown French source. So is the brief outline given by Wolfram at the close of his "Parzival". There the legend is connected with that of the Grail in that the hero is the son of Parzival, the Grail-king. Here also he is called Loherangrin (i.e. Loherenc Garin, Garin the Lotharingian). The duchess is Elsa of Brabant. Whether these changes in names are Wolfram's own, or whether they were in his French source cannot be decided. On the basis of Wolfram's outline, but amplified and expanded by the introduction of wholly extraneous matter, arose between 12S3 and 1290 the bulky German epic "Lohengrin", the work, it seems, of two different authors, but unknown. The Lohengrin story is here a mere episode of the legendary minstrel contest held at the Wartburg castle and is put into the mouth of Wolfram himself. The accuser is here Count Friedrich Telramund, the emperor is Henry I the Fowler, and a Duchess of Cleves instigates Elsa to put the forbidden question. We see that in German versions Cleves figures in the legend; in fact, in some chronicles the scene of action is laid there (see Grimm, "Deutsche Sagen", 4th ed., ed. Steig, Berlin, 1905, no. 535), and the date given is 711. Fantastic continuations are found in the poem called "Der jüngere Titurel" (c. 1260) and in the bulky versified narrative of Ulrich Füetrer "Buch der Abenteue" (written c. 1490). According to the account there given, Lohengrin sallies forth a second time, and comes to Lyzabori (Luxemburg) where he marries the Princess Belaye. An attempt is made on his life by her jealous relatives, and, though it is repulsed, Lohengrin succumbs to a wound received in the struggle. His wife dies of grief.

Tannhauser

This legend, as related in German folk-songs of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and their variants in Low German, Dutch, and Danish, is as follows: Tannhauser, a minstrel knight, enters the mountain of Venus, a sort of subterranean paradise where the heathen goddess holds her voluptuous court, and for a year he revels in its unholy pleasures. Then a longing seizes upon him to return to earth, and when, through the aid of Mary, whom he invokes, his wish is realized, he hastens to Rome to implore pardon for his sin from Pope Urban IV. This the pope refuses to grant; Tannhäuser cannot be saved any more than the staff in the pontiff's hand can put forth fresh leaves. In despair the knight returns to the mountain of Venus and is not seen again. Soon after, the staff bursts into blossom and now messengers are sent to seek the knight, but too late.

No doubt we have here a tale of originally heathen character, subsequently Christianized. Its theme is the familiar story of the seduction of a human being by an elf or fairy. But all the delights of the fairy-realm cannot make him forget his earthly home, for which he longs. His desire is granted, but he is not happy, and in the end returns to the fairy-land. This motif is a commonplace in folk-lore literature. In the German legend the seductive fairy is identified with the ancient goddess of love, and the story is given a distinctly religious colour through the introduction of the pilgrimage of the repentant sinner to Rome. The motif of the withered staff bursting into blossom has also many parallels in sacred legend, and is evidently a later addition. How the legend came to assume the form outlined above can only be surmised. Of the poems that we possess on the subject none dates further back than the middle of the fifteenth century. The famous Volkslied that gives the above version is from the sixteenth century. A passage in Hermann von Sachsenheim's poem, "Die Mörin" proves that the legend, with its essential traits, was already known in 1453 when the poem was written. There Tannhäuser is referred to as the husband of Dame Venus. Now the historical Tannhäuser was a Minnesinger of the thirteenth century, who seems to have led a roving life, in the course of which he experienced many changes of fortune. His checquered career is reflected in his poems, which exhibit a strange mingling of dissolute boasting and pious sentiment. In one poem ascribed to him, repentance is expressed for foolish and sinful living, and this poem is supposed to be responsible for his appearing in the legend in the rôle of the penitent knight. But this is purely conjectural. As a matter of fact, the only connexion between the legendary and historical Tannhäuser is the identity of name.

It is noteworthy that a legend strikingly similar to that of Tannhäuser is attached in Italy to the Monte della Sibilla near Norcia. It is related at length by Antoine de La Sale in his "Salade", written between 1438 and 1442. He visited the sibyl's cave in 1420, and heard the story from the people of the neighbouring region. A still earlier reference to the legend is found in the famous romance "Guerino il meschino" of Andrea dei Magnabotti (1391). The Italian version knows that the cavalier entering the cave is a German, but does not mention his name; the queen of the subterranean paradise is the Sibyl of ancient prophetic fame, transformed into the goddess of pleasure. In view of these parallels which antedate the appearance of the legend in German literature, Gaston Paris disputes the German origin of the Tannhäuser legend, and regards Italy as its home. Its ultimate source he finds in Celtic folk-lore. But this cannot be proved, since the earlier history of the legend is not attested by any extant literary monuments either in Italy or in Germany. It is to be noted that in the German version there is a distinct tone of hostility to the papacy, wholly lacking in the Italian variants. In fact the miracle of the blossoming staff is a pointed reproof of the pope's harshness. This can readily be explained if the legend developed in Germany, where antipapal feeling was strong after the days of the Hohenstaufens. The dominant idea of the legend is the glorification of God's infinite mercy to sinners. But this ideal is set forth in a spirit most unfriendly to the Church. The attitude ascribed to the pope by the Volkslied is wholly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Robert the Devil

God's boundless grace to sinners is also the theme of this legend as presented in French romances. Robert is the devil's own child, for his mother, despairing of heaven's aid in order to obtain a son, has addressed herself to the devil. From the moment of his birth the boy shows his vicious instincts, which urge him, when grown to manhood, to a career of monstrous crime. At last the horror which he inspires everywhere causes him to reflect, and, having found out the awful secret of his birth, he hastens to Rome to confess to the pope. He undergoes the most rigorous penance, living in the disguise of a fool at the emperor's court in Rome. Three times he delivers the city from the assault of the Saracens, but, refusing all reward, he ends his life as a pious hermit. According to another version he marries the emperor's daughter, whose love he has won in his humble disguise, and succeeds to the throne.

The oldest known account of this legend is a Latin prose narrative by a Dominican friar, Etienne de Bourbon (c. 1250). Then it appears in a French metrical romance of the thirteenth century, also in a dit of somewhat later date, and in a miracle play of the fourteenth century. A French prose version was also prefixed to the old "Croniques de Normandie" (probably of the thirteenth century). But the legend owes its popularity to the story-books, of which the earliest known appeared at Lyons in 1496, and again at Paris in 1497, under the title "La vie du terrible Robert le dyable". Since the sixteenth century the legend was often printed together with that of Richard sans Peur; it was published in completely recast form in 1769 under the title "Histoire de Robert le Diable, duc de Normandie, et de Richard Sans Peur, son fils."

From France the legend spread to Spain, where it was very popular. In England the subject was treated in the metrical romance, "Sir Gowther", the work of an unknown minstrel of the fifteenth century. An English translation from the French chap-book was made by Wynkyn de Worde, Caxton's assistant, and published without date under the title "Robert deuyll" (reprinted in Thoms, "Early English Prose Romances", London and New York, 1907). Another version, not based on the preceding, was given by Thomas Lodge in his book on "Robin the Divell" (London, 1591). In the Netherlands the romance of Robrecht den Duyvel was put on the index of forbidden books by the Bishop of Antwerp (1621). In Germany the legend never attained much of a vogue; not until the nineteenth century did it pass into the Volksbücher, being introduced by Görres (q. v.). It was treated in epic form by Victor von Strauss (1854), in dramatic form by Raupach (1835). Meyerbeer's opera "Robert le Diable" (1831) enjoyed great favour for a time. The libretto, written by Scribe and Delavigne, has little in common with the legend except the name of the hero.

The Wandering Jew

This legend has been widely popular ever since its first appearance in a German chap-book of 1602. There it is told as follows: When Jesus bore his Cross to Calvary, he passed the house of a cobbler, Ahasuerus by name, who had been one of the rabble to shout, "Crucify him." Sinking beneath his burden, Jesus stopped to rest at the threshold of the cobbler, but was driven away with the words; "Go where thou belongest." Thereupon Our Lord gazed sternly at Ahasuerus and said: "I will stand here and rest, but thou shalt go on until the last day." And since then the Jew has been roaming restlessly over the earth.

The first literary record of such a doomed wanderer is found in the "Flores Historiarum", a chronicle of Roger of Wendover, a monk of St. Albans (d. 1237). The account there given was incorporated with some slight amplifications into the "Historia Major" of Matthew Paris (d. 1259). The story is told on the authority of an Armenian bishop who visited England in 1228 and had personally known the doomed man. According to this version, Cartaphilus, a doorkeeper at Pilate's mansion, saw Jesus as he was led forth to be crucified and struck him contemptuously, crying at the same time: "Go Jesus, go faster, why dost thou linger?" Whereupon Jesus replied: "I go, but thou shalt wait till I come." And so the offender has not been able to die, but still waits for the coming of Christ. He is leading a quiet, saintly life. Whenever he reaches the age of a hundred years he is miraculously restored to the age of thirty. Since his conversion to Christianity his name is Joseph. A similar version, also on the authority of the Armenian bishop, is given by the Flemish chronicler, Philippe Mousket, Bishop of Tournai (about 1243). No doubt, this version is the basis for the story given in the chap-books.

Now the legend is surely not the invention of the Armenian bishop, as has been sometimes claimed. It was well known in Italy during the thirteenth century and must have existed long before that. According to the astrologer Guido Bonatti, who is mentioned by Dante (Inf., xx, 118), the wanderer passed through Forli in 1267. Philip of Novara, a famous jurist, in his "Livre de Forme de Plait" (c. 1250), refers to a certain Jehan Boute Dieu as one proverbially long-lived. Now Philip resided for a long time in Jerusalem and Cyprus; this, together with the fact that the account in the English chronicles also localizes Cartaphilus in Armenia, seems to point to an Oriental origin for the legend. Probably it was part of a local cycle that sprang up in Jerusalem in connexion with the Passion, and was brought to Europe by crusaders or pilgrims. A legend of a surviving witness of the Crucifixion, who is represented as the victim of a curse, was certainly current in Jerusalem, and is repeatedly referred to in accounts of travels to the Holy Land. The name of the accursed wanderer is generally given as Joannes Buttadeus, in Italian as Bottadio, which evidently means "God-smiter". An old Italian legend knows of a similar punishment inflicted on the soldier who struck Christ before the High Priest (John, xviii, 22), and later on this soldier was identified with Malchus whose ear was cut off by Peter. This legend was furthermore confused, it seems, with one current about St. John, to whom tradition ascribed immortality on the basis of a passage in John, xxi, 20 sqq. The names Johannes and Cartaphilus (karta philos "much beloved"), given to the wanderer, lend some colour to this theory.

But, whatever its origin, the legend owes its fame and popularity to the above-mentioned German chap-book, which appeared anonymously in 1602 under the title: "Kurtze Beschreibung und Erzehlung von einem Juden mit Namen Ahasverus", etc. There the story is related on the authority of a Lutheran clergyman, Paulus von Eitzen (d. 1598), who claimed to have met the Jew in person in Hamburg in 1542, and to have heard the story from Ahasuerus himself. In a later edition of 1603, "Wunderbarlicher Bericht von Einem Juden Ahasver", etc., where the anonymous author assumes the pen-name of Chrysostomus Dudulæus Westphalus, the meeting is assigned to the year 1547, and in an appendix the fate of the Jew is made the subject of an exhortation to the Christian reader.

The legend at once sprang into popular favour, and numerous editions followed. From Germany it spread to Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and especially to France, where it has enjoyed a great vogue up to the present. The best-known French version is the "Histoire admirable d'un Juif Errant" dating from the seventeenth century. Here a tragic touch is added by the recital of the dangers which the Jew courts in the vain hope of ending his misery in death. Stories of the actual appearance of the Jew also began to be common, many of them, no doubt, traceable to impostors who played the rôle with success. Of such a one we have a well authenticated record from Italy in 1415.

Various names are given to the Wandering Jew in different countries. The English chronicles call him Cartaphilus. The Italian form is Bottadio and this corresponds to Boudedeo in Brittany and Bedeus in Saxon Transylvania. In Belgium he is known as Isaac Laquedem, probably a name of Hebrew origin. In Spain his name has undergone the significant change to Juan Espera-en-Dios (John Trust-in-God). Why the German version calls him Ahasverus is not clear. This name is familiar from the Old Testament (Esther, i, 1) as the surname of a Persian monarch (written Assuerus in Catholic versions). It is to be noted that the original wanderer was not necessarily a Jew; Cartaphilus, the door-keeper in Pilate's mansion, must have been a Roman.

The Flying Dutchman

The theme of the doomed Wanderer recurs in this legend of the sea. The superstitious belief in a spectre ship is widespread among mariners. But the legend springing from this belief never attained a fixed form; the versions given of it vary considerably. The most common version as current among Dutch sailors relates how a captain by the name of Vanderdecken or Vanderstraaten from the Terneuse district, while on a voyage to India, is delayed off the Cape of Good Hope by a calm or a storm. In his rage he swears a blasphemous oath to double the Cape, if he were to sail until the Judgment Day. Offended, God took him at his word, and he is doomed to sail the seas forever, an omen of ill-luck to all mariners by whom his spectre-ship is sighted.

The legend does not appear in literature before the nineteenth century. It was made familiar to American readers by Washington Irving's tale "The Stormship", an episode in his "Bracebridge Hall" (1822). But it became widely known through Heine, who probably took it from oral tradition, and related it in his "Reisebilder aus Norderney" (1826) and again in "Memoiren des Herrn von Schnabelewopski" (in his "Salon", 1834). Heine mentions neither names nor places, and in the second version the setting of the story is undignified, if not vulgar. Nevertheless the legend was given a much deeper import through the introduction of the motif of redemption. Every seven years the Dutchman may land and look for a woman whose self-sacrificing love will lift the curse. At length he finds a maiden who pledges him her love, but at the last moment he refuses her generous sacrifice, reveals himself to her and leaves. She heroically insists on keeping her promise and casts herself into the sea. This noble act of self-sacrifice removes the curse; the Dutchman and his ship sink beneath the waves.

William Tell

The story of Tell, connected with the origin of the Swiss Confederation, until comparatively recent times passed for history, but its fabulous character is now universally recognized. Tell, a yeoman of Uri, famed for his skill with the cross-bow, having refused to salute the hat, the symbol of Austrian sovereignty which Gessler, the most notoriously cruel of the Austrian governors, had caused to be placed on a pole at Altdorf, is brought before the governor and ordered to show his skill by shooting an apple on the head of his son. He successfully performs the feat and on being asked to explain why he had taken two arrows from his quiver, avows that had he injured the child he would have pierced the governor. He is put on board a ship to be transported to Küssnacht, but a storm coming up, he escapes, and eventually liberates his country. This in brief is the legend. As early as 1607 its truth was questioned on the ground that not the slightest documentary proof of Tell's existence could be found. Swiss patriotism, however, for a long time silenced scepticism, until the work of scholars of the nineteenth century separated fact from fiction and consigned Tell's exploit to the realm of fable.

Faust

The origin and development of this famous legend is tolerably clear. Its hero is an actual personage, a man who lived in Germany during the sixteenth century. To be sure, many of the exploits related of him are so manifestly fabulous that some scholars have doubted his very existence and have regarded the legend as purely mythical. But against this view we are able to adduce the explicit testimony of a number of contemporaries: Trithemius of Sponheim, Mutianus Rufus, Johann Gast, Agrippa von Nettesheim, and others, who claim to have known Faust either in person or by reputation. They all agree in representing him as a charlatan, who went about the country under assumed high-sounding names, boasting of his skill in fortune-telling and magic, and preying on the credulity and superstitious ignorance of the people. Philip Begardi, a physician of Worms, author of an "Index Sanitatis" (1539), knew a number of persons duped by the swindler. He mentions Faust as a man who was well known, but of whom nothing had been heard lately. Melanchthon (as reported by Manlius, 1590) and Johann Weyer (d. 1588) tell us that Faust was born in Kundlingen (i.e. Knittlingen) in Würtemberg and studied magic at Cracow; also that he came to a violent end, being found dead one morning with a twisted neck.

The boasting of Faust did not seem so absurd in an age when the belief in demonology and magic was universal. What more natural than that his supernatural powers should be ascribed to the aid of the Devil? Stories about men in league with the Evil One had been current since early Christian times. Zoroaster, Virgil, Apollonius, Albertus Magnus, Popes Sylvester II and Paul II were some of the eminent men of whom such tales were related. Of especial significance in this connexion are the legends of Cyprian of Antioch and Theophilus of Adana, in which we meet with the type of the wicked magician, who, to gratify ambition or to accomplish some unholy purpose, sells his soul to the Devil. So, when Faust met with a sudden and violent death under mysterious circumstances, rumour had it that the Devil had carried him off, and thus arose the story of his compact with Satan. Now the tales that were current concerning former sorcerers who had entered into such an unholy partnership were repeated concerning Faust and gradually the obscure charlatan became the arch-magician, around whose name gathered a mass of fable and tradition dealing with black art. So the Faust legend gradually took shape. Its first appearance in literature dates from 1587, when the first Faust book appeared anonymously at Frankfort-on-the-Main under the title "Historia von D. Johann Fausten dem weitbeschreyten Zauberer und Schwartzkunstler". In a preface the publisher, whose name was Johann Spies, tells us that he obtained the manuscript from "a good friend in Speyer". According to the version of this book, Faust studies theology at Wittenberg, but, being of a "foolish and arrogant" turn of mind, and desirous of searching "into all things in heaven and earth", he resorts to magic and evokes the Devil. A demon, who is called Mephistopheles, appears, and a compact is made whereby for a stated term (later on fixed at twenty-four years) he agrees to be Faust's servant, in return for which the latter pledges his soul to the Devil. This compact is sealed with Faust's blood. For a time the sorcerer lives in power and splendour, performing strange deeds and experiencing marvellous adventures. But at the end of the stated term the Devil claims his prey. A strange tumult is heard at night, and the next morning Faust's mangled corpse is found on a heap of refuse.

The book itself is totally devoid of literary merit. Its purpose is purely didactic; the magician's awful fate is held up as a solemn warning to all who might be tempted to resort to black art. The fundamental idea of the story is the wickedness of striving for forbidden knowledge by sinful means. The anonymous author, who, judging from the general tone of the book, was probably a Lutheran pastor, emphatically disapproves of the spirit of free inquiry that characterizes the period following the great discoveries and the Reformation. Of subsequent editions, that of Widmnann (1599) seems to have been the chief source of later versions. Here the anti-Catholic tendency, unmistakable in the first edition, is still further emphasized. Faust's downfall is directly attributed to the cult of the Catholic Church. There are besides a number of changes, usually with a didactic purpose and to the detriment of the literary quality of the book. A lengthy commentary is also added. A new edition of Widmaun's version was given by Pfitzer in 1674, and an abbreviated edition was brought out about 1725, by one who calls himself a "man of Christian sentiments". But the popularity of the legend was due not so much to the chap-books as to the crude dramatic performances given by bands of strolling players. In these performances English actors played an important part. On the basis of an English translation of the German chap-book Christopher Marlowe wrote his well known drama of Faustus (first performed in 1595), and this play was performed in Germany by English actors. Of the German Faust plays we have but scanty knowledge. As we know them from the eighteenth century, they were coarse farces in which buffoonery and sensationalism were relied on for success. Such plays disappeared from the literary stage when French classicism prevailed. But the Faust play survived as a puppet-show given by showmen at fairs to amuse the young and uncritical, and such a show inspired the young Goethe with the idea of writing his famous masterpiece. Already Lessing had called attention to the dramatic possibilities of the subject, and tried his hand at a Faust drama of which he had sketched a scene (cited in the seventeenth "Literaturbrief", 1759).

The old Faust legend as presented in the chap-books and the plays is essentially a tragedy of sin and damnation, a characteristic product of the age of the Reformation. In older legends of great sinners like Robert the Devil, the efficacy of penitence was proclaimed, the saving power of the Church was emphasized. With the Reformation this was changed. The rigid Lutheran orthodox theology denied the redeeming powers of the ancient Church and this harsh spirit is reflected in the legend. The sinner who leagues with the Devil was irrevocably damned. Goethe, the enlightened humanitarian, disagreed with this conception. For him Faust was not a presumptuous sensualist, but a titanic striver after truth, a representative of humanity's noblest aspirations, and, whatever his sins and errors might be, in the end he was to be saved. In Goethe's "Faust" (see GERMANY, loc. cit. supra) the legend has received its classic form.

GERMANIC HEROIC SAGA: On the subject in general consult SYMONS, Germanische Heldensage in PAUL, Grundriss der Germanischen Philologie (2nd ed., Strasburg, 1900), III, 606 sqq.; see also JIRICZEK, Die deutsche Heldensage (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1906). For the Nibelungen saga consult BOER, Untersuchungen über den Ursprung und die Entwickelung der Nibelungensage (Halle, 1907). The presentation of the genesis of the legend given above is based on this work. For the Dietrich saga see particularly JIRICZEK, Deutsche Heldensagen (Strasburg, 1898). For the Beowuif saga see SYMONS, op. cit., 644-651, where bibliography is given.
LEGENDS OF CHARLEMAGNE: PARIS, Histoire poétique do Charlemagne (Paris, 1865; 2nd ed., 1905); LÉON GAUTIER, Les Epopées françaises, III (2nd ed., Paris, 1888-1897); GRÖBER in Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, II (Strasburg, 1902), 1, 461-469; 538-552; BECKER, Grundriss der altfranzösischen Literatur, I (Heidelberg, 1907), 62-92. Many of the legends, particularly those current in Germany, are found in GRIMM, Deutsche Sagen (4th ed., Berlin, 1905), nos. 22, 26-28, 437-454. See also KÖGEL, Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur, I (Strasburg, 1894), pt. II, 220-230.
ROLAND: PARIS, op. cit., 259-285, 406-414, 415; see also his essay Roncevaux in Légendes du moyen âge (Paris, 1903), 1-63.
GENEVIÈVE OF BRABANT: SAUERBORN, Geschichte der Pfalzgräfin Genovefa und der Kapelle Frauenkirchen (Ratisbon, 1856); SEUFFERT, Die Legende von der Pfalzgräfin Genovefa (Würzburg, 1877); GOLZ, Pfalzgräfin Genovefa in der deutschen Dichtung (Leipzig, 1897).
KING ARTHUR: Consult the bibliography appended to the article on the Holy Grail. Many of the works there cited treat also of the Arthurian legend. See also ZIMMER, Nennius vindicatus (Berlin, 1893); RHYS, Studies in the Arthurian Legend (Oxford, 1891); NEWELL, King Arthur and the Table Round (Boston, 1897). On the question of the origin of the "matière de Bretagne" see VORETZSCH, Einführung in das Studium der altfranzösischen Literatur (Halle, 1905), 339-352, where the literature of the subject is given in full. Useful also for the later literature is MACCALLUM, Tennyson's Idylls of the King and Arthurian Story from the Sixteenth Century (Glasgow, 1894).
TRISTAN AND ISOLDE: For the content of the legend and its bibliography see the article on GOTTFRIED VON STRASSBURG.
LOHENGRIN: GOLTHER in Romanische Forschungen (1890), V, 103-136; TODD, preface to La Naissance du Chevalier au Cygne in Publication of the Modern Language Association of America, IV Baltimore, 1889); MUNCKER, Die Dichtung des Lohengrin von Richard Wagner und ihre Quellen in Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung (1891), no. 148; PANZER, Lohengrinstudien (Halle, 1894); BLÖTE in Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, XXI (1897), 176 sq.; IDEM in Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, XLII (1898), 1 sq.
TANNHÄUSER: GRÄSSE, Der Tannhäuser und ewige Jude (Dresden, 1861); von SCHLEINITZ, Wagner's Tannhäuser und Sängerkrieg auf der Wartburg (Meran, 1891), especially 127-178; GOLTHER, Geschichte der Tannhäuser-Sage und Dichtung in Bayreuther Taschenkalender (1891), 829 sq.; SCHMIDT, Tannhäuser in Sage und Dichtung in Nord und Süd (Nov., 1892); SÖDERHJELM, Antoine de La Sale et la légende de Tannhäuser in Memoires de la société néo-Philologique à Helsingfors. II (1897), 101-167; PARIS, Lépendes du Moyen Age (Paris 1903), 111-145; REUSCHEL, Die Tannhäusersage in Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur, XIII (Leipzig, 1904), 653-667.
ROBERT THE DEVIL: Du MÉRIL, La légende de Robert le Diable in Etudes sur quelques points d'archéologie et d'histoire littéraire (1862), 272-317; introduction to BREUL, Sir Gowther (Oppeln, 1886). In this book a complete bibliography is given. See also the introduction to LÖSETH'S edition of Robert le Diable (Paris, 1903).
THE WANDERING JEW: GRÄSSE, Der Tannhäuser und der ewige Jude (Dresden, 1861); CONWAY, The Wandering Jew (London and New York, 1881); SCHOEBEL, La Légende du Juif-Errant (Paris, 1877); MORPURGO, L'Ebreo Errante in Italia (Florence, 1890); PARIS, Le Juif Errant in Légendes du Moyen Age (Paris, 1903), 149-186; 187-221; the most exhaustive discussion of the legend is the Work of NEUBAUR, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1893). For a history of the legend in literature see KAPSTEIN, Ahasverus in der Weltpoesie (Berlin, 1906).
THE FLYING DUTCHMAN: GRASSE, op. cit., 122, note 32; see also the essays of PASQUÉ in Nord und Süd (1884), and of GOLTHER in Bühne und Welt (1901), III, 866 sq.
WILLIAM TELL: RILLIET, Les Origines de la Confédération Suisse, Histoire et Légende (2nd ed., Geneva, 1869); ROCHHOLZ, Tell und Gessler in Sage und Geschichte (Heilbronn, 1877); GISLER, Die Tellfrage (Berne, 1895); DANDLIKER, Geschichte der Schweiz, I (4th ed., Zurich, 1900), 426-454, contains a full bibliography; see also the introduction to PALMER'S edition of SCHILLER'S Tell (New York, 1900) 34-43.
FAUST: For a fairly Complete bibliography of the immense literature of the subject down to 1884 consult ENGEL, Zusammenstellung der Faust-Schriften vom 16. Jahrhundert bis mitte 1884 (Oldenburg, 1885); see also FISCHER, Goethes Faust in Goethe-Schriften (Heidelberg, 1901), I; SCHMIDT, Faust und das 16. Jahrhundert in Charakteristiken (2nd ed., Berlin, 1902), I 1-36; WITKOWSKI, Der historische Faust in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, VII (Freiburg im Br. and Liepzig, 1897), 298-350 (here all the literary testimonials concerning the historical Faust are adduced and discussed). Consult also the introduction to THOMAS, Goethe's Faust (Boston, 1899).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Legends of the Saints

Under the term legend the modern concept would include every untrue tale. But it is not so very long since its meaning has been extended thus far, nor is such a definition historically justifiable. That which was understood by the word legend, at the time when the concept arose, included both truth and fiction (considered from the standpoint of modern historical criticism). And this is what the numerous friends of the legend among the German poets, since the days of the Romantic School, understand by the term. The legenda included facts which were historically genuine, as well as narrative which we now class as unhistorical legend. The term is a creation of the Middle Ages, and has its source in the reading of the prayers used in Divine service. Since the days of the martyrs, the Church recalled to mind her famous dead in the prayers of the Mass and in the Office, by commemorating the names noted in the martyrologies and making mention of incidents in their lives and martyrdom. When the lectio became a matter of precept, the reading matter in the office for the day became in a precise sense legenda (that which must be read). After the thirteenth century the word legenda was regarded as the equivalent of vita and passio, and, in the fifteenth century, the liber lectionarius is comprised under what is known as "legend". Thus, historically considered, legend is the story of the saints. As by this time it had unfortunately happened that the stories of the saints were supplemented and embellished by the people according to their primitive theological conceptions and inclinations, the legend became to a large extent fiction. The age of the Reformation received the legend in this form. On account of the importance which the saints possessed even among Protestants, especially as the instruments of Divine grace, the legends have remained in use to this day, particularly in sermons. The edition of the "Vitæ Patrum", which Georg Major published at Wittenberg in 1544 by Luther's orders, closely follows Athanasius, Rufinus, and Jerome, rejecting merely the obvious fantasies and aberrations, such as, for example, were to be seen in the "Vita s. Barbaræ", the "Legenda Aurea" of the thirteenth century, or in the "Vita s. Simeonis Stylitæ" of Pseudo-Antonius. But the opposition to the ancient Church became intensified, and led to the Reformers' breach with the saints. Simultaneously, the legends of the saints disappear from Protestantism, and it is only in the nineteenth century, after the brief appearance of Romanticism, that they again find entrance into official Protestantism in connexion with the attempts of Ferdinand Piper (d. 1899 at Berlin) to revive the popular calendars.

In the usage of the Catholic Church and of the people, the legend plays the same part to-day as in the Middle Ages. Here also science has taught that distinctions are to be made. Thus it was felt that not all the legends we possess were of equal value, and especially that the editions of the lives of the saints were entirely unsatisfactory. It was the Jesuit Heribert Rosweyde of Utrecht who, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, undertook to remedy matters by referring to the most ancient texts, and by pointing out how the tales developed. Rosweyde wished merely to correct the old collections; his idea was to treat the martyrologies, beginning with the most ancient, from the philological standpoint. But his scheme was forthwith taken up by his order, and after his death (1629) was carried out on a large scale, with an eye also to sectarian opponents, who might learn from the lives of the saints the continuity of Catholic teaching and Catholic life. Thus there came into existence the "Acta Sanctorum" of the Bollandists (q. v.). This monumental work has become the foundation of all investigation in hagiography and legend.

In their present state of development, we would do well to keep these two departments separate. The meaning of the word legend has indeed been practically transformed; the Roman Breviary officially designates the lesson for the day as lectio, and the Church now recognizes the legend rather as a popular story, since the populace are always more impressed by the extraordinary and the grotesque. The legend has thus come to be regarded merely as a fictitious religious tale. Nothing therefore stands in the way of a distinction, which besides is indispensable to those who desire clearness in hagiography. Hagiography is to-day the province of the historian, who must, even more carefully in the history of the saints than in other historical questions, test the value of the sources of the reports. Only thus will it be possible to arrive at the fundamental question of all hagiography, the question of miracles in history. Are matters, which the modern man is inclined to take as legend, authentically vouched for, or are they met with only in doubtful sources? The belief in miracles, considered as such, does not affect the historian. He has only to gather the original authorities together and to say: This is what happened, so far as historical science can determine. If this presentation of the facts be correct, then no objection can be raised against the results. We have now an abundance of hagiographic memorials which are just as truly history as any other memorials. Reports of miracles which partake of a vague and general character we may and must exclude from this category -- e.g., when St. Gregory the Great, in a letter to St. Augustine, makes mention of the miracles which followed on Augustine's zealous activity in England: "Scio quod omnipotens Deus per dilectionem tuam in gente, quam eligi voluit, magna miracula ostendit" ("I know that Almighty God by His love for thee has shown forth great miracles among the people, whom he wished to be saved" -- "Gregorii Registrum", XI, ep. xxxvi). We possess hagiographic reports on the best possible authority in numerous legal documents and official registers concerning depositions under oath. Such vouchers, however, cannot in the nature of the case be applicable to the entire life of a saint, but only to individual occurrences, and, for the most part, not to occurrences in the saint's lifetime, but to those which took place at his shrine. The miracles of healing at the shrine of Bishop Willehad at Bremen (d. about 790) in 860, the miracles of Bernard in the "Liber Miraculorum" of 1146-47, the cures at the grave of Bishop Bruno of Würzburg (d. 1045) in 1202-03, are related in a manner open to no objection.

Concerning the miraculous occurrences at the grave of St. Peter Parenzo at Orvieto (d. 1199) -- an exhaustive list cannot be attempted here; we quote but a few examples -- of St. Bertrand of Aquilcia (d. 1350), of St. Helena of Udina (1458), of St. James Philippi of Faenza (1483), of St. Hypolistus of Atripalda (1637-46), of St. Juventius in Casa Dei (at Rouen, 1667-74), we have documentary accounts (Acta SS., May, V, 98-9; June, I, 791 sqq.; April, III, 255; May, VI, 166 sqq.; 1 May, appendix, VII, 528; June, I, 45 sqq.). In addition to these records we possess an imposing array of reports of eyewitnesses in every century, lucid Acts of martyrs, relations like that of the monk Cuthbert on the death of the Venerable Bede (735), of Willebald of Mainz on the life of Boniface the Great, the history of the holy virgin Oda (d. 1158) at Gutehoffnung near Bingen, the life of Cardinal Nicholas Albergati of Bologna (d. 1443). Whoever gives fair consideration to all these facts must come to a double conclusion:

But the historian ought likewise to remember that (leaving the stigmata, an essentially Christian manifestation, out of the question) all these phenomena were also known to antiquity. Ancient Greece exhibits stone monuments and inscriptions which bear witness to cures and apparitions in the ancient mythology. History tells of Aristeas of Proconnesus, Hermotimus of Clazomenæ, Epimenides of Crete, that they were ascetics and thereby became ecstatic, even to the degree of the soul leaving the body, remaining far removed from it, and being able to appear in other places. Nor is it essential that medieval mysticism be something different from the ancient hieromania; in both cases the presumption is the same as regards the faculties of the soul.

History, therefore, knows of miracles, and the nature of the historical miracle itself leads us to the distinction between history and legend. If the authentic reports are held to be trustworthy, and within the bounds of physical and psychical experience, and the unauthentic reports repel us owing to their fantastic embellishments, then we will be justified in claiming that the surplus of these latter narratives over the authentic reports is untrue, and is legend in the modem sense of the word. The establishment of this distinction is, therefore, entirely a matter of historical method. But, since mistrust of the historical work may lead to the suspicion that the estimation of the value of the sources has been influenced by the subject matter of the miracle, the proof must be carried a step farther, and the origin of the superfluous matter demonstrated. hence arises as our next task, to indicate;

Manifold as the varieties of legends now seem to be, there are fundamentally not so very many different notions utilized. The legend considers the saint as a kind of lord of the elements, who commands the water, rain, fire, mountain, and rock; he changes, enlarges, or diminishes objects; flies through the air; delivers from dungeon and gallows; takes part in battles, and even in martyrdom is invulnerable; animals, the wildest and the most timid, serve him (e.g. the stories of the bear as a beast of burden; the ring in the fish; the frogs becoming silent, etc.); his birth is glorified by a miracle; a voice, or letters, from Heaven proclaim his identity; bells ring of themselves; the heavenly ones enter into personal intercourse with him (betrothal of Mary); he speaks with the dead and beholds heaven, hell, and purgatory; forces the Devil to release people from compacts; he is victorious over dragons; etc. Of all this the authentic Christian narratives know nothing. But whence then does this world of fantastic concepts arise? A glance at the pre-Christian religious narratives will dispel every doubt. All these stories are anticipated by the Greek chroniclers, writers of myths, collectors of strange tales, neo-Platonism, and neo-Pythagorism. One need only refer to the Hellados periegesis of Pausanias, or glance through the codices collected by Photius in his "Bibliotheca", to recognize what great importance was attached to the reports of miracles in antiquity by both the educated and uneducated. The legend makes its appearance wherever the common people endeavoured to form theological concepts, and in its main features it is everywhere the same. Like the myth (the explanatory fable of nature) and the doctrinal fable, it has its independent religious and hortatory importance. The legend claims to show the auxiliary power of the supernatural, and thus indicate to the people a "saviour" in every need. The worshipper of divinity, the hero-worshipper, is assured of the supernatural protection to which he has established a claim. With the old mythologies and genealogies of gods, of which they serve after a certain fashion as corroborative evidence, these tales may be regarded as the theology of the people. The guiding thoughts are in every case taken from life; they deal with the fulfilment of the simple wishes and expectations likely to arise in the minds of men whose lives were spent in contest with the forces and laws of nature.

Hellenism had already recognized this characteristic of the religious fable, and would thus have been obliged to free itself from it in the course of time, had not the competition with Christianity forced the champions of the ancient polytheism to seek again in the ancient fables incidents to set against the miraculous power of Christ. ln this way popular illusions found their way from Hellenism to Christianity, whose struggles in the first three centuries certainly produced an abundance of heroes. The genuine Acts of the martyrs (cf., for example, R. Knopf, "Ausgewählte Märtyreracten", Tübingen, 1901; Ruinart, "Aeta Martyrum sincera", Paris, 1689, no longer sufficient for scientific research) have in them no popular miracles. After the persecutions, however, when, with the lapse of time, there was no longer any standard by which to measure the unexampled heroism of the martyrs, it became easy to transfer to the Christian martyrs the conceptions which the ancients held concerning their heroes. This transference was promoted by the numerous cases in which Christian saints became the successors of local deities, and Christian worship supplanted the ancient local worship. This explains the great number of similarities between gods and saints. For the often maintained metamorphosis of gods into saints no proof is to be found. The earliest Catholics of whom legends are told are therefore the martyrs. And from them the conceptions are then transferred to the confessors, as, after the days of persecution, the scene of the contest for salvation was changed from the rack and the amphitheatre to the human soul.

But how was the transference of legends to Christianity consummated? The fact that the Talmud also uses the same ideas, with variations, proves that the guiding thoughts of men during the period of the first spread of Christianity ran in general on parallel lines. There is no doubt, therefore, that these Christian legends are to be traced to a common oral tradition, which was unconsciously transferred from one subject of a legend to another. For the hypothesis of this literary transference, no proofs can be given. If St. Augustine (De cura pro mortuis gerenda, xii) and also St. Gregory the Great (Dialogues, IV, xxxvi) relate of a man, who died by an error of the Angel of Death and was again restored to life, the same story which is already given by Lucian in his "Philopseudes", such an example at once shows that the literary style was not the model, but that the oral relation was. Augustine and Gregory received the story of the occurrence from those who claimed to have seen it. To such an extent had certain imaginary conceptions become the common property of the people that they repeated themselves as auto-suggestions and dreams. There are ideas of so pronounced a peculiarity that they can be invented only once, and their successive reappearances in new surroundings must, therefore, be due to oral transmission. Such is the characteristic tale of the impostor, who concealed the money he owed in a hollow stick, gave this stick to the creditor to hold, and then swore that he had given back the money; this tale is found in Conon the Grammarian (at Rome in Cæsar's time), in the Haggada of the Talmud (Nedarim, 25a), and in the Christian legends of the thirteenth century in Vincent of Beauvais. The leading ideas of the legends were transferred individually, and appeared later in literary form in the most varied combinations. Not till the sixth century may the literary type of martyr be considered as perfected, and we are subsequently able to verify the literary associations of ideas. This Catholic type had indeed had models in the distant past. The pre-Christian religious narrative had already worked up the old motives into romances, and, starting from this example, there arose in Gnostic circles after the second century the apocryphal accounts of the lives of the Apostles, indicating dogmatic prepossessions. The Church combatted these stories, but the opposition of centuries -- the Decree of Gelasius in 496 is well-known -- was unable to prevent the genuine narratives from becoming infected, and the ideals of the common people from obtaining preponderance over historical facts. The place of origin and of dissemination of these mere legends was the East. With the termination of the sixth century the taste for them was transplanted to the West also owing to the active intercourse between Syria and Gaul. Even Gregory of Tours (d. 594) was acquainted with the apocryphal lives of the Apostles. At the beginning of the seventh century we already find related in Gaul (in the "Passio Tergeminorum" of Warnahar of Langres), as an incident in the local history of Langres, a story of martyrdom originating in Cappadocia.

The seventh century sees the literary form of legend domiciled in the West. Bede's "Martyrology" and Aldhelm of Malmesbury (d. 709) indicate a wide knowledge of this foreign literature. Ireland and England eagerly follow in the new direction. In the western part of the continent the taste changes according to the times. Rough times require more abundant consolations; thus the legends of the "saviour" make their appearance in the Merovingian seventh century up to the middle of the eighth; others in the time of the perils from the Northmen, of the religious wars, and the Crusades, and especially towards the end of the Middle Ages with its social calamities. During the millenarian tenth century, the era of the Cluniacs and mysticism make the biographies of the saints subjective. The twelfth century brings with the new religious orders the contemplative legends of Mary. The thirteenth sees the development of the cities and the citizens, hand in hand with which goes the popularization of the legend by means of collections compiled for the purposes of sermons, vit sanctorum, exempla, or merely to give entertainment (Vincent of Beauvais, Cæsarius of Heisterbach, James of Vitry, Thomas of Chantimpré, "Legenda Aurea"); in this century also arise the legends of Mary and, in connexion with the new feast of Corpus Christi (1264), a strong interest in tales of miracles relating to the Host. Indeed it was in the very nature of the case that the new legend should appear otherwise than the old. Transubstantiation is something specifically Christian. Still, we find only variations of the old concepts of transformation and apparitions, as in the innumerable stories which now circulated of visible incarnation of the Divine Child or of the Crucified One, or of the monstrance being suspended in the air. But the continuity of the concepts is quite evident in the case of the legend of Mary. If Mary considers herself as betrothed to the priest who serves her, the meaning of this is not far to seek; but nevertheless Callimachus (third century b.c.) had also treated this idea in a legend of Artemis, and Antoninus Liberalis and the Talmud have variations of it. And if, in this legend of Mary, the Blessed Virgin put a ring on the hand of her betrothed under quite characteristic circumstances, that is nothing else than the Roman local legend of the betrothal of Venus, as it has been preserved by William of Malmesbury and the "Deutsche Kaiserchronik" of the twelfth century.

Therefore:

From this it follows that we have a right to identify the pre-and post-Christian popular religious tales; the legend is not Christian, only Christianized. But where then lie its ultimate sources? In many cases it has obviously the same origin as the myth, when it refers the incomprehensible to religious heroes. Antiquity traced back sources, whose natural elements it did not understand, to the heroes; such was also the case with many legends of the saints, although others should rather be regarded as outgrowths of the genuine history of the saints. Etymology also has often led to the promotion of legends; thus, Christopher becomes the actual Christ-carrier. Again, there must be taken into consideration the inexhaustible imagination of the common people; merely because the people expected help, or punishment, in certain situations, the fulfilment of such expectations was soon related. And, finally, general axioms of experience (as in Pantschatantra) or, in the case of the Talmud and Christianity, merely sentences and figures of speech from the holy Scripture are clothed in the garb of narrative.

DELEHAYE, Les légendes hagiographiques (Brussels, 1905), tr. CRAWFORD, Legends of the Saints (London and New York, 1908); GÜNTER, Legenden-Studien (Cologne, 1906); IDEM, Die christl. Legende des Abendlandes (Heidelberg, 1910).

HEINRICH GÜNTER.

Leghorn

(LIBURNENSIS.)

Suffragan of Pisa. Leghorn (Italian Livorno), in Tuscany, is the capital of the smallest of the provinces of Italy. The city is situated on marshy ground, and is in consequence intersected by many canals, hence it has been called "Little Venice". A larger canal puts it in communication with Pisa. It has two ports, the old, or Medici, port, and the new port constructed in 1854. In former times Leghorn was the most important port in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany; even now it is outranked only by Genoa and Naples.

Among its numerous teaching establishments are a naval academy, and an observatory erected in 1881. The public library is important, and the prehistoric museum contains many Etruscan and Roman antiquities. The town likewise possesses a gallery of paintings, and its archives have an historical interest. Among the more important industries are shipbuilding, ironworks, and trade in alabaster and coral. The cathedral dates from the sixteenth century; there are also churches belonging to the Greek, the Maronite, and the Armenian Rites. The Synagogue (1603) is second only to that at Amsterdam. The royal palace was erected by Cosimo I. Of note also are the Torre del Marzocco, now used as a signal station, and the Torre della Meloria, near which, in 1241, the Pisans surprised and defeated the Genoese fleet on its way to Rome with the French bishops who were going to the council summoned against Frederick II.

Among the ancients Leghorn was known as Portus Liburni, and was of small importance until the sixteenth century. It belonged to the Pisans, and was captured from them by the Genoese. In 1421 the Florentines bought it for 100,000 florins, and thus Leghorn came to be the main outlet for Florentine commerce, to the detriment of Pisa, which from that time began to wane. The Medici family took great interest in the prosperity of this stronghold; Alessandro de' Medici built the old fortress; Cosmo I, under the supervision of Vasari, built a breakwater and a new canal. But the real author of its greatness was Ferdinand I, who called Leghorn "his mistress". To increase its population he showered his favours on it and on those who went to live there, and made it a town of refuge for men from every nation, so that there flocked to it not only outlaws from all over Italy, but even Greeks, Jews, and Moors driven out of Spain. Exiled English Catholics found a home there. Cosmo II erected a monument to Ferdinand, the work of Giovanni dell' Opera. Owing to the bombardment (by the English in 1651, and by the French in 1671) of the Dutch fleet stationed in the harbour, Ferdinand II caused Leghorn to be declared a neutral port by international treaty (1691). This neutrality was violated for the first time in 1796 by Bonaparte, whose idea of a "Continental blockade" did immense damage to the commerce of the town. In 1848 Leghorn was the hotbed of the Tuscan revolution.

The episcopal see was created by Pius VII in 1806. Its first bishop was Filippo Canucci. The diocese has 32 parishes with 170,000 souls. The number of religious houses for men is 9, and for women, 12. It has 3 educational institutions for boys, and 7 for girls.

REPETTI, Dizionario Geografico ecc. della Toscana (Florence, 1835); TARGIONI-TOZZETTI AND BORSI, Liburni civitas (Leghorn, 1906).

U. BENIGNI

Legio

Titular see of Palestina Secunda, suffragan of Scythopolis. It figures for the first time in a Latin episcopal notitia, dating probably from the eleventh century, where it is given under the name of Legionum, between the Bishoprics of Diocæsarea and Capitolias (Tobler and Molinier, "Itinera Hierosolymitana", I, Geneva, 1880, 343). If, however, we consult the Greek "Notitiæ Episcopatuum", of which the Latin is only a translation, we find in that place, not Legio, but Maximianopolis (" Byzant. Zeitschr.", I, Leipzig, 1892, 253, 256). The See of Legio is, therefore, identical with Maximianopolis; in the Middle Ages both cities were identified, being near neighbours, though really distinct places in the same see. Legio is now Ledjun, well known in the Bible and in history under the name of Mageddo.

S. VAILHÉ

Oliver Legipont

Benedictine, bibliographer, born at Soiron, Limburg, 2 Dec., 1698; died at Trier, 16 Jan., 1758. Having received his early education from the Franciscans at Verviers he proceeded for higher studies to Cologne, where he entered the abbey of Great St. Martin, received the priesthood on 22 May, 1723, and the degree of Licentiate in 1728, His life was practically a succession of journeys to the numerous libraries, which he was commissioned to examine and put in order. Though zealous in the sacred ministry, he had little opportunity of exercising it; nor did he devote much time to teaching, though he was instrumental in promoting the higher studies in his order by the erection of a Benedictine college in the University of Heidelberg. Most of his writings remain unedited, but among the printed works his edition of Magnoald Ziegelbauer's "Historia rei litterariæ ord. Sti. Benedicti" (1754-), "Monasticum Moguntiacum" (Prague, 1746), "Dissertationes philologico-bibliographicæ" (Nuremberg, 1747), "Itinerarium peregrinationis nobilis" (Augsburg, 1751; the same also in Spanish, Valencia, 1759) have lasting value.

Allg. Deutsch. Biog., XVIII. 123.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN

Legists

Teachers of civil or Roman law, who, besides expounding sources, explaining terms, elucidating texts, summarizing the contents of chapters, etc., illustrated by cases, real or imaginary, the numerous questions and distinctions arising out of the "Corpus Juris" enactments of the ancient Roman code. From the twelfth century, when a fresh impulse was given to legal researches, the terms legist and decretist -- the latter applied, in the narrower sense, to the interpreter of ecclesiastical law and commentator on the canonical texts -- have been carefully distinguished.

P.J. MACAULEY

Legitimation

(Lat. legitimatio).

The canonical term for the act by which the irregularity contracted by being born out of lawful wedlock is removed (see IRREGULARITY). Legitimation cousequently presupposes illegitimacy. It is to be noted that all children born of marriage are presumed in canon law to be legitimate. This holds, not only for valid marriages, but also for such as are commonly reputed to be valid, though really invalid, provided such marriages were entered into, by at least one of the parties, in good faith. A marriage of this latter kind is called a putative marriage. If both parties to such marriage were in bad faith, the children would be held legitimate in the external forum, as this bad faith would not be manifest. In case both contractors were in good faith, the children would be legitimate, even if the marriage were afterwards declared to be null. Presumption of legitimacy is always in favour of the children born of a person in wedlock, unless evident proof be given that physical reasons make the paternity of the husband impossible, such as absence, impotence, etc.; and even a sworn confession of wrongdoing on the part of either reputed parent will not otherwise affect the legitimacy of the children. Infants born before the usual time of gestation or after it, as, for example, at the beginning of the seventh month after the marriage ceremony, or at the completion of the tenth month after the death of the husband, are held to be legitimate. When marriage is entered into by two parties who suspect there is an impediment but make no inquiry into the truth, and it afterwards be made plain that such obstacle to validity did exist, their offspring is illegitimate, because affected ignorance is equivalent to knowledge. If, however, the doubt arise after the consummation of the marriage, children conceived before a sentence of invalidity is rendered have the standing of legitimate children.

Illegitimate offspring are designated by various names in canon law, according to the circumstances attending their procreation: they are called natural (naturales) children, if born of unmarried persons between whom there could have been a legitimate marriage at the time either of the conception or the birth of their offspring; if born of a prostitute, illegitimate children are called manzeres; if of a woman who is neither a prostitute nor a concubine, they are designated bastardi; those who are sprung from parents, who either at the time of conception or of birth could not have entered into matrimony, are termed spurii; if, however, valid marriage would be impossible both at the time of the conception and of the birth of the children, the latter are said to be born ex damnnato coitu; when one parent is married, the illegitimate children are called nothi; if both are wedded, adulterini; if the parents were related by collateral consanguinity or affinity, incestuosi; if related in the direct line of ascent or descent, nefarii. Illegitimate natural children are legitimated by a valid or putative marriage subsequently contracted between their parents, even if that marriage be not consummated. Hence such a marriage could be contracted even by a dying person. But this privilege is extended only to those between whose parents a legitimate marriage would be possible either at the time of birth or conception, or, at least, at some intermediate time, not to those whose parents, during that whole period, would be bound by a diriment impediment. The legitimation of children does not depend on the will of their parents, and takes place even when the latter are unwilling, or even when the marriage has been celebrated after other marriages contracted during the interim. This legitimation extends to natural children who are already dead and consequently to their living descendants. An infant thus legitimated is held equal to legitimate children in all respects as to sacred orders and as to ecclesiastical dignities, except the cardinalate. This last exception was made by Sixtus V (3 Dec., 1586). It is not required that mention of such legitimation be made either in public documents or nuptial banns. Such legitimation is termed plenior in canon law to distinguish it from the plena legitimation which is granted by papal rescript, and from the plenissima which follows on the radical validation of a marriage (sanatio in radice). Illegitimate children who are not naturales cannot be legitimated by a subsequent marriage of their parents. This privilege may however be granted them by dispensation from the pope.

The sovereign pontiff has the power of legitimating all children born out of wedlock and thus making them capable of hereditary succession, and of receiving sacred orders, honours, dignities, and ecclesiastical benefices. A legitimation by a civil law does not remove the canonical irregularity, as laymen have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. By common canon law, it is forbidden to ordain illegitimate persons, unless they be lawfully dispensed or be professed in a religious order. In the latter case, however, they are not capable of receiving prelacies, unless a special rescript be conceded. For major orders, dignities, and canonries in a cathedral church, the pope alone can dispense; the power of the bishop extends only to minor orders and simple benefices. If an episcopal see be vacant, the cathedral chapter has the same power as the bishop. Legitimation for Sacred orders carries with it the dispensation to obtain a benefice, but not that for minor orders, unless it be expressly stated. A son born lawfully to one who afterwards receives Sacred orders cannot immediately succeed to the paternal benefice; if unlawfully begotten, he may not succeed at all. A father, however, may succeed his lawful son in a benefice without any dispensation, because there is then no question of hereditary succession. Canon law and the Roman civil law are not in accord in the matter of legitimation, as the latter restricts the privilege to children born of concubinage, whose parents afterwards married. The church law, as we have seen, extends to all illegitimate children the benefit of possible legitimation. The laws of England and those of many states of the American Union do not recognize legitimation of children as following upon a subsequent marriage.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, s. v. Filius and Lcgitimatio (Rome, 1886); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church, s. v. Illegitimate Children (London, 1906); AICHNER, Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris ecciesiastici (Freiburg, 1903).

W. FANNING

Charles Le Gobien

French Jesuit and founder of the famous collection of "Lettres édifiantes et curieuses", one of the most important sources of information for the history of Catholic missions, b. at St­Malo, Brittany, 25 November, 1671; d. at Paris, 5 March, 1708. He entered the Society of Jesus on 25 November, 1671. As professor of philosophy and especially while procurator of the FrancO-Chinese mission, he sought in a series of admirable papers to awaken the interest of the cultivated classes in the great work of Christianizaing Eastern Asia. In 1697 appeared at Paris his "Lettres sur les progréz de la religion à la Chine". Apropos of the violent literary feud then in progress concerning the so-called "Chinese Rites", he published among other things "Histoire de l'édit de l'empereur de la Chine en faveur de la religion chrétienne avec un éclaircissement sur les honneurs que les Chinois rendent à Confucius et aux morts" (Paris, 1698); and in the year 1700: "Lettre à un Docteur de la Faculté de Paris sur les propositions déférées en Sorbonne par M. Prioux". Under the same date there appeared in Paris the "Histoire des Isles Mariannes nouvellement converties à la religion chrétienne". The second part, translated into Spanish by J. Delgado, is found in the latter's "Historia General de Filipinas" (Manila, 1892). In 1702 Père Le Gobien published "Lettres de quelques missionnaires de la Compagnie de Jésus, écrites de la Chine et des Indes Orientales"; this was the beginning of the collection soon to become celebrated under the title of "Lettres édifiantes et curieuses écrites des missions étrangéres par quelques missionnaires de la Compagnie de Jésus". The first eight series were by Pére le Gobien, the latter ones by Fathers Du Halde, Patouillet, Geoffroy, and Maréchal. The collection was printed in thirty-six vols. duodecimo (Paris, 1703-76), and reissued in 1780-81 by Fathers Yves, de Querbeux, and Brotier in twenty-six vols. duodecimo, unfortunately omitting the valuable prefaces. New editions appeared in 1819, 1829-32, and 1838-43. One abridgment in four vols. octavo, was entitled "Panthéon Littéraire", by L. Aimé Martin (1834- 43). A partial English translation came out in London in 1714. The publication incited the Austrian Jesuit Stöcklein to undertake his "Neuer Welt Bott" (about 1720), at first considered merely a translation, but soon an independent and particularly valuable collection (five vols., folio in forty parts) substantially completing the "Lettres Edifiantes" (see Kath. Missionen, 1904-05).

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la Comp. de Jésus, s. v. Gobien; de Guilhermy, Ménologe de la Comp. de Jésus, I (Paris, 1892), 324; Nouv. biogr. gén., XXX (Paris, 1883), 403; Feller, Dict. hist., IV, 82.

A. Huonder

Louis Legrand

French theologian and noted doctor of the Sorbonne, b. in Burgundy at Lusigny-sur-Ouche, 12 June, 1711, d. at Issy (Paris), 21 July, 1780. After studying philosophy and theology at St. Sulpice, Paris, he taught philosophy at Clermont, 1733-1736, resumed his studies at Paris, where he entered the Society of St. Sulpice in 1739 and obtained the licentiate in 1740, professed theology at Cambrai, 1740-1743, was superior of the seminary of Autun, 1743-1745, and having been recalled to Paris received the doctorate in theology from the Sorbonne in 1746. Henceforth he remained at the seminary of St. Sulpice in various employments. Appointed director of studies in 1767 he exercised in this capacity a great influence over the brightest young ecclesiastics of France, who were preparing to take their degrees at the Sorbonne. As a doctor of the Sorbonne he was called upon to take a prominent part in framing the' decisions and censures of the theological faculty; in that time of intense opposition to Christian dogma no question of importance was decided by the Sorbonne, it is said, without consulting M. Legrand. It was he who wrote the condemnation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Emile", which has been accounted a remarkable analysis and refutation of that celebrated work, "learned, exact, well thought out, deep, and singularly clear" (reprinted in Migne's "Theologiæ Cursus Completus", II, col. 1111-1248). Unfortunately, Legrand's condemnation is forgotten or little read, while the genius of Rousseau has made "Emile" immortal. Legrand also drafted the censures of Marmontel's "BÈlisaire" and Père Berruver' s "Histoire du Peuple de Dieu", which, like the censure of "Emile", were regarded by divines as model expositions of theological knowledge and clear thinking. He helped to avert a censure from Buffon's "Epoques de la Nature", in consideration of the author's retraction. Legrand's moderation and kindliness gained the esteem and good will of both Buffon and Marmontel. Nearly all the writings of Legrand, most of which, however, are his only in part, have had the honour of being selected by Migne in his "Theologiæ Cursus Completus". The most important are: "Prælectiones Theologicæ de Deo ac divinis attributis", a work by La Fosse based on TournÈly's treatise, re-edited by Legrand who added about 400 pages of additional matter. It is still considered sidered a very solid and valuable treatise; reprinted in Migne. VII. "Tractatus de Incarnation0 Verbi Divini" (in Migne, IX), also based on TournÈly; a work of high value. Parts of his "Tractatus de Ecciesia" have been reproduced by Migne in his "Scripturæ Sacræ Cursus Completus", IV. Legrand left a posthumouis treatise, "De Existentia Dei" (Paris, 1812), which, though unfinished, is considered "equally remarkable for the depth of its doctrine and the clearness of its arguments".

BERTAND, Histoire littÈraire de la Compagnie de St-Sulpice, I (Paris, 1900). gives the complete list of Legrand's writings; MONTAIGNE, Notice prefixed to the above mentioned treatise De Existentia Dei (Paris, 1812).

JOHN F. FENLON

Ven. Louise de Marillac Le Gras

Foundress of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, born at Paris, 12 August, 1591, daughter of Louis de Marillac, Lord of Ferri res, and Marguerite Le Camus; died there, 15 March, 1660. Her mother having died soon after the birth of Louise, the education of the latter devolved upon her father, a man of blameless life. In her earlier years she was confided to the care of her aunt, a religious at Poissy. Afterwards she studied under a preceptress, devoting much time to the cultivation of the arts. Her father's serious disposition was reflected in the daughter's taste for philosophy and kindred subjects. When about sixteen years old, Louise developed a strong desire to enter the Capuchinesses (Daughter of the Passion). Her spiritual director dissuaded her, however, and her father having died, it became necessary to decide her vocation. Interpreting her director's advice, she accepted the hand of Antoine Le Gras, a young secretary under Maria de' Medici. A son was born of this marriage on 13 October, 1613, and to his education Mlle Le Gras devoted herself during the years of his childhood. Of works of charity she never wearied. In 1619 she became acquainted with St. Francis de Sales, who was then in Paris, and Mgr. Le Campus, Bishop of Belley, became her spiritual adviser. Troubled by the thought that she had rejected a call to the religious state, she vowed in 1623 not remarry should her husband die before her.

M. Le Gras died on 21 December, 1625, after a long illness. In the meantime his wife had made the acquaintance of a priest known as M. Vincent (St. Vincent de Paul), who had been appointed superior of the Visitation Monastery by St. Francis of Sales. She placed herself under his direction, probably early in 1625. His influence led her to associate herself with his work among the poor of Paris, and especially in the extension of the Confrérie de la Charité, an association which he had founded for the relief of the sick poor. It was this labour which decided her life's work, the founding of the Sisters of Charity. The history of the evolution of this institute, which Mlle Le Gras plays so prominent a part, has been given elsewhere (see Charity, Sister of); it suffices here to say that, with formal ecclesiastical and state recognition, Mlle Le Gras' life-work received its assurance of success. Her death occurred in 1660, a few month before the death of St. Vincent, with whose labours she had been so closely united. The process of her beatification has been inaugurated at Rome.

JOSEPH S. CLASS

Arthur-Marie Le Hir

Biblical scholar and Orientalist; b. at Morlaix (Finisterre), in the Diocese of Quimper, France, 5 Dec., 1811; d. at Paris, 13 Jan., 1868. Entering the seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, in 1833, he joincd the Sulpicians after ordination, and was appointed professor of theology. He was then made professor of Sacred Scripture and also of Hebrew, to which branches he had been thoroughly formed by Gamier, a scholar, says Renan, "who had a very solid knowledge of languages and the most complete knowledge of exegesis of any Catholic in France" (Souvenirs d'enfance et de jeunesse, 269). Le Hir continued in this teaching till his death, about thirty years later, and through his own work and that of his pupil, Renan, he influenced powerfully the revival of Biblical and Oriental studies in France. Renan regarded him as the best Hebrew and Syriac scholar of France in his generation, and one, moreover, who was thoroughly versed in Biblical science, including the current German works thereon, whose theories he exposed and strongly combatted. Some lay to his uncompromising attitude the defection of Renan, which was so harmful to religion in France. He was as eminent in sanctity and modesty as in science, and no doubt this contributed to the extraordinary impression he left upon his intimates, which his writings (partly because they are chiefly posthumous) fail to produce. Most students of his books would hesitate about accepting Renan's judgment, that he "was certainly the most remarkable man in the French clergy of our day" (op. cit., 273). Le Hir published only a few articles, which, along with others, were collected, after his death, in the two volumes entitled "Etudes Bibliques", Paris, 1869. This work shows him at his best, in the range and solidity of his acquirements, and in the breadth of his views. His other writings, all posthumous, and not left by him ready for the press, are studies in the translation and exegesis of certain Biblical works: "Le Livre de Job" (Paris, 1873); "Les Psaumes" (Paris, 1876); "Les trois Grands Prophètes Isaie JÈrÈmie, EzÈchiel" (Paris, 1876); "Le Cantique des Cantiques" (Paris, 1888).

BERTRAND, Bibliothèque Sulpicienne, II (Paris, 1900), with a lengthy description of Le Hir's writings and references to articles concerning him cf. IDEM in VIG., Dict. de la Bible s. v.; RENAN, Souvenirs d'en d enfance et de jeunesse (Paris, 1883)221, 269, 274, 288; IDEM in Journal Asiatique, XIJ (Paris, 1568), 19; JULES SIMON Quatre Portraits (Paris, 1896), containing the reminscences --evidently mistaken-- of a pretended judgment of Renan upon Le Hir, totally at variance with that given in the Souvenirs and Journal Asiatique.

JOHN F. FENLON

Abbey of Lehnin

Founded in 1180 by Otto II, Margrave of Brandenburg, for Cistercian monks. Situated about eight miles to the south-east of Brandenburg, its church was a fine example of Romanesque architecture. It is not of great importance in history save for the famous "Vaticinium Lehninense", supposed to have been written in the thirteenth or fourteenth century by a monk named Hermann. Manuscripts of the prophecy, which was first printed in 1722. exist in Berlin, Dresden, Breslau, and Göttingen. It begins by lamenting the end of the Ascanian line of the margraves of Brandenburg, with the death of Henry the Younger in 1319, and gives a faithful portraiture of several of the margraves till it comes to deal with Frederick William I. Here the writer leaves the region of safety and ceases to make any portraiture of the people about whom he is prophesying. Frederick III, who became first King of Prussia in 1701, he makes suffer a terrible loss, and he sends Frederick William II to end his days in a monastery. He makes Frederick the Great die at sea, and ends the House of Hohenzollern with Frederick William III. A Catholic ruler, who re-establishes Lehnin as a monastery (it had been secularized at the Reformation), is also made to restore the union of the Empire. The work is anti-Prussian, but the real author cannot be discovered. The first to unmask the fraud was Pastor Weiss, who proved in his "Vaticinium Germanicum" (Berlin, 1746) that the pseudo-prophecy was really written between 1688 and 1700. Even after the detection of its true character, attempts were made to use it in anti-Prussian polemics. Its last appearance was in 1848.

ZÖCKLER in Realencyk. für prot. Theol., s.v. Lehninsche Weissagung; KAMPERS, Lehninsche Weissagung über das Haus Hohenzollern (Ratisbon, 1897).

R. URBAN BUTLER

The System of Leibniz

I. LIFE OF LEIBNIZ

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was born at Leipzig on 21 June (1 July), 1646. In 1661 he entered the University of Leipzig as a student of philosophy and law, and in 1666 obtained the degree of Doctor of Law at Altdorf. The following year he met the diplomat Baron von Boineburg, at whose suggestion he entered the diplomatic service of the Elector of Mainz. The years 1672 to 1676 he spent as diplomatic representative of Mainz at the Court of Louis XIV. During this time he paid a visit to London and made the acquaintance of the most learned English mathematicians, scientists, and theologians of the day. While at Paris he became acquainted with prominent representatives of Catholicism, and began to interest himself in the questions which were in dispute between Catholics and Protestants. In 1676 he accepted the position of librarian, archivist, and court councillor to the Duke of Brunswick. The remaining years of his life were spent at Hanover, with the exception of a brief interval in which he journeyed to Rome and to Vienna for the purpose of examining documents relating to the history of the House of Brunswick. He died at Hanover on 14 Nov., 1716.

As a mathematician Leibniz claims with Newton the distinction of having invented (in 1675) differential calculus. As a scientist he appreciated and encharged the use of observation and experiment: "I prefer," he said, "a Leeuwenhoek who tells me what he sees to a Cartesian who tells me what he thinks." As a historian he emphasized the importance of the study of documents and archives. As a philologist he laid stress on the value of the comparative study of languages, and made some contributions to the history of German. As a philosopher he is undoubtedly the foremost German thinker of the eighteenth century, Kant being generally reckoned among nineteenth-century philosophers. Finally, as a student of statecraft he realized the importance of freedom of conscience and made persistent, well-meant, though unsuccessful efforts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants.

II. LEIBNIZ AND CATHOLICISM

When Leibniz became librarian and archivist of the House of Brunswick in 1676, the Duke of Brunswick was Johann Friedrich, a recent convert to Catholicism. Almost immediately Leibniz began to exert himself in the cause of reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants. At Paris he had come to know many prominent Jesuits and Oratorians, and now he began his celebrated correspondence with Bossuet. With the sanction of the duke and the approval, not only of the vicar Apostolic, but of Innocent XI, the project to find a basis of agreement between Protestants and Catholics in Hanover was inaugurated. Leibniz soon took the place of Molanus, president of the Hanoverian Consistory, as the representative of the Protestant claims. He tried to reconcile the Catholic principle of authority with the Protestant principle of free enquiry. He favoured a species of syncretic Christianity first proposed at the University of Helmstadt, which adopted for its creed an eclectic formula made up of the dogmas supposed to have been held by the primitive Church. Finally he drew up a statement of Catholic doctrine, entitled "Systema Theologicum", which he tells us met the approval not only of Bishop Spinola of Wiener-Neustadt, who conducted, so to speak, the case for the Catholics, but also of "the Pope, the Cardinals, the General of the Jesuits, the Master of the Sacred Palace and others." The negotiations were continued even after the death of Duke Johann Friedrich in 1679. Leibniz, it should be understood, was actuated as much by patriotic motives as he was by religious considerations. He saw clearly that one of the greatest sources of weakness in the German States was the lack of religious unity and the absence of the spirit of toleration. Indeed, the role he played was that of a diplomat rather than that of a theologian. However, his correspondence with Bossuet and Pelisson and his acquaintance with many prominent Catholics produced a real change in his attitude towards the Church, and, although he adopted for his own creed a kind of eclectic rationalistic Christianity, he ceased in 1696 to frequent Protestant services. The causes of the failure of his negotiations have been variously summed up by different historians. One thing seems clear: Louis XIV, who, through Bossuet, professed his approval of Leibniz's project, had very potent political reasons for placing obstacles in the way of Leibniz's irenic efforts. Leibniz, it should be added, met with little success in his other plan of conciliation, namely, his scheme for the union of Protestants among themselves.

III. LEIBNIZ AND LEARNED SOCIETIES

In 1700 Leibniz, through the munificence of his royal pupil Princess Sophie Charlotte, wife of Frederick the First of Prussia, founded the Society (afterwards called the Academy) of Sciences of Berlin, and was appointed its first president. In 1711, and again in 1712 and 1716 he was accorded an interview with Peter the Great, and suggested the formation of a similar society at St. Petersburg. In 1689, during his visit to Rome, he was elected a member of the pontifical Accademia Fisico-Mattematica .

IV. LEIBNIZ'S WORKS

Since the discovery in 1903 of fifteen thousand letters and unedited fragments of Leibniz's works at Hanover, the learned world has come to realize the full force of a saying of Leibniz himself: "He who knows me by my published works alone does not know me at all" (Qui me non nisi editis novit, non novit). The works published during his lifetime or immediately after his death are, for the most part, treatises on particular portions of his philosophy. None of them gives an adequate account of his system in its entirety. The most important are

• "Disputatio metaphysica de principio individui,"
• "La monadologie ","Essais de théodicée", and
• "Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain," a reply, chapter by chapter, to Locke's "Essay".

Of Leibniz's treatises on religious topics the most important are:

• "Dialogus de religione rustici", a fragment, dated Paris, 1673, and treating of predestination;
• "Dialogue effectif sur la liberté de l'homme, et sur l'origine du mal," dated 1695, and treating of the same topic;
• "Letters" to Arnauld and others on transubstantiation,
• Letters, tracts, opuscula, etc., of an irenic character, e. g. "Variae definitiones ecclesiae" "De persona Christi", "Appendix, de resurrectione corporum", "De cultu sanctorum", letters to Pelisson, Bossuet, Mme de Brinon, etc.
• contributions to mystical theology, e.g. "Von der wahren Theologia Mystica", "Dialogues" on the psychology of mysticism.

V. LEIBNIZ'S PHILOSOPHY

As a philosopher Leibniz exhibited that many-sidedness which characterized his mental activity in general. His sympathies were broad, his convictions were eclectic, and his aim was not so much that of the synthetic thinker who would found a new system of philosophy, as that of a philosophic diplomatist who would reconcile all existing systems by demonstrating their essential harmony. Consequently, his starting-point is very different from that of Descartes. Descartes believed that his first duty was to doubt all the conclusions of all his predecessors; Leibniz was of the opinion that his duty was to show how near all his predecessors had come to the truth. Descartes was convinced, or at least assumed the conviction, that all the philosophers who went before him were in error, because they appeared to be involved in inextricable contradictions- Leibniz was equally well convinced that all the great systems agree fundamentally, and that their unanimity on essentials is a fair indication that they are in the right. Leibniz therefore resolved, not to isolate himself from the philosophical, scientific, and literary efforts of his predecessors and contemporaries, but, on the contrary, to utilize everything that the human mind had up to his time achieved, to discover agreement where discord and contradiction semed to reign, and thus to establish a permanent peace among contending schools. Even thinkers so widely separated as Plato and Democritus, Aristotle and Descartes, the Scholastics and modern physicists, hold certain doctrines in common, and Leibniz makes it the business of his philosophy to single out those doctrines, explain the manifold bearings of each, remove apparent contradictions, and so accomplish a diplomatic triumph where others had like Descartes, but made confusion worse confounded. The philosophy, to which Leibniz thus ascribed irenics as one of its chief aims, is a partial idealism. Its principal tenets are:

• The doctrine of monads,
• pre-established harmony,
• the law of continuity, and
• optimism.

(1) The Doctrine of Monads

Like Descartes and Spinoza, Leibniz attaches great importance to the notion of substance. But, while they define substance as independent existence, he defines substance in terms of independent action. The notion of substance as essentially inert (see OCCASIONALISM) is fundamentally erroneous. Substance is essentially active: to be is to act. Now, since the independence of substance is an independence in regard to action, not in regard to existence, there is no reason for maintaining, as Descartes and Spinoza maintained, that substance is one. Substance is, indeed, essentially individual, because it is a centre of independent action but it is no less essentially manifold, since actions are many and varied. The independent, manifold centres of activity are called monads. The monad has been compared to the atom, and is, indeed, like it in many respects. Like the atom, it is simple (devoid of parts), indivisible, and indestructible. However, the indivisibility of the atom is not absolute but only relative to our power of analysing it chemically, while the indivisibility of the monad is absolute, the monad being a metaphysical point, a centre of force, incapable of being analysed or separated in any way. Again, according to the Atomists, all atoms are alike: according to Leibniz no two monads can be exactly alike. Finally, the most important difference between the atom and the monad is this: the atom is material, and performs only material functions; the monad is immaterial and, in so far as it represents other monads, functions in an immaterial manner. The monads therefore, of which all substances are composed, and which are, in reality, the only substances existing, are more like souls than bodies. Indeed, Leibniz does not hesitate to call them souls and to draw the obvious inference that all nature is animated (panpsychism).

The immateriality of the monad consists in its power of representation. Each monad is a microcosm, or universe in miniature. It is, rather, a mirror of the entire universe, because it is in relation with all other monads, and to that extent reflects them all, so that an all-seeing eye looking at one monad could see reflected in it all the rest of creation. Of course, this representation is different in different kinds of monads. The uncreated monad, God, mirrors all things clearly and adequately. The created monad which is the human soul-the "queen-monad"-represents consciously but not with perfect clearness. And, according as we descend the scale from man to the lowest mineral substance, the region of clear representation diminishes and the region of obscure representation increases. The extent of clear representation in the monad is an index of its immateriality. Every monad, except the uncreated monad, is, therefore partly material and partly immaterial. The material element in the monad corresponds to the passivity of materia prima, and the immaterial element to the activity of the forma substantialis. Thus, Leibniz imagined, the Scholastic doctrine of matter and form is reconciled with modern science. At the same time, he imagined, the doctrine of monads embodies what is true in the atomism of Democritus and does not exclude what is true in Plato's immaterialism.

The universe, therefore, as Leibniz represented it, is made up of an infinite number of indivisible monads which rise in a scale of ascending immaterialism from the lowest particle of mineral dust up to the highest created intellect. The lowest monad has only a most imperfect glimmering of immateriality, and the highest has still some remnant of materiality attached to it. In this way the doctrine of monads strives to reconcile materiaiism and idealism by teaching that everything created is partly material and partly immaterial. For matter is not separated from spirit by an abrupt difference, such as Descartes imagined to exist between body and mind. Neither are the functions of the immaterial generically different from the functions of material substance. The mineral, which attracts and is attracted, has an incipient or inchoate power of perception; the plant, which in so many different ways adapts itself to its environment, is in a sense aware of its surroundings, though not conscious of them. The animal by its power of sensation rises by imperceptible steps above the mentality of the Plant and between the highest or most "intelligent" anii mals and the lowest savages there is no very violent break in the continuity of the development of mental power. All this Leibniz maintains without any thought, apparently, of genetic dependence of man on animal, animal on plant, or plant on mineral. He has no theory of descent or ascent. He merely records the absence of "breaks" in the plan of continuity, as it presents itself to his mind. He is not concerned with the problem of origins, but rather with the Cartesian problem of the alleged antithesis between mind and matter. How to bridge the imaginary chasm between mind which thinks, and matter which is extended, was the problem to which all the philosophers of the eighteenth century addressed themselves. Spinoza merged mind and matter in the one infinite substance; the materialists merged mind in matter; the immaterialists merged matter in mind; Hume denied the terms of the problem, when he reasoned away both matter and mind and left only appearances. Leibniz, diplomat and peacemaker, toned matter up and toned mind down until they gave forth what he considered unison. Or, if we are to go back to the original figure of speech, he spanned the chasm by his definition of substance as action. Representation is action; representation is a function of so-called material things as well as of those which are generally called immaterial. Representation, rising from the most rudimentary "little perception" (petite perception) in the mineral up to "apperception" in the human soul, is the bond of substantial continuity, the bridge that joins together the two kinds of substances, matter and mind which Descartes so inconsiderately separated. There is no doubt that Leibniz was conscious of this aim of his philosophy. His opposition to "immoderate Cartesianism" was openly acknowledged in his philosophical treatises as well as in his lectures. He looked upon Spinoza's conclusions as being the logical outcome of Descartes's erroneous definition of substance. "Spinoza", he wrote, "simply said out loud what Descartes was thinking, but did not dare to express". But while he had in view the refutation of extreme Cartesianism, he must have intended also by means of his doctrine of monads to stem the current of materialism which had set in in England and was soon to sweep before it in France many of the ideas which he cherished.

(2) The Doctrine of Pre-established Harmony

"Every present state of a simple substance is a natural consequence of its preceding state, in such a way that its present is always the cause of its future" ("Monadologie," thesis xxii). "The soul follows its own laws, and the body has its laws. They are fitted to each other in virtue of the pre-established harmony among all substances, since they are all representations of one and the same universe" (op. cit., thesis lxxviii) . From Descartes's doctrine that matter is essentially inert, Malebranche (q. v.) had drawn the conclusion that material substances cannot be true causes, but only occasions of the effects produced by God (Occasionalism). Leibniz wished to avoid this conclusion. At the same time, he had reduced all the activity of the monad to immanent activity. That is he had defined substance as action, and explained that the essential action of substance is representation He saw clearly, then, that there can be no interaction among monads. The monad, he said, has "no windows" through which the activity of other monads can enter it. The only recourse left him is to maintain that each monad unfolds its own activity, pursues, as it were, its career of representation independently of other monads. This would make each monad a monarch. If, however, there were no control of the activities of the monad, the world would be a chaos, not the cosmos that it is. We must, therefore, conceive that God at the beginning of creation so arranged things that the changes in one monad correspond perfectly to those in the other monads which belong to its system. In the case of the soul and body, for instance, neither has a real influence on the other: but, just as two clocks may be so perfectly constructed and so accurately adjusted that, though independent of each other, they keep exactly the same time, so it is arranged that the monads of the body put forth their activity in such a way that to each physical activity of the monads of the body there corresponds a psychical activity of the monad of the soul. This is the famous doctrine of pre-established harmony. "According to this system", says Leibniz, "bodies act as if (to suppose the impossible) there were no souls at all, and souls act as if there were no bodies, and yet both body and soul act as if the one were influencing the other" (op. cit., thesis lxxxii). Thus the monad is not really a monarch, but a subject of God's Kingdom, which is the universe, "the true city of God".

If we take this doctrine literally, and deny all influence of one monad on another, we are forced at once to ask: How, then, is it possible for the monad to represent, if it is not acted upon? Leibniz's answer would be that he denied to the monad all communication from without, he affirmed that the monad has no windows on the outside, but he did not deny that in the heart of the monad is a door that opens on the Infinite and from that side it is in communication with all other monads. Here Leibniz passes over the problem from metaphysics to mysticism. If harmony is unity in diversity, the unity in the pre-established harmony is not so much a unity of source, as a unity of final destiny. All things "co-operate" in the universe not only because God is the Source from whom they all spring, but still more so because God is the End towards which they are all tending, and the Perfection which they are all striving to attain.

(3) Law of Continuity

From the description of the monads given above, it is clear that all kinds and conditions of created things shade off by gradual differences, the lower appearing to be merely an inferior degree of the higher. There are no "breaks" in the continuity of nature, no "gaps" between mineral plant, animal, and man. The counter-view is the law of indiscernibles. There can be no meaningless duplication in nature. No two monads can be exactly alike. No two objects, no two events can be entirely similar, for, if they were, they would not, Leibniz thinks, be two but one. The application of these principles led Leibniz to adopt the view that, while every thing differs from every other thing, there are no true opposites. Rest, for instance, may be considered as infinitely minute motion; the fluid is a solid with a lower degree of solidity, animals are men with infinitely small reason, and so forth The application to the theory of the differential calculus is obvious.

(4) Optimism

In the center of the vast harmonious system of monads which we call the universe is God, the original, infinite monad. His power, His wisdom, His goodness are infinite. When, therefore, He created the system of monads, He created them as good as they could possibly be, and established among them the best possible kind of harmony. The world, therefore, is the best possible world, and the supreme law of finite being is the lex melioris. The Will of God must realize what His understanding recognizes as more perfect. Leibniz represents the possible monads as present for all eternity in the mind of God -- in them was the impulse towards actualization -- and the more perfect the possible monad the more strongly did it possess this impulse. There went on, therefore, so to speak, a competition before the throne of God, in which the best monads conquered, and, as God could not but see that they were the best, He could not but will their realization. Behind the lex melioris is therefore, a more fundamental law, the law of sufficient reason, which is that "things or events are real when there is a sufficient reason for their existence." This is a fundamental law of thought, as well as a primary law of being.

The four doctrines here outlined may be said to sum up Leibniz's metaphysical teaching. They find their principal application in his psychology and his theodicy.

(5) Psychology

In the "Nouveaux Essais," which were written in refutation of Locke's "Essay", Leibniz develops his doctrines regarding the human soul and the origin and nature of knowledge. The power of representation, which is common to all monads, makes its first appearance in souls as perception. Perception, when it reaches the level of consciousness, becomes apperception. The Cartesians "have fallen into a serious error in that they treat as non-existent those perceptions of which we are not conscious." Perception is found in all monads; in those monads which we call souls there is apperception, but there is a large subconscious region of souls in which there are perceptions. Perceptions are the source of apperceptions. They are the source also of volitions, because impulse, or appetite, is nothing but the tendency of one perception towards another. From perception, therefore, which is found in everything, up to intelligence and volition, which are peculiar to man there are imperceptibly small grades of differentiation.

Whence, then, come our ideas? The question is already answered in Leibniz's general principles. Since intelligence is only a differentiation of that immanent action which all monads possess, our ideas must be the result of the self-activity of the monad called the human soul. The soul has "no doors or windows" towards the side facing the external world. No ideas can come from that direction. All our ideas are innate. The Aristotelian maxim, "there is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses," must be amended by the addition of the phrase, "except the intellect itself". The intellect is the source as well as the subject of all our ideas. These ideas, however subjective their origin, have objective value, because, by virtue of the harmony pre-established from the beginning of the universe, the evolution of the psychic monad from virtual to actual knowledge is paralleled by the evolution in the outside world of the physical monad from virtual to actual activity.

Leibniz has no difficulty in establishing the immateriality of the soul. All monads are immaterial or rather, partly immaterial and partly material. The human soul is no exception- its "immateriality" is not absolute, but only relative, in the sense that in it the region of clear representation is so much greater than the region of obscure representation that the latter is practically a negligible quantity. Similarly, the immortality of the human soul is not absolutely speaking, a unique privilege. All monads are immortal. Each monad being an independent self-active, source of action, neither dependent on other monads nor influenced by them, it can continue acting without interference forever. The human soul is peculiar in this, that its consciousness (apperception) enables it to realize this independence, and therefore the soul's consciousness of its immortality is what makes human immortality to be different from every other immortality.

(6) Theodicy

The work entitled "Théodicée", a treatise on natural theology, was intended as a refutation of the Encyclopeedist, Bayle, who had tried to show that reason and faith are incompatible. In it Leibniz takes up:

• the existence of God
• the problem of evil, and
• the question of optimism.

Existence of God

Leibniz, true to his eclectic temperament, admits the validity of all the various arguments for the existence of God. He adduces the argument from the contingency of finite being, recasts the ontological argument used by Descartes (see GOD), and adds the argument from the nature of the necessity of our ideas. The third of these arguments is really Platonic in its origin. Its validity depends on the fact that our ideas are necessary, not merely in a hypothetical, but in an absolute and categorical sense, and on the further contention that a necessity of that kind cannot be explained unless we grant that an absolutely necessary Being exists.

(b) Problem of Evil

This problem is discussed at length in the "Théodicée" and in many of Leibniz's letters. The law of continuity requires that there be no abrupt differences among monads. God, therefore, although He wished to create the best possible world, and did, in fact, create the best world that was in se possible, could not create monads which were all perfect, each in its own kind. He was under no necessity of His own Nature, but He was obliged, as it were, by the terms of the problem, to lead up to perfection by passing through various degrees of imperfection. Leibniz distinguishes metaphysical evil, which is mere finiteness, or imperfection in general, physical evil, which is suffering, and moral evil, which is sin. God permits these to exist, since the nature of the universe demands variety and gradation, but He reduces them to the minimum, and makes them to serve a higher purpose, the beauty and harmony of creation as a whole. Leibniz faces resolutely the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the goodness and omnipotence of God. He reminds us that we see only a part of God's creation, that part, namely, which is nearest to ourselves, and, for that reason, makes the largest demand on our sympathy. We should learn he says, to look beyond our own immediate environment, to observe the larger and more perfect world above us. Where our sympathies are involved, we should not allow the prevalence of evil to overpower our feelings, but should exercise our faith and our love of God, where we can view God's works more impersonally, we should realize that evil and imperfection are always and everywhere made to serve the purpose of harmony, symmetry, and beauty.

(c) Optimism

Leibniz is, therefore, an optimist, both because he maintains as a general metaphysical principle that the world which exists is the best possible world, and because in his discussion of the problem of evil he tries to trace out principles that will "justify the ways of God to man" in a manner compatible with God's goodness. It had become the fashion among materialists and freethinkers to draw an over-gloomy picture of the universe as a place of pain, suffering, and sin, and to ask triumphantly: "How can a good God, if He is omnipotent, permit such a state of things?" Leibniz's answer, though not entirely original, is correct. Evil should be considered in relation not to the parts of reality, but to reality as a whole. Many evils are "in other respects" good. And, when, in the final resort, we cannot see a definite rational solution of a perplexing problem, we should fall back on faith, which, especially in regard to the problem of evil, aids reason.

(7) Leibniz's Ethics

We have seen that, although the monad is by definition independent, and, therefore, a monarch in its own realm, vet, by virtue of preestablished harmony the multitude of monads which make up the universe are organized into a kingdom of spirits, of which God is the Supreme Ruler, a city of God, governed by Divine Providence, or, more correctly still, a family, of which God is the Father. Now, there is "a harmony between the physical realm of nature and the moral realm of grace" (" Monadologie ", thesis lxxxviii); monads making progress along natural lines towards perfection are progressing at the same time along moral lines towards happiness. The essential perfection of a monad is, of course, perfect distinctness of representation. The more the human soul progresses in distinctness of ideas, the more insight it obtains into the connection of all things and the harmony of the whole universe. From this realization springs the impulse to love others, that is to seek the happiness of others as well as one's own. The road to happiness is, therefore through an increase of theoretical insight into tie universe and through an increase in love which naturally follows an increase of knowledge. The moral man, while he thus promotes his own happiness by seeking the happiness of others, fulfils at the same time the Will of God. Goodness and piety are, therefore, identical.

VII. INFLUENCE OF LEIBNIZ

Through his controversy with Clarke concerning the nature of space and the existence of atoms, and also on account of the rivalry between himself and Newton in respect to the discovery of the calculus, Leibniz came to be well known to the learned world in England at the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth. His residence in Paris brought him into contact with the great men of the court of Louis XIV, as well as with almost all the writers of that age who were distinguished either in the world of science or in that of theology. It was, however, in his own country that he became best known as a philosopher. The multiplicity of his interests and the variety of the tasks he set himself to accomplish were unfavourable to the systematic development of his philosophical doctrines. It was due to the efforts of his follower Christian Wolff (1679-1754), who reduced his teachings to more compact form, that he exerted the influence which he did on the movement known as the German Illumination. In point of fact, until Kant began the public exposition of his critical philosophy, Leibniz was the dominant mind in the world of philosophy in Germany. And his influence was, on the whole, salutary. It is true that his philosophy is unreal. His fundamental conception, that of substance, is more worthy of a poet and a mystic than of a philosopher and a scientist -- nevertheless, like Plato, he is to be judged by the loftiness of his speculations, not by his lack of scientific precision. He did his share in stemming the tide of materialism, and helped to preserve spiritual and aesthetic ideals until such time as they could be treated constructively, as they were by the greatest thinkers in the nineteenth century.

WILLIAM TURNER

Ven. Richard Leigh

English martyr, born in Cambridgeshire about 1561; died at Tyburn, 30 August, 1588. Ordained priest at Rome in February, 1586-7, he came on the mission the same year, was arrested in London, and banished. Returning he was committed to the Tower in June 1588, and was condemned at the Old Bailey for being a priest. With him suffered four laymen and a lady, all of whom have been declared "Venerable". Edward Shelley of Warminghurst, Sussex, and East Smithfield, London (son of Edward Shelley, of Warminghurst, a Master of the Household of the sovereign, and the settlor in "Shelley's case", and Joan, daughter of Paul Eden, of Penshurst, Kent), aged 50 or 60, who was already in the Clink for his religion in April, 1584 was condemned for keeping a book called "My Lord Leicester's Commonwealth" and for having assisted the Venerable William Dean (q. v.). He was apparently uncle by marriage to Benjamin Norton, afterwards one of the seven vicars of Dr. Richard Smith. Richard Martin, of Shropshire, was condemned for being in the company of the Ven. Robert Morton and paying sixpence for his supper. Richard Lloyd, better known as Flower (alias Fludd, alias Graye), a native of the Diocese of Bangor (Wales), aged about 21, younger brother of Father Owen Lloyd was condemned for entertaining a priest named William Horner, alias Forrest. John Roche (alias Neele), an Irish serving-man, and Margaret Ward, gentlewoman of Cheshire, were condemned for having assisted a priest named William Watson to escape from Bridewell.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Leipzig

Chief town in the Kingdom of Saxony, situated at the junction of the Pleisse, Parthe, and Weisse Elster. In 1905 it contained 503,672 inhabitants, of whom 22,864 were Catholics; the population to-day numbers about 545,000. The meaning of the word Leipzig, which is probably of Slavonic origin, is still uncertain. The latest investigations have proved beyond doubt that the region about Leipzig was originally occupied by the Teutons. With the migration of the nations, the Slavs settled there, but in the ninth century, the Germans succeeded in re-establishing themselves. In 922 King Henry I conquered the Daleminzians, and laid out the fortified town of Meissen. Other strongholds were subsequently founded in the vicinity. The first mention of Leipzig is to be found in the chronicle of Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (1990-18). Another German colony grew up beside this stronghold, to which Margrave Otto of Meissen gave a charter (about 1160), the so-called Stadtbrief of Leipzig. According to this charter Leipzig was given the Magdeburg code of laws, and at the same time an important plan of extension was decided upon.

The expansion of the German people was followed everywhere by the growth of Christianity. Leipzig belonged to the Diocese of Merseburg. The oldest church was Peterskapelle, the larger Nikoläikirche was built later. Of this, parts are still extant in the present church of that name. The Thomaskloster, the first monastery, was founded in the reign of Margrave Dietrich (1197-1221); both the Nikoläiskirche and the Peterskapelle were made subordinate to this monastery, which was governed by the Augustinian Canons. By purchase and through foundations the monastery, whose prior was freely elected by the friars, gradually became possessed of considerable real estate and valuable tithes. A school, the oldest in Saxony, was soon founded in connexion with the monastery. Three other convents were founded in the town after the Thomaskloster; first that of the Cistercian Sisters mentioned between 1220 and 1230, which found a great benefactor in Margrave Heinrich (1230-88); then the monastery of the Dominican fathers, founded about 1229 and consecrated in 1240 in the presence of the Archbishop of Magdeburg and the bishops of Merseburg, Naumburg, and Meissen; and lastly the monastery of the Franciscans, which existed at least as early as 1253. Including these four convent churches, Leipzig thus possessed six churches in the Middle Ages; to these were added the Katharinenkapelle (1240), the Marienkapelle (about 1262), and the chapels belonging to the townhall and the castle (fifteenth century). The oldest hospital in the town was that founded together and in connexion with the Thomaskloster in 1213; its management was transferred from the convent to the town in 1439. St John's hospital, erected at the end of the thirteenth century, was originaly devoted to the care of lepers.

From the latter part of the twelfth century Leipzig was looked upon as the most important military station between the Saale and the Mulde. The Messen or annual fairs added greatly to the prosperity of the town; at first they were held in the Spring (Jubilatemesse) and Autumn (Michaelismesse), but after 1458 they were also held at Christmas or the New Year. In 1419 Leipzig obtained from Pope Martin V privileges on account of her fair, and received in 1515 a papal market privilege. The fame and importance of the city was greatly increased by still another event, namely the foundation of the university in 1449 by the students and professors who had seceded from Prague on account of the tyrannical actions of the Czech-Hussite faction. The foundation was confirmed by Pope Alexander V in 1409. Towards the latter part of the Middle Agest the state of the Church had changed for the worse. The convents were becoming more worldly; in 1445 the Bishop of Merseburg found it necessary to attempt a reform of the Thomaskloster, but met with no success. The remedial measures tried by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in 1451 brought about no permanent improvement. The preaching activity of St. John Capistran in 1455 was more successful, at least among members of his own order (the Franciscans), but the Cistercian Sisters in Leipzig did everything in their power to impede a reform. Later on there was a division in both the Dominican and Franciscan orders, which led to mutual opposition, some contending for a more rigorous and some for a laxer interpretation of the rule. The relations between the town council and the townspeople on the one side and the clerics, more particularly the regulars, on the other, became strained in the fifteenth century. The situation was further aggravated by the quarrel between the secular clergy and the monasteries. Small wonder, therefore, that Luther's reform movement soon found adherents in Leipzig.

Another connexion which the city had with the new movement was that Tetzel was a citizen, and also that Luther's Theses of 1517 were printed there. The celebrated Disputation between Luther and Karlstadt on one side and Eck on the other also took place in Leipzig; this was held under the most brilliant auspices, and lasted from 27 June until 15 July, 1519. Although both sides claimed the victory, Luther's adherents increased so greatly that neither the Bishop of Meissen nor the university dared announce in Leipzig before 1521 the Bull of excommunication against Luther, which Eck had brought from Rome. Among the many scholars of the town who energetically opposed the new movement by word and writing, particular mention must be made of the Dominican Petrus Sylvius, Professor Dungersheim of the university, the Franciscan Augustin Alfeld, Hieronymus Emser, and later Cochlæus. The Reformation made no headway in Saxony and Leipzig as long as Duke George lived; he even commanded four hundred adherents of the new teaching to leave the town in 1552, and forbade the people of Leipzig to attend the University of Wittenberg. After his death in 1539 the Reformation was introduced, and in 1543 all the convents were suppressed, their lands sold, the buildings mostly torn down, and Catholic public worship abolished. Besides the Disputation, there is another important event of the Reformation period connected with the town of Leipzig: the so-called Leipzig Interim (see Interims).

In connexion with the political history of the town there are many events which deserve special mention. The town suffered greatly during the Thirty Years War. In 1631 Tilly appeared before it with his army and captured it, but was defeated at Breitenfeld by Gustavus Adolphus on 17 September. Leipzig was besieged seven times and was captured six; from 1642 until 1560 it was in the possession of the Swedes; in 1706 it had to pay heavy tribute to Charles XII. Even more oppressive were the burdens of war imposed on the town by the Prussians during the Second Silesian War in 1745 and during the Seven Years War. In consequence its trade and industries were ruined for years. In the Napoleonic Wars Leipzig was occupied by the French Marshal Davoust in 1806 after the Battle of Jena and Auerstädt; in 1809 it was pillaged by the Duke of Brunswick; and it was only after the battle of Leipzig (16-18 October, 1813) that the town was freed from heavy taxation and oppression. Half a million men fought in this mammoth battle, by which Germany was liberated from Napoleon's yoke. After Saxony's accession to the German Customs' Union in the year 1834, the town received a new impetus. While in 1834 it only numbered 45,000 inhabitants, it had 107,000 in 1871, 149,000 in 1880, 455,000 in 1900, and at the present time (1910) has 545,000.

After the Reformation was accomplished, Catholicism became wholly extinct; at least there is no mention of any Catholic parish until about 1710. Only during the time of the fair Franciscans came from Halberstadt to Leipzig to say Mass. No mention is made of where the services were held. In 1710 the Catholics received permission to celebrate Mass openly, and Elector Frederick Augustus I, who became a Catholic in order to be King of Poland, gave up the chapel of the Pleissenburg to them, where on 3 June, 1710, Mass was again said. The parish was in charge of the Jesuits, at first two fathers, but after 1743 there were three. As chaplains of the elector, or king, they received from the court in Dresden their salaries and rent allowance. The Catholic school also found a place in the Pleissenburg. When in 1738 the chapel became too small for the faithful, the elector gave funds to replace it by a larger one. The fathers did not confine their activity to Leipzig alone, but extended it as far as Merseburg, Chemnitz, Naumburg, Wittenburg, etc.; and from 1749 they were also entrusted with the spiritual care of the prisoners. After the suppression of the Society of Jesus, the fathers remained as secular priests. The priests, who subsequently laboured in Leipzig, came for the most part from Austria, particularly Bohemia. When in the nineteenth century, the chapel of the Pleissenburg became dilapidated, and had to be given up, the town council placed the Matthäikirche at certain hours at the disposal of the Catholics. The necessary means for the building of a new church had been partly collected by the zealous efforts of the chief pastor of the Saxon Catholics in those days, Bishop and Apostolic Vicar Franz Laurens Mauermann. In 1845 the foundation stone of the first Catholic church was laid, and in 1847 it was consecrated by the new bishop, Joseph Dittrich. As the town developed, the Catholic congregation also grew; their esteemed pastor Franz Stolle built the rectory in 1871, founded the Societies of St. Vincent and St. Elizabeth with their homes, the reading association, etc. In 1892 the corner-stone of the second Catholic church was laid in Leipzig-Reudnitz; in 1907 the Marienkirche in Leipzig-Plagwitz-Lindenau, and in 1888 a new large Catholic school was built, in addition to which chapels and schools have been established in the newly incorporated suburbs.

At the present time Leipzig has three Catholic parish churches and two chapels; a Stammschule comprising a public school and a high school; three branch schools; three institutions belonging to the Grey Sisters of St. Elizabeth, who have charge of St. Vincent's establishment (institution for the care of the sick, boarding school, and public kitchen), St. Joseph's Home (institution for the care of the sick and surgical clinic), and St. Elizabeth's Home (home for single persons and servants). Among the well-developed Catholic institutions worthy of mention are the Society of St. Vincent and also of St. Elizabeth, the Apprentices' Club, the Club for Catholic Business Men, the Association of Catholic Teachers, two students' corporations, the Workingmen's Guild, the Marienverein, the Catholic Casino, the Borromean Society, and others.

Urkundenbuch der Stadt Leipzig in Codex diplomaticus Saxoniæ regiæ, div. II, vols. VIII-X, XVI-XVIII; Wustmann, Aus Leipziger Vergangenheit (Leipzig, 1885 and 1898); Idem, Quellen zur Gesch. L.'s (2 vols., Leipzig, 1889-95); Idem, L. durch drei Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1891); Idem, Gesch. der Stadt L., I (Leipzig, 1905); Seifert, Die Reformation in L. (Leipzig, 1883); Buchwald, Reformationsgesch. der Stadt L. (1900); L. u. seine Bauten (Leipzig, 1892); Gurlitt, Beschreibende Darstellung der älteren Bau- u. Kunstdenkmäler des Königsreichs Sachsen, parts xvii, xviii (Dresden, 1896); L. im Jahre 1904 (Leipzig, 1904), for St. Louis Exhibition; Woerl, L. im Universitäts-Jubiläums-Jahr 1909 (Leipzig, 1909); Schriften des Vereins für die Gesch. L.'s, I-XIII (Leipzig, 1873-1909). For information concerning the Catholic position in Leipzig see Einst u. Jetzt. Festschrift zum fünfzigjährigen Jubiläums der Pfarrkirche SS. Trinitatis (Leipzig, 1887); Deutschmann, Handweiser für d. kathol. Pfarrbezirk L. (Leipzig, 1902); Benno-Kalendar (Dresden, 1850–).

Joseph Lins

University of Leipzig

The University of Leipzig in Saxony is, next to Heidelberg, the oldest university in the German Empire. It was established when the German students under the leadership of Johannes of Münsterberg, who had been deposed as rector by King Wenceslaus, left Prague in May, 1409, and went to Leipzig. The cause of this withdrawal was national disorders provoked in Bohemia by John Hus. At Leipzig Friedrich and Wilhelm, Landgraves of Thuringia and Margraves of Meissen, founded a studium generale, the Bull for the foundation being issued by Pope Alexander V at Pisa, 9 September. 1409. The charter was signed on 2 December of the same year, and the first rector was Johannes of Münsterberg. In the first semester 369 students matriculated. The Bishop of Merseburg was appointed chancellor. At the opening of the sixteenth century Leipzig was, like Cologne, a stronghold of scholasticism and a large part of the "Epistolæ virorum obscurorum", written in Erfurt near by, refers to it. The university, especially the theological faculty, remained true to the Church at the beginning of the Reformation, while Wittenberg, founded in 1502, was a starting-point for Luther's doctrine. During the period of religious dissension the University of Leipzig declined greatly. Through the efforts of its rector, Kaspar Borner, the university obtained from Duke Maurice of Saxony an annual grant of 2000 gold gulden. In 1543 it was housed in the Paulinum, a secularized Dominican monastery. In 1559 the amendment of the statutes by the rector, Joachim Camerarius, was completed. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the university suffered considerably from wars, epidemics, and the billeting of soldiers. It remained, however, especially in the eighteenth century, a centre of scholarly and literary activity, well-known representatives of which were Johann Christian Gottsched and Christian Fürchtegott Gellert.

In 1768 Prince Joseph Alexander Jablonowskÿ founded a learned society for history, mathematics, physics, and economics, which is still in existence. The Linnæan Society for the Advancement of the Natural Sciences was founded in 1789, and in 1824 was united with the Society for Physical Research. In 1812 the university dropped its Protestant ecclesiastical character; and in 1830 received a new constitution. A decree of King Anthony of Saxony abolished the old division of professors and students into "nations" and entrusted the administration of the university to the rector and the four faculties. By a ministerial decree of 1851, the body of the ordinary professors form the university assembly; they elect the rector and a member of the Lower House of the Saxon Diet, and have the bestowal of the benefices belonging to the university. Besides this assembly there is a smaller body, the senate, composed of the rector, the pro-rector, the four deans, and twelve representatives elected by the faculties. In 1836 a new university building named the Augusteum, in honour of Frederick Augustus, first King of Saxony, was opened; in 1871 an auditorium called the Bornerianum, in honour of the rector Kaspar Borner, was added to the Augusteum. In the summer of 1897 there was opened a new building, erected from the plans of Arved Rossbach, on the site of the original university. From old and new donations the university has a large endowment in land and funds, over which the Saxon Government has the right of supervision and administration. In 1909 its property amounted to thirty-one million marks. The basis of the university library consists of the valuable collections taken from the suppressed Saxon monasteries; it contains about 600,000 volumes and 6500 manuscripts. At the instance of the rector of that period, Dukes Maurice and Augustus of Saxony founded, 22 April, 1544, a refectory (mensa communis) for needy students, where meals could be obtained either without cost, or at moderate prices. At the present day from two to three hundred students share in this privilege.

Among the distinguished scholars may be mentioned: in the evangelical theological faculty, Tischendorf, Luthardt, and the ecclesiastical historian, Hauck; in the faculty of law, von Wächter, and Windscheid; the Germanic scholar Wilhelm Albrecht, and his pupil von Gerber, later Minister of Worship and Education in Saxony; the historians of German jurisprudence, Stobbe and Sohm, and the authorities on criminal law, Binding and Wach. More than one fifth of all the law students of Germany in the years 1875-85 took a part of their course at Leipzig. At the Present date the law faculty of Leipzig ranks third in Germany, after Berlin and Munich. In the medical faculty, Benno Schmidt, Trendelenburg, and Kölliker have especially aided in the advancement of surgery; in anatomy, Bock and His; in pathoogical anatomy, Birch-Hirschfeld and Marchand; physics and physiology, Ludwig; in the philosophical faculty, Weber, the founder of psychophysics Volkelt, writer on æsthetics; the philosopher Gustav Theodore Fechner, and Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of the widely known institute for experimental psychology. Pedagogics developed at Leipzig into an independent science, and, when a pedagogical seminary was founded by Ziller in 1861, the study acquired a still greater importance. In the ‘ department of classical philology should be mentioned the names of Hermann, Ritschl, Ribbeck, and the archæologist Overbeek; in Germanic philology, Haupt and Zarncke; in comparative philology, Brugmann; in the languages of Eastern Asia, Conradi; in the science of history, Mommsen and Lamprecht, who of late years has been known far beyond the circle of specialists in his department. In political economy, Roscher was the founder of the historical school; also Bucher, who is well known for his investigations into the relations of the State to trade and manufacture, and applied statistics. The matriculated students at Leipzig number nearly 5000.

FRIEDBERG, Die Univ. Leipzig in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1898); Leipziger Kalender. Illustriertes Jahrbuch und Chronik (Leipzig, 1909); EULENBURG, Die Entwicklung der Universität Leipzig in den letzten hundert Jahren (Leipzig, 1909); STIEDA, Die Universität Leipzig in ihrem tausendsten Semester (Leipzig, 1909); Festschrift zur Feier des 500 jährigen Bestehens der Universität Leipzig, issued by the rector and senate: I, KERN. Die Leipziger Theologishe Fakultät in fünf Jahrhunderten; II, FRIEDBERG, Die Leipziger Juristenfakultät, ihre Doktoren und ihr Heim; III, Die Institute der medizinischen Fak ultät en der Universität Leipzig; IV, Die Institute und Seminare der philosophischen Fakultät an der Universität Leipzig; part I, Die philologische und die philosophisch-historische Sektion; part II, Die mat them atisch-naturwissenschaftliche Sektion (Leipzig, 1909); LIEBMANN, Festgabe der deutschen, Juristenzeitung zum 600 jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Leipzig (Berlin, 1909).

KARL HOEBER

Leitmeritz

(Litomericensis), in Austria, embraces the northern part of the Kingdom of Bohemia (see map accompanying Austria- Hungary).

I. HISTORY

After the introduction of Christianity under Charlemagne and Louis the German, the present Diocese of Leitmeritz formed part of the Diocese of Ratisbon. Before the end of the tenth century the Christian religion was so widespread that Emperor Otto I founded the first Bohemian diocese (Prague) in 973, which included all Bohemia. The first church in Leitmeritz, dedicated to St. Wenceslaus, was built in 925, while in 1057 Duke Spitihnew built St. Stephen's church and founded a collegiate chapter. In time numerous monasteries were built; in 1384 the city, with its suburbs, possessed thirteen churches and chapels, and, besides numerous religious, twenty secular priests engaged in the cure of souls. The Hussite Wars put an end to this flourishing ecclesiastical organization. In 1421 Ziska appeared before Leitmeritz, which was spared only on condition of accepting the Hussite religion. The collegiate church alone, despoiled of its possessions, held firm to the old rite of Communion under one kind. Hussitism was the forerunner of Protestantism, which found the ground already prepared on account of the long religious wars, the decline of learning among ecclesiastics, the lack of priests, and the insubordination of the nobles, who had become rich and powerful through the wealth and possessions of the Church. At first the nobility accepted the teaching of Luther, and in many cities the transition from Ultraquism to Lutheranism soon followed. Through the priest Gallus Cahera, a disciple of Luther, Leitmeritz was also won over to Protestantism. The Thirty Years War brought a reaction. By the victorious campaign of the emperor in Bohemia the revolutionary nobles were overthrown, the cities lost their privileges, and the people emigrated or again became Catholics. For the better administration of the large Archdiocese of Prague, the bishop of that time, Count Ernst Adalbert von Harrach, a nephew of Wallenstein, divided its territory, and created the dioceses of Königgrätz and Leitmeritz as its suffragans.

In 1655 the then provost of the collegiate chapter of Leitmeritz, Baron Max Rudolf von Schleinitz, was named first Bishop of Leitmeritz (1655-75). He built the cathedral to replace the small collegiate church, organized the diocese, and expended his whole fortune on the improvement of his see. His successor, Count Jaroslaus Franz Ignaz von Sternberg (1676-1709), finished the cathedral and erected the episcopal curia (1694-1701). The fourth bishop, Johann Adam, Count Wratislaus von Mitrowitz (1721-33), appears to have administered also the Archdiocese of Prague. In the Seven Years War, during the administration of Duke Moritz Adolf of Sachsen-Zeitz (1733-59), who built the seminary, the diocese had much to suffer from the Prussians. His successor, Count Emanuel Ernst von Waldstein (1760-89), made little opposition to the efforts of the Government to spread through the diocese the ideas of Febronius; the convents of the Jesuits, Augustinians, Servites, etc. were confiscated, many churches closed as superfluous, and all brotherhoods disbanded. In 1784 the territory of the diocese was increased by two districts. The next bishop, Ferdinand Kindermann, Ritter von Schulstein (1790- 1801), had before his appointment to the bishopric won deserved fame as a reformer and organizer of the whole educational system of Bohemia; as bishop he continued to direct education in his diocese, built the cathedral parochial school, and erected an institute for the education of girls at Leitmeritz. The eighth bishop, Wenzel Leopold Chlumchansky, Ritter von Prestawlk and Chlumchan (1802-15), a true father of the poor, built the ecclesiastical seminary in 1805. Joseph Franz Hurdalek (1815- 1823) was obliged to resign. Vincent Eduard Milde (1823-32) became Archbishop of Vienna. Augustin Bartholomäus Hille (1832-65) opened in 1851 the school for boys and a normal college. He was succeeded by Augustin Paul Wahala (1866-77), in whose time originated in Warnsdorf the sect of the Old Catholics; Anton Ludwig Frind (1879-81), the learned author of the "Ecclesiastical History of Bohemia"; and Emmanuel Johann Schöbel (1882-1909), to whom the diocese is indebted for many churches and for the introduction of popular missions; and Joseph Gross (consecrated 23 May, 1910).

II. STATISTICS

In 1909 the diocese numbered 28 vicariates, 2 provostships, 3 archdeaneries, 37 deaneries, 392 parishes, 7 Exposituren (substantially independent filial churches), 343 stations, chaplaincies, and curacies, 26 other benefices, 628 churches, 397 public chapels, 756 secular priests engaged in the cure of souls, 87 other secular priests, 140 religious priests, 1,598,900 Catholics, 33,560 Protestants, 10,400 Old Catholics, and 18,300 Jews. The Church in this diocese has much to contend with. For centuries two different races (German and Czech), and two different beliefs (Catholic and Protestant), have existed side by side, and national and religious disputes are of frequent occurrence. The Los-von-Rom movement, having its origin in Germany, sought in the Diocese of Leitmeritz, situated on the borders, a vantage ground for the propagation of its ideas, and as a result thousands of Catholics drifted away from the Church. Another difficulty is the lack of priests, over a hundred vacancies existing in the parishes. The language spoken in twenty of the vicariates is German, in six Czech, and in two is mixed. More than a third of the priests are Czech. There are 309 German parishes, 95 Czech, and the rest mixed. The cathedral chapter possesses a provost, a dean, five capitulary, and six honorary canons. The clergy are trained in the episcopal seminary and in the theological training school at Leitmeritz. The Catholic intermediate schools of the diocese are the private gymnasium of the Jesuits at Mariaschein, which is at the same time the diocesan school for boys, and five seminaries, of which two are in Reichenberg and one each at Leitmeritz, Teplitz-Schönau, and Jungbunzlau. In the public primary and secondary schools the Church has very little opportunity to impart religious instruction. For girls, however, there are several institutions for instruction and training conducted by sisters: 8 boarding schools, 10 primary schools, 2 secondary schools, and 20 advanced and industrial schools.

The following orders have foundations in the diocese (1909): Cistercians at Ossegg, 1 abbey (founded in 1293), with an extensive library and gallery of paintings; the fathers teach in the Gymnasium of Komotau; Jesuits, 1 college in Mariaschein; Piarists; Redemptorists; Dominicans; Augustinians; Reformed Franciscans; Minorites; Capuchins; Order of Malta; Crosier Fathers; Premonstratensians; the Congregation of the Sacred Heart. In 1909 the female orders and congregations in the diocese had 68 foundations, with 654 sisters, 93 novices, and 15 postulants: Congregation of St. Elizabeth, 1; Ursulines, 1; Borromeans, 23; Sisters of the Cross, 22; Poor School Sisters of Our Lady, 5; Daughters of Divine Charity, 2; Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ, 4; Franciscan Sisters, 3; Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, 5; and Sisters of Christian Charity, 1 foundation. Among the charitable institutions of the diocese under religious management are 20 orphan asylums, 7 asylums for children, 14 kindergartens, 1 reformatory, and 20 infant asylums; the diocese conducts also its own institute for the deaf and dumb at Leitmeritz. Of the many associations, the following are worthy of mention: Cäcilienverein (Association of St. Cecilia), the Apostleship of Prayer, the Marian Confraternities, the Catholic Teachers' Association, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Gesellenvereine, the Catholic People's Unions (60), and others. There are 55 shrines and places of pilgrimage in the diocese, the most pouular being Mariaschein, Böhmisch-Kamenitz, Ossegg, Philippsdorf, and Krieschitz. The principal church of the diocese is the cathedral, built in 1671 in Renaissance style. The most ancient is St. Clement's in Levy-Hradec. Among others, the beautiful churches of Melnik. Nimburg, Aussig and Saaz, the chief churches of their respective deaneries, and the town church of Brüx date from Gothic times, and the cathedral, the collegiate church of Ossegg, and the pilgrimage church of Mariaschein from the Renaissance period. The churches of Eichwald, Philippsdorf, St. Vincent in Reichenberg, the church of St. Elizabeth in Teplitz-Schönau, and others, were built in the nineteenth century.

      Bretfeld, Umriss einer kurzen Gesch. des Leitmeritzer Bistums (Vienna, 1811); Frind, Die Kirchengesch. Böhmens im allgemeinen und in ihrer besonderen Beziehung auf die jetzige Leitmeritzer Diöcese (4 vols., Prague, 1864-78); Seifert, Die Leitmeritzer Diöcese nach ihren geschichtl., kirchl. u. topograph. Beziehungen (Saaz, 1899); Endler, Das soziale Wirken der kathol. Kirche in Oesterreich, XI: Die Diöcese Leitmeritz (Vienna, 1903); Directorium divini officii et catalogus universi cleri diœcesani Litomericensis (Leitmeritz, 1910).

Joseph Lins.

Jean Lejeune

Born at Poligny in 1592; died at Limoges, 19 Aug., 1672; member of the Oratory of Jesus, founded by de Berulle in 1611. He was distinguished by the sanctity of his life, but his reputation mainly depends upon his renown as a preacher. The energy with which he conducted his apostolate, gained for him the name of "The Missionary of the Oratory" and the blindness which overtook him at the age or thirty-five, the further appellation of "The Blind Father". He was the son of a lawyer at Dole, of a family, which during the previous century had attained to a high position in the magistracy and was renowned for the piety and virtue of its members. Owing to the early loss of his father, his education devolved upon his mother who devoted herself to his spiritual advancement. Having studied theology at the University of Dole, he fell under the influence of Berulle and entered the Oratory in 1614. He was appointed director of the seminary at Langres but soon manifested his vocation to mission work among the poor, and henceforward all his effort was directed to this. His life was unmarked by any external event except the loss of sight which occurred in 1627, while he was preaching the Lenten course at Rouen, but this caused no cessation in his apostolic work. The bishops employed him in preaching the Lent and Advent courses and the Government in the conversion of Protestants. He avoided the custom of treating controversial matter in the pulpit and confined himself to the exposition of fundamental truths. It was a novel idea of his to introduce after his discourses an abridgement of Christian doctrine. He also held conferences for the instruction of the clergy in his methods and was recommended by Massillon to young ecclesiastics for their imitation. The French Oratory was suspected of Jansenism, and he was himself criticized on the ground that his preaching led to unsatisfactory results. In 1600 he appealed for advice to Arnauld, who ascribed these results to the laxity of imprudent confessors under the influence of casuistry, and dissuaded him from the design of abandoning his mission work. His sermons in twelve volumes were published at Toulouse, Paris, and Rouen before his death, and a Latin translation at Mainz in 1667. There is an edition published at Lyons in 1826, but the latest and best edition is that of Peltier in ten volumes issued in 1889. Four volumes of extracts also appeared at Avignon in 1825 under title of "Pensées du P. Lejeune".

CLOYSEAULT, Recueil des Vies de queques pretres de l'Oratoire; PERRAUD, L'Oratoire de France (Paris, 1866), RENOUX, Vie du P. Lejeune (Paris, 1875); TABARAUD, Vie du P. Lejeune (Limoges, 1830), and Life in Vol. XII of Lyons edition of sermons.

HENRY TRISTRAM

Jacques Lelong

A French bibliographer, b. at Paris, 19 April, 1665 d. there, 13 Aug., 1721. As a boy of ten, he entered the Order of the Knights of St. John of Malta, and after a very brief and unhappy sojourn in Malta, made his studies at Paris. He left the Order of the Knights and entered the Oratory in 1686. He then taught at the college of Juilly in the Diocese of Meaux, where he was ordained priest in 1689, and was later librarian at the seminary of Notre-Dame des Vertus in Aubervilliers near Paris. He was transferred in 1699 to the Oratory of St-Honore at Paris, and remained there as librarian till his death twenty-two years later. The title of the first work which brought him fame indicates its contents fairly completely: "Bibliotheca Sacra in binos Syllabos distincta quae (I) omnes sive Textus sacri sive Versionum ejusdem quavis lingua expressarum Editiones, necnon praestantiores MSS Codices cum notis historicis et criticis, (II) omnia eorum opera quovis idiomate conscripta, qui hucusque in s. Scripturam quidpiam ediderunt et grammaticas et Lexica linguarum praesertim orientalium, quae ad illustrandas Sacras paginas aliquid adjumenti conferre possunt, continet" (2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1709; Vigouroux, contradicting other authorities, says 1702; 2nd ed., 1709); edited by Boerner with additions chiefly of German works (Antwerp, 1709), folio edition by the author (Paris, 1719); edited after the author's death with many additions and corrections by Lelong and by his confrere, Desmolets, who prefixed the life from which we draw our facts (2 vols. fol. Paris, 1723). The last and best edition is by Andrew Gottlieb Masch (6 vols., 4to, Halle, 1775-83). The work is still valuable as a bibliography of the printed Bible in its various editions, and of the earty modern literature concerning them. Lelong also wrote a "Discours historique sur les principales editions des Bibles polyglottes" (Paris, 1713). His other work, which shows his variety of tastes and has proved very useful to students of French history, is entitled "Bibliothèque historique de la France, contenant le catalogue des ouvrages imprimés et manuscrits qui traitent de l'histoire ce royaume, ou qui y ont rapport, avec des notes critqiues et historiques" (Paris, 1719).

DESMOLETS, notice seems to be the only source. See also INGOLD, Essai de bibliographie oratorienne (Paris, 1880-2), 82.

JOHN F. FENLON

Louis-Joseph Le Loutre

A missionary to the Micmac Indians and Vicar-General of Acadia under the Bishop of Quebec, b. in France about 1690: d. there about 1770. He was a conspicuous figure in Nova Scotia in the middle of the eighteenth centuary, and his portrait as drawn by some writers lends colour to the charge that history is often a conspiracy against truth. Anxious to justify the memorable deportation of the Acadians in 1755, partisan annalists and chroniclers of the period represent Le Loutre as the evil genius and tyrant of the Acadians, the sworn enemy of the English, and a pastor who threatened with excommunication and with massacre by his Indians all who favoured measures of reconciliation with the English Government. Better accredited historians, however, such as Haliburton, acknowledge that this picture of the abbé is more caricature than portrait. The truth appears to be that Le Loutre was a typical French missionary of forceful character and initiative, with a natural desire, so long as the matter was in dispute, to hold the Acadians to their allegiance to France; that he showed himself more than once an excellent friend of individual Englishmen in their time of need; and that his accompanying the Micmacs on several expeditions against the English, expeditions which he had done his best to prevent, was for the sole purpose of restraining the cruelty and vengeance of his Indian flock. A letter sent in 1757 by the Bishop of Quebec to the Abbé of l'Isle-Dieu proclaims Le Loutre to have been "irreproachable in every respect, both in the functions of his sacred ministry and in the part he took in the temporal affairs of the colony". Captured by the English while on the way to France, Le Loutre was held prisoner by them for some years in the Isle of Jersey; on his release he returned to France, where a few years later he died.

HALIBURTON, History of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1862); RICHARD, Acadia (1894); BOURGEOIS, Histoire du Canada (Montreal, 1903).

ARTHUR BARRY O'NEILL

Le Mans

DIOCESE OF LE MANS (CENOMANENSIS).

Comprises the entire Department of Sarthe. Prior to the Revolution it included 636 parishes and was one of the most extensive dioceses of France; at the time of the Concordat of 1801, it lost some parishes in Vendomois and Normandy and acquired some in Anjou. The Diocese of Le Mans embraced 665 communes from then up to the year 1855, when the Department of Mayenne was detached from it to form the Diocese of Laval. The origin of the Diocese of Le Mans has given rise to very complicated discussions among scholars, based on the value of the "Gesta domni Aldrici," and of the "Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium," both compiled during the episcopate of Aldric (832-857). The "Gesta" relate that Aldric had the bodies of Saints Julianus, Turibius, Pavatius, Romanus, Liborius, and Hadoindus, first bishops of Mans, brought to his cathedral; the Acts make St. Julianus one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ and state that he arrived at Le Mans with two companions: Turibius, who became bishop under Antoninus (138-161), and Pavatius who was bishop under Maximinus (235-238) and under Aurelian (270-275), in which event, Pavatius would have lived over two hundred years. Liborius, successor of Pavatius, would have been the contemporary of Valentinian (364-375). These chronological absurdities of the Acts have led Msgr Duchesne to conclude that the first Bishop of Le Mans whose episcopate can be dated with certainty is Victurius, who attended the Councils of Angers and of Tours, in 453 and 461, and to whom Gregory of Tours alludes as "a venerable confessor." Turibius who, according to the Acts, was the successor of Julianus, was, on the contrary, successor to Victurius and occupied the see from 490 to 496.

Among the subsequent bishops of Le Mans are mentioned the following saints: Principius (497-511), Innocentius (532-43), Domnolus (560-81), Bertechramnus or Bertram (587-623), founder of the Abbey of Notre-Dame de la Couture, Hadoindus (623-54), Berecharius or Beraire (655-70), and Aldric (832-57). If we admit the theory according to which the False Decretals were compiled at Le Mans by the author of the "Actus pontificum," then Aldric must have used these false documents as a weapon against the institution of the chorepiscopi and also against the pretensions of the Breton usurper Nomenoe to the ecclesiastical province of Tours. It was Aldric who had the relics of St. Liborius conveyed to Paderborn. Other bishops were: Blessed Geoffroy de Loudun (1234-55), whom Gregory IX made papal legate for the entire Kingdom of France, and who, in 1254, consecrated the cathedral of Le Mans and founded the superb monastery of Notre-Dame du Pare d'Orques, where he was interred and where miracles were wrought at his tomb; and Martin Berruyer (1452-67), who left a memoir written in defence of Joan of Arc. From 1468 to 1519 the See of Le Mans was occupied by prelates of the House of Luxembourg, and from 1519 to 1537 by their cousin, Louis de Bourbon. Jean, Cardinal du Bellay, Dean of the Sacred College, was bishop from 1546 to 1556; and Bouvier, the theologian from 1834 to 1854.

During the episcopate of St. Berecharius (655-70) the body of St. Scholastica was brought from the monastery of Fleury to Le Mans; the monastery erected to shelter the remains of the saint was destroyed by the Northmen in the second half of the ninth century. A portion of her relics was brought in 874 by the Empress Richilda to the monastery of Juvigny les Dames. The remaining portion was conveyed to the interior of the citadel and placed in the apse of the collegiate church of St. Pierre la Cour, which served the counts of Maine as a domestic chapel. The fire that destroyed Le Mans, 3 September, 1134, also consumed the shrine of St. Scholastica, and only a few calcined bones were left. On 11 July, 1464, a confraternity was erected in honour of St. Scholastica, and on 23 November, 1876, she was officially proclaimed patroness of Le Mans. The Jesuit college of La Flèche, founded in 1603 by Henry IV, enjoyed a great reputation for a century and a half, and Marshal de Guébriant, Descartes, Father Mersenne, Prince Eugene of Savoy, and Séguier were all numbered among its students. The Dominican convent of Le Mans, begun about 1219, in fact during the lifetime of St. Dominic, was eminently prosperous, thanks to the benefactions of John of Troeren, an English lord; the theologian Nicolas Coeffeteau, who died in 1623, was one of its glories, prior to becoming Bishop of Marseilles. The Revolution swept away this convent.

The diocese honours in a special manner as saints: Peregrinus, Marcoratus, and Viventianus, martyrs; Hilary of Oizé, nephew of St. Hilary of Poitiers (in the fifth century); Bommer, Almirus, Leonard, and Ulphace, hermits; Gault, Front, and Brice, solitaries and previously monks of Micy; Fraimbault, hermit, founder of a small monastery in the valley of Gabrone; Calais, hermit and founder of the monastery of Anisole, from whom the town of Saint-Calais took its name; Laumer, successor to St. Calais; Guingalois or Guénolé, founder of the monastery of Landevenec in Brittany, whose relics are venerated at Château du Loir; all in the sixth century: Rigomer, monk at Souligné, and Ténestine, his penitent, both of whom were acquitted before Childebert, through the miracle of Palaiseau, of accusations made against them (d. about 560); Longis, solitary, and Onofletta, his penitent; Siviard, Abbot of Anisole and author of the life of St. Calais (d. 681); the Irish St. Cérota, and her mistress Osmana, daughter of a king of Ireland, died a solitary near St-Brieuc, in the seventh century; Ménélé, and Savinian (d. about 720), natives of Précigné, who repaired to Auvergne to found the Abbey of Ménat, on the ruins of the hermitage where St. Calais had formerly lived; there is also a particular devotion in Le Mans to Blessed Ralph de La Fustaye, monk (twelfth century), disciple of Blessed Robert d'Arbrissel and founder of the Abbey of St. Sulpice, in the forest of Nid de Merle in the Diocese of Rennes. The celebrated Abbot de Rance made his novitiate at the Abbey of Persaigne in the Diocese of Le Mans. Also there may be mentioned as natives of the diocese, Urbain Grandier, the celebrated curé of Loudun, burned to death for sorcery in 1634; and Mersenne, the Minim (d. 1648), philosopher and mathematician and friend of Descartes and Pascal. The cathedral of St. Julian of Mans, rebuilt towards the year 1100, exhibits specimens of all styles of architecture up to the fifteenth century, its thirteenth-century choir being one of the most remarkable in France. The church of Notre-Dame de la Couture dates from the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. The Abbey of Solesmes, founded by Geoffroy de Sablé in 993 and completed in 1095, has a thirteenth-century which is a veritable museum of sculptures of the end of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Its "Entombment of Christ," in terra cotta, is famous; the Magdalen in the group, already celebrated even in the fifteenth century for its beauty attracted the attention of Richelieu, who thought of having it brought to Paris. Several sculptures depicting scenes in the life of the Blessed Virgin form a series unique in France.

Pilgrimages to Notre-Dame de Toutes Aides at Saint-Remy du Plein, Notre-Dame de La Faigne at Pontvallain, and Notre-Dame des Bois at La Suze, date back to primitive times. The chapel of Notre Dame de Torcé, erected in the sixth century, has been much frequented by pilgrims since the eleventh century. Besides these places of pilgrimage may be mentioned those of Notre-Dame de Labit at Domfront, and of Notre-Dame du Chene at Vion, near Sablé, which can be traced to 1494. It was established in the place where in former times Urban II had preached the crusade.

Prior to the application of the Associations law of 1901 there were in the Diocese of Le Mans, Capuchins, Jesuits, and the monks of Solesmes, where, through the efforts of Dom Guéranger, a Benedictine house of the Congregation of France was founded in 1833. Several congregations of women originated in the diocese: the nuns of Notre-Dame de l'Avé at La Flèche, a teaching order, founded in 1622; the Sisters of the Visitation Sainte Marie, at Le Mans, a contemplative order founded in 1634; the Sisters of St. Joseph at La Flèche, a nursing order, founded in 1636; the Sisters of Charity of Providence, devoted to teaching and hospital work, founded in 1806 by Abbé Dujarié, the mother-house being at Ruillé-sur-Loir; the Sisters of the Child Jesus, teachers and nurses, founded in 1835, with their mother-house at Le Mans; the Marianite Sisters of the Holy Cross, founded in 1841 with their mother-house at Le Mans and important educational institutions in New York and Louisiana; the Benedictine nuns of the Congregation of France known as the Benedictines of St. Cecilia, founded at Solesmes in 1867 by Dom Guéranger and Mother Cecilia. At the close of the nineteenth century the following institutions in the diocese were under the direction of religious: 3 infants' asylums, 39 infants' schools, 1 boys' orphanage, 10 girls' orphanages, 3 industrial schools, 2 houses of shelter, 2 reformatories, 32 hospitals or hospices, 12 private hospitals and retreats, 1 asylum for idiots, 1 asylum for the blind, 1 asylum for insane women and 8 homes for the aged. In 1905 (the last year of the concordatory regime), the Diocese of Le Mans had a population of 422,699, with 38 parishes, 350 chapels of ease, and 111 curacies subventioned by the State.

Gallia christiana (nova, 1856), XIV, 338-432; instrumenta, 99-142; LOTTIN AND CAUVIN, Cartularium insignis ecclesiae cenomanencis, quod dicitur liber albus capituli (Le Mans, 1869); Gesta Aldrici, ed. CHARLES AND FROGER (Mamers, 1889); DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux, II (Paris, 1900), 309, 340; HAVET, (Euvres, I (Paris, 1900), 275-317; BUSSON AND LEDRU, Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium (Le Mans, 1901); DE BROUSILLON, Cartulaire de l'eveche -- 936-1790 (Le Mans, 1900); CHAMBOIS, Repertoire historique et biographique du diocese du Mans (Le Mans, 1896); LEDRU, La cathedrale Saint-Julien du Mans, ses eveques, son architecture, son mobilier (Mamers, 1900): LAUDE, Recherches sur les pelerinages manceaux (Le Mans, 1899); HEURTEBIZE AND TRIGER, Sainte Scholastique, patronne de la ville du Mans (Solesmes, 1897); COSNARD, Histoire du couvent des freres precheurs du Mans (Le Mans, 1879); Cartulaire des abbayes de Saint-Pierre de La Couture et de Saint-Pierre de Solesmes, published by the Benedictines of Solesmes (Le Mans, 1881); DE LA TREMBLAYE, Solesmes, les sculptures de l'eglise abbatiale, 1496-1553 (Solesmes, 1892); DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Un college de jesuites au 17 et 18 Siecles: le college Henri IV de la Fleche, 4 vols. (Le Mans, 1989); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliographie, pp. 1832-33.

GEORGES GOYAU

Lemberg

Seat of a Latin, a Uniat Ruthenian, and a Uniat Armenian archbishopric. The city is called Lwow in Polish, Leopol in latinized Polish, Löwenburg in German, Lwihohrod in Ruthenian. It was founded in 1259 by the Ruthenian King Daniel for his son Leo, Prince of Halicz, and took its name from that prince. Destroyed by the Tatars in 1261, it was rebuilt in 1270 on the same spot by Prince Leo, as is recorded by the inscription on one of its gates: "Dux Leo mihi fundamenta jecit, posteri nomen dedere Leontopolis" (Duke Leo laid my foundations, posterity gave me the name of Leontopolis). In 1340 Casimir the Great, King of Poland, took possession of it, built two new castles, attracted German colonists to it, and gave it a charter modelled on that of Magdeburg. In 1372 Louis of Hungary entrusted the administration of the city to Wladislaw, Prince of Oppeln; in 1387 it was given as dowry to the Princess Hedwig, by whose marriage with Jagellon it became a possession of the Polish Crown. Lemberg was thenceforward the recognized capital of the Russian territories dependent on Poland (i. e. Red Russia), which preserved their autonomy undiminished until 1433. The city was one of the great entrepôts of European commerce with the East, which, after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, followed for the most part the overland route. Lemberg was besieged many times -- by the Lithuanians in 1350, the Wallachians in 1498, the Turks in 1524 and 1672, and the Cossacks in 1648 and 1655. Charles XII of Sweden took and plundered it in 1704. By the first partition of Poland it was assigned to Austria in 1772; finally, in 1848, it revolted and was bombarded.

Lemberg is situated in a deep and narrow valley on the Pelter, a tributary of the Bug; the capital of the Austrian Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, it contains -- including its many and populous suburbs -- about 160,000 inhabitants, of whom 45,000 are Jews. Of the convents which, in the seventeenth century, gained for it the name of "City of Monks", some still exist. Emperor Joseph II reduced the number of its churches from seventy-two to about twenty; some of them are very noteworthy -- e. g. the Latin cathedral, built in the Gothic style in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; the Ruthenian Catholic cathedral, built in 1740-9 in the neo-Italian style; the church of the Bernardines, with the tomb of St. John of Dukla, Patron of Lemberg; the Dominican, the Jesuit, the Wallachian, and other churches. The national Ossolinski Institute possesses a library of the highest value for the study of Polish literature and local history, containing more than 100,000 volumes and 4000 manuscripts. The university, founded in 1660 by Casimir of Poland, suffered especially from the withdrawal of the Jesuits and the political changes which culminated in Galicia becoming an Austrian province. It was restored in 1784, though with curtailed privileges and a much restricted staff, by Joseph II, who desired to keep the Polish youth from going to Vilna or Warsaw. Reduced in 1807 to the rank of a lyceum, the university was once more established with some measure of its former autonomy in 1816. It now numbers about 200 professors and tutors, with 1900 students, 300 of whom attend the faculty of Catholic theology. The city also possesses a large number of educational establishments for boys and girls, besides many benevolent institutions.

LATIN ARCHBISHOPRIC

The Latin Bishopric of Halicz, in which that of Lemberg originated, appears to have been established no earlier than the year 1361. On 8 April, 1363, Urban V wrote to the Bishop of Gnesen to insist that King Casimir III of Poland should build a cathedral in the city of Lemberg, which he had recently taken from the Russian schismatics. Nevertheless, letters of Gregory XI, dated 13 February, 1375, mention only the metropolitan See of Halicz, and the Bishoprics of Przemysl, Chelm, and Vladimir, sufficient evidence that that of Lemberg was not yet established. On 3 March, 1375, the question is raised of transferring the See of Halicz to Lemberg, a transfer which was effected only in December, 1414, by John XXIII. In 1501 Bishop Andreas Rosza was given the administration of Przemysl, but was transferred in 1503 to the See of Gnesen; his successor, Bernardine Wilczek (1503-40), rebuilt the cathedral, which had been destroyed by fire. Many of the subsequent bishops were famous; such were Stanislaus Grochovski (1634-45), a writer of religious poetry, and Nicholas Poplavski (1709-11), an ecclesiastical writer. A great many synods were held here from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Upon the opening of the Estates (or Diet) of Galicia, 13 February, 1817, Archbishop Skarbel Ankvicz obtained the title of Primate of the Kingdoms of Galicia and Lodomeria, which title has been accorded since 1849 to the Ruthenian Catholic metropolitan. The Latin archdiocese has two suffragan bishoprics: Przemysl and Tarnov. It numbers 920,000 faithful, 36,000 Protestants, and 550,000 Jews. There are 249 parishes, 579 secular and 290 regular priests -- Dominicans, Franciscans, Capuchins, Jesuits, Carmelites, etc. There are also a great many religious women engaged in teaching and works of mercy. The seminary numbers 60 students.

UNIAT RUTHENIAN ARCHBISHOPRIC

After the conversion of the Ruthenians in this region to Christianity, the Bishopric of Halicz, suffragan to Kiev, was established for their benefit between 1152 and 1180. Halicz had been made a metropolitan see in 1345 by John Calecas, Patriarch of Constantinople, but in 1347 it was again placed under the jurisdiction of Kiev, at the request of the Grand Duke Simeon of Moscow. Its metropolitan rank was restored to Halicz only after the Polish occupation of the province about 1371; it had four suffragans: Kulm, Przemysl, Turof, and Vladimir. In 1414 King Ladislaus, for some unknown reason, transferred the Latin See of Halicz to Leopol, and suppressed the Ruthenian metropolitan See of Halicz. The see was subsequently administered by vicars of the Metropolitan of Kiev until 28 October, 1539, when it was restored as a simple bishopric. Macarius Tuczapsti, the titular, next year changed his residence to Lemberg and took the combined titles of Halicz and Lemberg, which his successors have borne, adding those of Kamenets and Podolia, when their jurisdiction extended so far. With the establishment of the Jesuits in this county began the reform of the extremely ignorant schismatic clergy, who gradually turned towards Rome. In 1597 the Bishop of Lemberg, the celebrated Gideon Balaban, brought his diocese back to Catholicism, but afterwards, through his ambition, he relapsed into schism, and with him nearly all his subjects. A council held at Lemberg in October, 1629, laboured in vain for the conversion of the diocese, and it was not until the end of the seventeenth century that Bishop Joseph Czumlanski embraced the cause of union, secretly at first in 1677, and then openly in 1700. After Joseph came Barlaam Czeptyski (1710-5) and Athanasius Czeptyski (1715-46), who, being promoted to the metropolitan See of Kiev, retained that of Lemberg with it. This example was followed by Leo Louis Czeptyski (1749-79), when he became metropolitan in 1762.

Under Peter Bielanski (1779-98) the Diocese of Lemberg, to which were united those of Halicz and Kamenets, fortunately became the possession of Austria, whose government took in hand the education of the clergy, who were poor and so ignorant as hardly to know their own rite.Maria Theresa had students sent to the seminary established at Vienna for the Hungarian Uniats. Joseph II turned the Dominican convent into a seminary for Ruthenians, adding to it the church and the garden, and soon the Ruthenian students had places reserved for them in the theological faculty of the city. On 22 February, 1807, Pius VII, by the Bull "In universalis ecclesiæ regimine", withdrew Lemberg from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Kiev and made it a metropolitan see, with Kulm and Przemysl as suffragans. The Diocese of Kulm was dependent on Lemberg until 1837, when it was made immediately subject to the Holy See until its suppression by Russia. In its place another suffragan diocese, that of Stanislaov, was given to Lemberg in 1856. The Emperor of Austria obtained from Rome the right to nominate the metropolitan and his suffragans, while the metropolitan was authorized to confirm their nomination and to consecrate them, as had formerly been granted to the Metropolitan of Kiev by Clement VIII. The Habsburg monarchy has seriously taken up the task of developing education among the clergy, and of putting them upon the same footing as the Latin clergy by giving them the same political rights, and lastly of teaching the Ruthenian language in schools -- a point as to which the Poles had previously cared little. Between the Poles and Ruthenians, indeed, there has always existed a certain hostility, which, during the nineteenth century, resulted in violent controversies, and eventually, in 1862, necessitated the intervention of the Holy See. In addition, the young Ruthenian clergy, with their exaggerated ideas of their rite and nationality, have accentuated their peculiarities and fostered the spirit of schism together with an excessive affection for Russia. Thus, they have shown an inclination to return to the primitive Græco-Slavic Rite, and to suppress the modifications which in former times had been -- wrongly perhaps -- introduced into the Liturgy, but which, in the minds of the people, have now become to a certain extent identified with Catholicism. Hence continual religious troubles have arisen, and indeed numerous defections. The reform of the Basilian monks inaugurated by Leo XIII has in part remedied these fatal tendencies, which, however, are still the chief danger threatening the Uniat Catholics of this archdiocese.

The Ruthenian archdiocese comprises the districts of Lemberg, Stryj, Brzezany, Zloczow, and Tarnopol, and numbers 1,400,000 faithful. There are 881 priests -- 21 religious, 25 celibate seculars, 148 widowers, and 687 married. There is a chapter of 10 canons and a diocesan consistory of 23 members. The archdiocese is divided into 30 deaconeries and 752 parishes. There are 749 churches with, and 500 without, resident priests, and 36 chapels. The seminary, which counts 248 students, is intended also for the service of the other two Galician dioceses, Przemysl and Stanislaov; 108 of these students belong to the Archdiocese of Lemberg, while the other clerics are educated at Vienna and in the Ruthenian seminary at Rome. The Basilian monks have 3 houses with 23 religious; the Basilian nuns, 2 houses with 68 religious; the Servants of the Blessed Virgin Mary (founded in 1892), 6 houses with 39 religious.

UNIAT ARMENIAN ARCHBISHOPRIC

As early as 1062 there were Armenians settled at Kiev, in consequence of the various invasions and persecutions of Tatars, Turks, and Greeks. Thence these exiles migrated to Lemberg, Kamenets, and Lutzk. The Catholic archdiocese was founded in 1365, upon the union of the titular, Gregory, with Rome; the cathedral was built two years later. From 1492 to 1516 the see remained vacant, after which it was occupied by schismatics until 24 October, 1630, when Nicholas Toroszewicz took the oath of fidelity to Urban VIII. Since then the succession of archbishops has been regular (Gams,("Series epis. Ecclesiæ cath.", 351; suppl., lxxxiii; Petit in Vacant, "Dict. de théol. cath.", I, 1916). In 1635 the Armenian Metropolitan of Lemberg obtained from Rome the two suffragan Bishoprics of Kamenets-Podolski and Mohileff, which had been taken from him when they passed under Russian domination. In 1808 his jurisdiction was restricted to the territory of Galicia and Bukovina. Even the Armenian Catholics of Transylvania, numbering 10,000, have been unable to obtain a bishop of their own rite or to become subject to the Armenian Archbishop of Lemberg, and they are obliged to submit to the authority of the Latin bishops. Until the nineteenth century the popes had the direct nomination to this archbishopric, and the kings of Poland only granted the exequatur. By a Brief of 20 September, 1819, Pius VII conceded to the new sovereign, the Emperor of Austria, the choice of an archbishop from three candidates presented by the Armenian clergy of Lemberg. The present archdiocese numbers 4000 faithful, 20 priests, 9 churches, 13 chapels, and 10 parishes. There is no seminary, the clergy being prepared in the Latin seminary. There are two houses for the education of poor orphans. Besides the Catholic, there are about 800 schismatic Armenians.

NEHER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., I., 1283; EUBEL, Hierarchia cath. medii ævi, I (Münster, 1898), 308; II, 194; GAMS, Series episcoporum Eccl. cath. (Ratisbon), 351; supplem., lxxxiii; Missiones catholicæ (Rome, 1907), 760, 790; HARASIEVICZ, Annales Ecclesiæ ruthenæ (Lemberg, 1862); MARKOVITCH, Gli Slavi ed i Papi, I (Agram), 166-73.

S. VAILHÉ

Henry Lemcke

Missionary in the United States, b. at Rhena, Mecklenburg, 27 July, 1796; d. at Carrolltown, Pennsylvania, 29 November, 1882. From a Protestant preacher he became a Catholic on 21 April, 1824, and was ordained priest by Bishop Sailer at Ratisbon on 11 April, 1826. In 1834 he came as missionary to the United States and after being stationed a short time at Holy Trinity Church, Philadelphia, he was sent as assistant to the aged and infirm Prince Gallitzin at Loretto, Pennsylvania. He took up his residence in the neighbouring town of Ebensburg, from where he attended to a portion of Father Gallitzin's district, about fifty miles in extent. In 1836 he bought some land on which two years later he laid out a town which, in honour of the first Catholic Bishop in the United States, he called Carrolltown. He succeeded the deceased Father Gallitzin as pastor of Loretto in 1840. Father Lemcke was instrumental in bringing to the United States the first Benedictines, under the leadership of Father Boniface Wimmer, the future Archabbot of St. Vincent's, in Pennsylvania. Father Lemcke himself joined the new Benedictine community in 1852. In 1855 he went as missionary to Kansas, and prepared the way for the foundation of St. Benedict's Abbey at Atchison. From 1861 to 1877 he was stationed at Elizabeth, New Jersey, the remainder of his life he spent at Carrolltown. He is the author of a life of Prince Gallitzin: "Leben und Wirken des Prinzen Demetrius Augustin von Gallitzin" (Münster, 1861).

MICHAEL OTT

François Le Mercier

One of the early missionaries of New France, b. at Paris, 4 October, 1604; d. in the island of Martinique, 12 June, 1690. He entered the Society of Jesus at Paris, 19 October, 1620. He taught in succession all the classes of grammar and humanities in the Jesuit college of the capital, and after completing his own philosophical and theological studies, was sent to Canada, where he arrived 20 July 1635, and with Father Pierre Pijart set out for the Huron country the third day after landing at Quebec, reaching his destination on 13 August. He devoted himself to the work of the Huron mission for fifteen years uninterruptedly, save for a brief absence at Quebec on business of the mission during the summer months of 1639. He received the Huron name of Chaüosé, but years after when among the Onondagas he went by the Iroquois name Teharonhiagannra. Father Jean de Brébeuf, an exacting judge of what was required of an Apostolic labourer, wrote his panegyric in two words when he described him as "a perfect missioner". While in Huronia he was stationed from 1635 to 1637 at Ihonatiria, from 1637 to 1639 at Ossossané, from 1639 to 1640 at Ste-Marie I, again at Ossossane until 1642, at Ste-Marie I until 1649, and finally at Ste-Marie II, on St. Joseph's Island, from 16 June, 1649. He left Huronia only after the laying waste of the country by the Iroquois, and the complete abandonment of the mission, subsequent to their inroads, on 10 June, 1650.

On his return to Quebec he was engaged in the ministry there and at Three Rivers until 1653, when he was appointed rector of the college and superior of the whole Canada mission a post he occupied until 1656. But while yet in office, on 11 May of the latter year, not willing to expose the lives of others to perils he was not ready to face, he named Father Jerome Lalemant vice-superior, so as to be himself free to head a tentative missionary expedition, fraught with danger, to the Onondagas. While on his way to this fierce Iroquois nation he wrote from Montreal on 6 June, 1656, to his provincial in France a letter setting forth vividly the difficulties of the undertaking (see "Relation, 1657", Quebec ed., 50-54). on I June, 1657, he was back at Quebec, but started to return on 27 June. He could not have proceeded far when he was recalled, for the "Jesuits' Journal" mentions his saying the Christmas midnight Mass for the Hurons at the Quebec hospital. From 1659 to 1660, though in charge of the parish with Father Dablon, he had also to attend the outlying mission at Beaupre. He was formally named assistant parish priest, 21 October, 1660, by Mgr de Petrée, the first Bishop of Quebec, who had arrived in June of the previous year. On 6 August, 1665, for the second time, he was promoted to the office of rector and superior of the whole Canada Mission, and continued to act as such until replaced by Father Dahlon on 12 July, 1671, Le Mercier becoming procurator et primarius in convictu, or, in modern parlance, "bursar and vice-president" of the Jesuit college at Quebec. Father Le Mercier was recalled from Canada and was deputed by the general of the order as visitor of the French missions in South America and in the Antilles, in 1673. By 12 December of the same year he was already acting in that capacity in Cayenne. For ten years he acquited himself of his onerous duties to the satisfaction of all, and died at Martinique at an advanced age with a widespread reputation for sanctity of life.

We are indebted to Le Mercier for the compiling of nine of the annual "Relations", 1653, 1654, 1655, and 1665 to 1670 inclusively, besides the two written by him on the Huron mission, those of the years 1637 and 1638.

(MARTIN), Jesuit Relations (Quebec ed., 1858); THWAITES, Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents; LAVERDIERE AND CASGRAIN, Journal des Jesuits (Quebec, 1871); Manuscrit Catalogues of the Society, and MARTIN, Catalogue Raisonne des Relations, both in St. Mary's Coll. Archives, Montreal.

A.E. JONES

Jacques Lemercier

Born at Pontoise, about 1585; died at Paris, 1654. Lemercier shares with Mansart and Le Muet the glory of representing French architecture most brilliantly under Louis XIII and Richelieu. He was likewise a sculptor and engraver. He imitated in a measure the strong but somewhat prosaic style of Salamon de Brosse. The French Renaissance had at that time already reached its last stage, but it still retained an important heritage from the days of Lescot. Lemercier was in Italy presumably from 1607 to 1613, and, while in Rome, probably engraved a model of St. Peter's. As early as 1618 he appears as royal architect with a salary of 1200 livres. In 1639 he became chief architect, in which capacity, having the supervision of all the royal building enterprises, he fell into a disagreeable dispute with the cultivated Poussin about the decorations in the Louvre. In general, he is considered a well-meaning, discreet character. Living entirely for his art, he thought very little of his profit, and, in spite of the great works which he executed it was found necessary after his death to sell his entire large library to cover his debts. He was highly extolled as the exponent of the classic tendencies of Palladio. Richelieu, in particular, entrusted him with a series of important works. As yet Lescot's plan for the Louvre had been scarcely half finished. The cardinal, an enthusiastic patron of architecture, placed Lemercier at the head of this undertaking in 1624. In carrying on the work begun by Lescot, Lemercier subordinated himself to the latter's style and design, but he followed his own ideas in his more substantial plan and in quadrupling the building area, each of the four sides having a pavilion at its centre. In this manner he built the northern half of the west side — the celebrated Pavilion de l'Horloge — and the western part of the north side. It is, however, an exaggerated opinion to regard the Pavilion de l'Horloge as the best example of French architecture.

After 1627, in Richelieu's personal service, Lemercier built the Château de Richelieu in Poitou and the parish church of the same town, in which he displayed his talents to splendid advantage. The castle was worthy of a king. In addition, he began the Palais-Cardinal at Paris in 1629, which, after its donation to the king, was known as the Palais Royal. He was likewise entrusted with the subsequent extension of this building, of which there remains at present only an interior wing. It is wanting in lightness and proportlon in the disposal of its masses. The master earned great and well-merited renown by his work on the Sorbonne which was begun at the same time. The college and the church are both his work. The latter is noteworthy for its domical shape in the style of the Italian Renaissance (like Val-de-Grâce and the Invalides of the two Mansarts). In France, contrary to the Italian custom, the exterior dome was made of wood, which was less monumental, though about the same in appearance. Lemercier inaugurated this economical method in his claustral dome over the Pavilion de l'Horloge. The dome presents a harmonious effect. It is a complete hemisphere, with four small cupolas in the Greek cross above the two orders of columns on the façade. The interior also makes a better effect than Mansart's dome of the Invalides, and was formerly intended to be beautifully decorated. The square intersection is surrounded by cylindrical vaults and a semicircular choir apse. The north side consists of a portico in classic style. The whole may be considered one of the finest buildings of that time.

Lemercier produced a similar result with his work on the abbey church of Val-de-Grâce, which he took up as the successor of Father Mansart. The latter had refused to execute an order requiring a change in the design, whereupon the principal part as far as the entablature appears to have been carried on by Lemercier and finished by other masters. The foundation of the church and royal abbey was determined upon at the birth of Louis XIV, and Louis himself, when six years of age (1645), laid the cornerstone. Here too the different orders of columns harmonize beautifully with the principal dome and the four smaller domes and their tambour. The front view is truly magnificent. In the details of execution a noble taste as well as great care, is evident. In 1635 Richelieu once again claimed the services of Lernercier for work on the Château de Rueil, near Paris, which he had acquired at that time. The artist's great patron was buried in the church of the Sorbonne in 1642. Lemercier continued to enjoy the favour of the court and the public. In 1645 he received as first of the royal architects a salary of 3000 livres. His last work was the plan of the church of St. Roch in Paris. He completed only the choir and part of the nave. A few unimportant earlier works, which are not unanimosly ascribed to Lemercier, also may be mentioned. In 1630 he built the choir of the church of the Oratorians in Paris after the design of Clément Métezeau, who had laid the cornerstone in 1621. The façade belongs to a later period. He also erected the Hotels de Liancourt and de La Rochefoucauld. Also ascribed to him are the Hotel de Longuevllle and the Château Silly, or Chilly, of Marshal d'Effiat. A hunting seat of Louis XIII, wlth splendid pleasure grounds, was a remarkable Versailles in miniature, forecasting the celebrated pleasure palace of a later period. The statue of Henry IV with the sarcophagus in the Lateran is a fine piece of plastic work

Jacques Lemercier had a younger brother François, who in 1636 represented him for a time in the capacity of architect. His two sons Jacques and François received a pension from the state to enable them to study Architecture. The Lemerciers of Pontoise were indeed one of those gifted families in which several members had a vocation for the same branch of art. The two celebrated churches of St. Maclou at Pontoise and St. Eustache in Paris have been traced to one Pierre Lemercier, who at Pontoise was succeeded immediately by Nicholas Lemercier and more remotely by a connection by marriage, Charles David. But the glorious church of St. Eustache was a greater source of renown for the family. According to Geymüller, whose opinion is hardly to be disputed, Pierre Lemercier's entire share in St. Maclou consisted in the somewhat unusual dome tower, and further inferences concerning St. Eustache would be without foundation.

TROU, Recherches historiques, archeologiques et biographiques sur la ville de Pontoise (Pontoise, 1841); BERTY, Les grands architects francais (Paris, 1860); LANCE, Dict. des architects (Paris, 1873); GRYMULLER in Handbuch der Architeckur von Drum etc. II, vi (Stuttgart, 1901), 2; GURLITT, Gesch. des Barockstils (Stuttgart, 1887).

G. GIETMANN

Thomas de Lemos

Spanish theologian and controversialist, b. at Rivadavia, Spain, 1555, d. at Rome 23 Aug., 1629. At an early age he entered the Order of St. Dominic in his native town; he obtained, in 1590 the lectorate in theology and was at the same time appointed regent of studies in the convent of St. Paul at Valladolid. In 1594 he was assigned to the chair of theology in the university of that city. The intellectual atmosphere of the time was troubled, theological discussion was rife. The controversy aroused in 1588 by the publication of Molina's work "Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis", between the Dominicans and Jesuits, had reached a heated and turbulent stage not only at Valladolid but also at Salamanca, Cordova, Saragossa, and other cities of Spain. The almost daily disputations both public and private, showed a tendency to drift away from the hitherto universally accepted teaching of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. In 1600 Lemos was chosen to represent his province in the public defence of selected theses before the general chapter of his order held at Naples. The propositions embraced the doctrine of St. Thomas and his school on grace and free-will. In his defence Lemos proved himself a disputant of the highest order. His familiarity with the works of St. Augustine on the question under discussion was such that the slightest deviation from them, either in content or in diction, would not pass him uncorrected; and that he was no less familiar with the writings of St. Thomas is evident from his own words: nec nos in Hispania aliis armis nisi armis S. Thomae incaepimus hanc doctrinam impugnare" (Acta Congreg., disp. ii, col. 176). His ability and success prompted the general of his order to send him to Rome to assist his confrere, Father Alvarez, in defending the teaching of his order against the Molinists before the Congregatio de Auxiliis established by Clement VIII to settle the controversy.

Upon his arrival he was given first place in the defence, which he held till the termination of the Congregation (26 Feb., 1606). For four years, in forty-seven public conferences, in the presence of Clement VIII and Paul V, he defended the teaching of St. Thomas with extraordinary skill against five no less able adversaries, the élite of the great Jesuit theologians of the time. Referring to this event he himself writes: "Fuit ista Congregatio celebris, de qua multi mirati sunt, quod tot ac tantis, ubi fecerunt summum proelium patres Societatis, sic ex tempore fuisset responsum. Sed gratia Dei sum id quod sum" (Acta Congreg,, 1231). At the conclusion of the commission, Pope Paul V and Philip III of Spain offered him a bishopric, but he declined the honour, preferring to remain in Rome in the convent Sopra Minerva to devote himself to literary work. Three years before his death he became totally blind. During his lifetime he published nothing. The work which has given him a permanent and prominent place in the history of theology appeared about fifty years after his death, the "Panoplia gratia seu de rationalis creaturae in finem supernaturalem gratuita divina suavipotente ordinatione, ductu, mediis, liberoque progressu, dissertationes theologicae" (Liège, 1676). The "Acta omnia Congregatioum et disputationum, quae coram SS. Clemente VIII et Panlo V Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa et controversia illa magna de auxiliis divinae gratiae" (Louvain, 1702) appeared nearly a hundred years after his death. While he is the author of a large number of works, these are the only ones which have thus far been published.

QUETIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed. II, 461; TOURON, Hist. des hommes illust. de l'ordre de S. Dom., HURTER. Nomenclator; SERRY, Hist. Congreationis de auxiliis, passim.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Le Moyne

The name of one of the most illustrious families of the New World, whose deeds adorn the pages of Canadian history.

Charles Le Moyne

Founder of the family, b. of Pierre Le Moyne and Judith Duchesne at Dieppe on 1 August, 1626; d. at Ville-Marie (Montreal), 1683. On reaching Canada in 1641, he spent four years in the Huron country, and then settled at Ville-Marie, his knowledge of the Indian languages rendering him useful as an interpreter, and his valour contributing to defend the colony. He often fought single-handed against Iroquois marauders. This unusual bravery encouraged the settlers to cultivate the soil. In 1653 he negotiated a peace which lasted five years. He married Catherine Primot in 1654. Surprised by a party of Iroquois in 1665, he was preparing to sell his life dearly, when he tripped and was captured. Awed by his valour and fearing reprisals, his captors did not torture, but soon released him. He accompanied Courcelles and Tracy against the Five Nations and shared their success. In recognition of his services Louis XIV ennobled him with the title of Sieur de Longueuil. He served as interpreter to Courcelles and the Governors of Montreal and Three Rivers during a visit to the Iroquois country, and was rewarded by Intendant Talon with a vast concession on the St. Lawrence, reaching from Varennes to Laprairie, henceforth named the Longueuil fief. He was the father of fourteen children, seven of whom honoured Canada by their prowess, three dying in battle and four becoming governors of cities or provinces. Of his sons, surnamed for their bravery the "Machabees of New France", the two most renowned are treated in separate articles (see IBERVILLE, PIERRE LE MOYNE, SIEUR D'; BIENVILLE, JEAN-BAPTITE LE MOYNE, SIEUR DE); each of the five others deserves here a short notice.

Charles Le Moyne

The eldest son of the preceding, b. at Ville-Marie, 10 Dec., 1656; d. in 1729. After serving in France, he returned to Canada with the rank of lieutenant, and, at the age of twenty-seven, was appointed major of Montreal by Governor de la Barre. He married Elizabeth Souart. In 1700 he received for his services an additional grant of land and promotion to the rank of baron. He won fame in battle against the Iroquois and in the defence of Quebec (1690). The cross of St. Louis was awarded him, and he was successively governor of Three Rivers and Montreal. In 1711 preceded by the religious standard embroidered by Jeanne Leber, he marched to Chambly against the invading army, which retreated on hearing of the wreck of Walker's fleet.

Jacques Le Moyne

Sieur de Sainte-Hélène, b. at Ville-Marie, 16 April, 1669; d. at Quebec, 1690. A soldier from early youth, he trained for warfare his illustrious brother, d'Iberville. During Phipps's siege of Quebec, Ste-Hélène with 200 volunteers repulsed a troop of 1300 men commanded by Major Whalley, who had attempted to cross River St. Charles. Mortally wounded in this encounter, Ste-Hélène died shortly after, mourned by the whole colony for his courtesy and valour. The Iroquois of Onondaga sent a wampum collar as a token of sympathy, and released two captives to honour his memory.

Paul Le Moyne

Sieur de Marlcourt, b. 15 Dec., 1663; d. on 21 March, 1704. He accompanied d'Iberville to Hudson's Bay, and amply shared his success, particularly in boarding and capturing with only two canoes a large English cruiser. In 1690 he aided Ste-Hélène in defeating Whalley. Frontenac having undertaken a decisive campaign against the Iroquois, Maricourt forced them to surrender. Skilful diplomat as well as intrepid warrior, he was chosen to negotiate peace. His success was due to the affection and esteem of the Iroquois for his uprightness, which moderated their dread of his bravery. They had begged him to act as their protector and mediator. In 1691 he married M. Madeleine Dupont de Neuville.

François Le Moyne

Sieur de Bienville I, b. 1666; d. 1691. After several valourous exploits, he was shot in an encounter with a party of Onneyouts at Repentigny while assailing the window of a house where they had taken refuge.

Joseph Le Moyne

Sieur de Serigny, b. 22 July, 1668; d. at Rochefort, France, in 1704. A worthy emulator of d'Iberville, he commanded the vessels sent from France to enable his brother to take possession of Hudson's Bay. In that expedition, as well as in Florida and Louisiana, he displayed great valour. With his brothers he drove the Spaniards from Pensa-cola, after which he fortified Mobile and expelled the Spaniards from Ile Dauphin. He was promoted captain in 1720, and in 1722 became Governor of Rochefort, France, where he died in 1734. He had married M Elisabeth Heron.

Louis Le Moyne

Sieur de Châteauguay I, b. 4 Jan., 1676, d. 1694. He fought under d'lberville at Hudson's Bay, assisting when only a boy at the capture of Fort Monsipi. In the years following he so often defeated the English that they were at last reduced to Fort Nelson (Bourbon), their most important post. This stronghold was likewise captured after a long and difficult attack, during which Châteauguay was killed at the age of eighteen.

Charles Le Moyne

Second baron de Longueuil, b. at Longueuil, 18 Oct., 1687: d. on 17 Jan., 1755. He entered the army quite young, and, after having served in France, was appointed major of Montreal (1733), and received the cross of St. Louis (1734). As Governor of Montreal (1749) he administered the colony after Jonquière's death. He saved from suppression the General Hospital of Venerable Madame d'Youville, maliciously threatened with destruction. He married Catherine Charlotte de Gray in 1720.

Paul-Joseph Le Moyne

Born 1701; died at Port-Louis France, in 1778. Inheriting the military spirit of his ancestors, he joined the army at the age of seventeen, and served as lieutenant in Normandy. He was successively commander of Fort Frontenac, Governor of Detroit, of Three Rivers, and finally commander of the citadel of Quebec. He fought under Vaudreuil, Montcalm, and Lévis, and won the cross of St. Louis. After the Conquest, he returned to France, where he died at Port-Louis in 1778. He married (1728) Geneviève Joybert de Soulanges.

Joseph-Dominique-Emmanuel Le Moyne

Second son of preceding, b. at Soulanges on 2 April, 1738. He began his military career at the age of twelve. After serving as captain and major under the French régime, he later served under the British flag after the change of domination, bravely defending Fort St. John in 1755 against the American invaders. He was successively appointed inspector general of militia (1777), colonel of the Royal Canadians (1796), and legislative councillor. He died in 1807.

DANIEL, Histoire des grandes familles francaises du Canada (Montreal, 1867); FAILLON, Histoire de la colonie francaise en Canada (Ville-Marie, 1865); MARMETTE, Les Machabees de la Nouvelle France (Quebec, 1882); Documents inedites (Montreal, 1890); JODOIN, Histoire de Longueuil (Montreal, 1889).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Simon Le Moyne

A Jesuit missionary, b. at Beauvais, 1604; d. in 1665 at Cap de la Madeleine, near Three Rivers. He joined the Society in 1622, and reached Canada in 1638. He worked on the Huron mission with Chaumonot, Bressani, and the future martyrs. Second to Chaumonot alone in his mastery of the Huron-Iroquois language, he was unequalled in the knowledge of the character of the Indians their customs and traditions, even the artifices of their savage eloquence and diplomacy. The ascendancy he thereby enjoyed made him a desirable ambassador on all delicate and arduous occasions. He was the first European to penetrate among the Onondagas, where his eloquence and acquaintance with their traditions won their admiration. They begged for a missionary to teach them about the Great Spirit (1654). His second mission was to the fierce Mohawks, the murderers of Father Jogues, jealous of the favour shown to the Onondagas. They received him well, and he journeyed to Manhattan or New Amsterdam, where the governor, Peter Stuyvesant, treated him courteously. When a fresh outburst of Mohawk jealousy threatened to disturb the peace, Le Moyne again volunteered to pacify them, visiting Ossernenon a second and third time, and, though outwardly honoured, he frequently faced death. When after two years of warfare against the French and their allies the Cayuga Iroquois sued for peace in Montreal, and craved for a "black gown", Le Moyne went to test their sincerity (1661). This was his fifth embassy and during it he was seized, tortured, and even condemned to death. He was always ready for martyrdom. He owed his preservation to the chief Garakontié, whom Bishop Laval had baptized. He consoled the Indians and French captives, many of whom owed hirn their release. When the regular missions were established he longed to return to the Onondagas, but death overtook him at Cap de la Madeleine. Garakontié eloquently eulogized his undaunted courage and eminent virtues.

ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle France (Paris, 1896); CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1908).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Pierre-Charles L'Enfant

Engineer, b. in France, August, 1755; d. near Bladensburg, Maryland, U.S.A., 4 June, 1833. He was educated as an engineer and joined Lafayette as a volunteer to help the revolted American colonists in 1777. Appointed a captain of engineers on 18 Feb., 1778, and brevet major on 2 May, 1783, in Washington's army, he did valiant service during the Revolutionary War. At its close he remodelled the old City Hall in New York for the meeting of the First Congress, and later arranged the Federal Hall in Philadelphia. When the site for the Federal city was finally adopted, he spent much of his time during the year 1791 considering a plan for the new city, which he finally drew up with the title: "Plan of the City, intended for the Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States. Projected agreeable to the direction of the President of the United States in pursuance of an act of Congress passed the sixteenth day of July, MDCCXC, establishing the Permanent Seat on the bank of the Potomac". L'Enfant had a quick temper and an overbearing disposition, and, as he quarrelled with his superiors before his plans could be carried out, President Washington dismissed him from the service on 1 March, 1792. He refused an appropriation offered him for his work on the plan for the Capitol, and also the appointment of professor of engineering at the Military Academy, West Point. During the War of 1812 with England he set to work constructing fortifications near Washington, but again quarrelled with his superior officers, and through pique left the service. He haunted the doors of Congress for years with applications for recompense for his work that were never heeded. Poor and forgotten he spent the rest of his days at the home of his friend, William Dudley Digges, near Bladensburg, Maryland, and his body was buried there. In April, 1909, in accordance with an Act of Congress, the remains of Major L'Enfant were removed from his grace in Maryland, and, after lying in state for a short time in the Capitol at Washington, were reinterred in the National Cemetery at Arlington with the ceremonies of the Church and the military honours due to his rank in the Continental Army.

VARNUM, The Seat of Government of the U.S. (Washington, 1854); American Cath. Hist. Researches (Philadelphia, January 1907); MEEHAN in America (New York, 1 May, 1909); Encycl. Am. Biog., s.v.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Adam Franz Lennig

Theologian, b. 3 Dec., 1803, at Mainz; d. there, 22 Nov., 1866. He studied at Bouchsal under the private tutorship of the ex-Jesuit Laurentius Doller, and afterwards at the bishop's gymnasium at Mainz. Being too young for ordination, he went to Paris to study Oriental languages under Sylvestre de Sacy, then to Rome for a higher course in theology. Here he was ordained priest, 22 Sept., 1827, and then taught for a year at Mainz. Lennig was a strenuous defender of the rights of the Church, and when on 30 January, 1830, the Hessian Government — which for quite a time had been trying to interfere in church matters — passed thirty-nine articles on ecclesiastical administration, he sent them to Rome. Rome sent back a protest, but, since the bishops remained silent, and since Bishop Burg of Mainz even defended the articles, Lennig left for Bonn, and attended the lectures of Sailer, Windischmann, and Klee. In June 1832, he accepted the pastorate of Gaulsheim, declining to take the chair of theology and exegesis at Mainz. In 1839 he was made pastor at Seligenstadt. Bishop Kaiser of Mainz in 1845 promoted him to the cathedral chapter. In March, 1848, he established the "Pius verein", which did much good among the Catholics of Germany. He organized the first meeting of Catholic societies and of Catholics in general, held at Mainz, October, 1848. In the same month he was present at the meeting of the German bishops at Würzburg, acting as representative of his bishop who was ill. About this time he founded at great expense the "Mainzer Journal". After the death of Bishop Kaiser (30 Dec., 1848), troubles arose about the choice of a successor. Lennig was acknowledged by all as a leader of true Christian spirit and suffered much abuse from the Liberals. In 1852 he was made vicar-general by Bishop von Ketteler, and in 1856 dean of the chapter. He zealously assisted his bishop in bringing the Capuchins and Jesuits into the diocese. In 1854 he was in Rome at the definition of the Immaculate Conception, and later visited Rome twice. In 1859 he wrote a protest against the spoliation of the Holy See, and had it signed by 20,000 Catholics He was undoubtedly one of the most influential and zealous German priests of his day. Lennig published in 1849 his "Panegyric on Bishop Kaiser", and in 1862 his "Funeral Oration on the Archduchess Mathilde of Hesse". His meditations on the Passion and on the Our Father and Hail Mary were published 1867 and 1869 by his nephew, Chr. Moufang.

BRÜCK, Adam Franz Lennig, etc. (Mainz, 1870): Allg. Deutsche Biogr., XVIII, 261: Katholik, 1867, I, 257; PFÜLF, Bischof von Ketteler (Mainz, 1899). passim; MAY, Gesch. der Generalversamml. der Kath. Deutschl. (Cologne, 1904), 22, 26, 33.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Charles Lenormant

French archæologist, b. in Paris, 1 June, 1802; d. at Athens, 24 November, 1859. After pursuing his studies at the LycÈe Charlemagne and the LycÈe NapolÈon, he took up law, but a visit to Italy and Sicily (1822-23) made him an enthusiastic archæologist. In 1825 he was named sub-inspector of fine arts and a few months later married Amelia Syvoct, niece and adopted daughter of the celebrated Mme RÈcamier. He visited Italy, Belgium, Holland, and accompanied Champollion to Egypt, where he devoted himself to the study of architectural works. Later he travelled through Greece as assistant director of the archæological department of the Morea scientific commission. On his return he was appointed curator of the works of art in the Although the chair was that of modern history, he lectured chiefly on ancient history, more especially on the origins of Greek civilization. In 1836 he was appinted curator of printed books in the Royal Library, and in 1839 was elected member of the Academy. In 1840 he was made curator of the Cabinet of Medals. Guizot, who became minister of foreign affairs in 1841, sent him on a mission to Greece. On returning from this second visit to the East he continued his lectures at the Sorbonne, and made a particular study of Christian civilization in its sources. This study made of him a true Christian, and from that time his lectures bore the impress of his deep Catholic belief. He gave voice to his convictions in his "Questions historiques" (Paris, 1845), in his work on the "Associations religieuses dans Ia sociÈtÈ chrÈtienne" (Paris, 1866), and in many serious articles in the "Correspondant". His writings greatly influenced the much discussed question of freedom of teaching (libertÈ d'enseignement). In 1846, the students, in retaliation for the suppression of M. Quinet's chair, copelled Lenormant to give up his professorship; he was then given the editorship of the "Correspondant" which be resigned in 1855. In 1848 he was named director of the commission of historical monuments, and in 1849 an almost unanimous vote of the members of the Academy appointed him to the chair of archæology in the Collège de France. From that time he devoted himself entirely to the teaching of Egyptian archæology. He died while on an expedition undertaken for the sake of initiating his son into the knowiedge of the monuments of antiquity.

Many articles from the pen of Lenormant appeared in the" Annales de l'Institut ArcÈologique de Rome", the "MÈmoiresde l'AcadÈmie des Inscriptions", the "Revue de Numismatique", and the "Correspondant". His chief independently published works are: "Les Artistes contemporains" (Paris, 1833, 2 vols.); "Introduction l'histoire de l'Asie occidentale" (Paris, 1838); "MusÈe des AntiquitÈs Ègyptiennes" (Paris, 1842); "Questions historiques" (Paris, 1845), besides two valuable collections, "TrÈsor de numismatique et de glyptique"(Paris, 1834--50) (in collaboration with Paul Delaroche and Henriquel Dupont) and "Elite des monuments cÈramographiques" (1844--58) (with De Witte).

DE WITTE, Annuaire de l'AcadÈmie de Belgique (Brussels, 1861). 129-86; MÈmoires de l'Institut de France, XXXI, (Paris), p. 547--608.

F. MAYENCE

François Lenormant

Archæologist; son of Charles Lenormant, b. at Paris, 17 January, 1837; d. there, 9 December, 1883. His father personally supervised his education and exercised great influence over his mind and studies. He gave early proofs of classical scholarship, by publishing, when only fourteen, an article in the "Revue archÈologique": "Lettre à M. Hase sur des tablettes grecques trouvÈes à Memphis". In 1857 he was awarded the numismatic prize by the Academy of Inscriptions for a remarkable essay published in the "Revue numismatique": "Essai sur La classification des monnaies des Lagides ". While pursuing his classical studies, he attended the lectures of the faculty of law and in 1857 received his degree as licentiate. In 1858 he visited Italy and in 1859 accompanied his father to the East. The latter having died during the journey François returned to France with the body, but set out soon again for Greece. He conducted important excavations at Eleusis and as a result published several essays, notably: "Recherches archÈologiques à Eleusis" (Paris, 1862). While thus engaged he heard of the massacre of Christians by the Druses and immediately ceasing his researches sailed for Syria to go to the rescue of the victims of Moslem fanaticism. When the French expedition reached Syria, he felt free to return to Eleusis. In 1862 he was appointed sub-librarian of the Institut de France. In 1865 and 1866 he travelled again through the East, and shortly after this, summarized his studies in a "Manuel d'histoire ancienne de l'Orient jusqu'aux guerres MÈdiques" (Paris 1868), a very popular work. In 1869 he visited Egypt and familiarized himself with Egyptian antiquities; he published numerous essays on the cuneiform texts and on the language spoken in Babylon and Nineveh. During the siege of Paris, 1870, he took part in several engagements. Two years later, his "Essai de commentaire des fragments cosmogoniques de BÈrose" (Paris, 1872) was published.

In 1874 Lenormant succeeded BeulÈ as professor of archæology at the Bibliothèque Nationale, and delivered brilliant lectures on Greek and Eastern antiquities. With de Witte, a Belgian archæologist, he founded in 1875 the "Gazette archÈologique" for the publication of unknown monuments and miscellaneous archæological studies. In this review he published many articles on ancient monuments of every description and origin. From 1879 to 1883 he visited Southern Italy several times, and as a result of his travels published a work on Lucania and Apulia. In 1880 he produced the first volume of "Origines de l'histoire d'après la Bible et les traditions des peuples orientaux" (3 vols., Paris, 1880-83), a work that attained wide publicity. The writer thought it impossible to maintain a unity of composition in the books of the Pentateuch. He held that there were certain traces of "two distinct original documents; the Elohistic and the Jehovistic which served as a basis for the final compiler of the first four books of the Pentateuch, and he is satisfied with establishing between them a certain concordance, leaving untouched their original redaction". The first chapters of Genesis, according to him, are a "book of origins" and represent the story of Israel as told from generation to generation since the time of the Patriarchs; in all fundamental facts this narrative tallied with the sacred books of the Euphrates and the Tigris. For him, inspiration lies in the absolutely new spirit which animates the narrative, though in composition it is quite similar to the stories of neighbouring tribes. Four years after the death of the author this book was put on the Index (19 December, 1887). Quite probably Lenormant would have submitted, since in his introduction he asserts his attachment to the Catholic Faith and his devotion to the Church. He died from the after effects of a disease contracted during one of his visits to Southern Italy. In 1881 he had been made a member of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres.

Lenormant wrote many works. Aside from those referred to above, must be mentioned: "Sur l'origine chrÈtienne des inscriptions sinaïtiques" in "Journal Asiatique", XIII (Paris, 1859), fifth series; Histoire des Massacres de Syrie en 1860" (Paris, 1861); La RÈvolution en Grèce" (Paris, 1862); "Essai sur l'organisation politique et Èconomique de La monnaie dans l'antiquitÈ" (Paris, 1863); "Chefs-d'æuvres de l'art antique" (Paris. 1867-1868) in 7 vols.;" Histoire du peuple juif" (Paris, 1869); "Le dÈluge et l'ÈpopÈe babylonnienne" (Paris, 1873); "Les premières civilisations" (Paris, 1873-2 vols.); "La langue primitive de ChaldÈe et les idiomes touraniens" (Paris, 1875): "La monnaie dans l'antiquitÈ" (Paris, 1878-1879); "A travers l'Apulie et la Lucanie"(Paris, 1883): "La Genèse traduite d'après l'hÈbreu, avec distinction des ÈlÈments constitutifs du texte, suivi d‘un essai de restitution des textes dont s'est servi le dernier rÈdacteur" (Paris, 1884).

LE HIR, François Lenormant, Ètude biogrophique (Lyons,1884); VAN DEN GHEYN, F. Lenormant (Brussels 1884);BABELON, Adrien de LongpÈrier, François Lenormant, Ernest Muret, trois nÈcrologies (Berlin, 1885); DE WITTE in Annuaire de l'AcadÈmie de Belgique (1887), 247-291.

F. MAYENCE

Denis-Nicolas Le Nourry

Denis-Nicolas Le Nourry, of the Congregation of St-Maur, ecclesiastical writer, b. at Dieppe in Normandy, 18 Feb., 1647; d. at the Abbey of St-Germain in Paris, 24 March, 1724. He received his first education from the priests of the Oratory at his native place; then entered the Benedictine Order at Jumieges, 8 July, 1665. After completing his theological studies and being ordained to the priesthood, he was sent to Rouen, where, in the Abbey of Bonnenouvelle, he assisted John Garet in publishing the writings of Cassiodorus (1679). For this work he wrote the preface and the life of the author. In the edition of the works of St. Ambrose he aided Jean du Chesne and Julien Bellaise at Rouen, and later Jacques du Frische at Paris, where he spent the last forty years of his life. His greatest work is the "Apparatus ad bibliothecam maximam veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum", published at Paris in two volumes (1703 and 1715) as an aid to the study of the Lyons collection of the Fathers. In extensive dissertations he gives the biography of each writer; the occasion, design, scope, and genuineness of every writing; a history of the time in which the author lived; its dogmatical and moral tendency, and its struggles against heathenism or heresies. The work was well received. In 1710 he edited the "Liber ad Donatum confessorem de mortibus persecutorum", and in a special dissertation tries hard to prove that the book was written by Lucius Caecilius and not by Lactantius. Besides these he edited the "Epitome institutionum divinarum" of Lactantius, the "Expositum de die paschae et mensis" of Hilarianus, and a fragment "De origine generis humani".

TASSIN, Histoire litt. de la cong. de Saint-Maur (Paris, 1770), 436: HURTER, Nomenclator, II (Innsbruck, 1893), 1117: Tubinger Quartalscchrift (1834), 15; Dux in Kirchenlez., s. v.; NICERON, Memoires, I (Paris, 1727-38), 275-8.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Lent

Origin of the word

The Teutonic word Lent, which we employ to denote the forty days' fast preceding Easter, originally meant no more than the spring season. Still it has been used from the Anglo-Saxon period to translate the more significant Latin term quadragesima (Fr. carême, It. quaresima, Span. cuaresma), meaning the "forty days", or more literally the "fortieth day". This in turn imitated the Greek name for Lent, tessarakoste (fortieth), a word formed on the analogy of Pentecost (pentekoste), which last was in use for the Jewish festival before New Testament times. This etymology, as we shall see, is of some little importance in explaining the early developments of the Easter fast.

Origin of the custom

Some of the Fathers as early as the fifth century supported the view that this forty days' fast was of Apostolic institution. For example, St. Leo (d. 461) exhorts his hearers to abstain that they may "fulfill with their fasts the Apostolic institution of the forty days" — ut apostolica institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur (P.L., LIV, 633), and the historian Socrates (d. 433) and St. Jerome (d. 420) use similar language (P.G., LXVII, 633; P.L., XXII, 475).

But the best modern scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting this view, for in the existing remains of the first three centuries we find both considerable diversity of practice regarding the fast before Easter and also a gradual process of development in the matter of its duration. The passage of primary importance is one quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv) from a letter of St. Irenaeus to Pope Victor in connection with the Easter controversy. There Irenaeus says that there is not only a controversy about the time of keeping Easter but also regarding the preliminary fast. "For", he continues, "some think they ought to fast for one day, others for two days, and others even for several, while others reckon forty hours both of day and night to their fast". He also urges that this variety of usage is of ancient date, which implies that there could have been no Apostolic tradition on the subject. Rufinus, who translated Eusebius into Latin towards the close of the fourth century, seems so to have punctuated this passage as to make Irenaeus say that some people fasted for forty days. Formerly some difference of opinion existed as to the proper reading, but modern criticism (e.g., in the edition of Schwartz commissioned by the Berlin Academy) pronounces strongly in favor of the text translated above. We may then fairly conclude that Irenaeus about the year 190 knew nothing of any Easter fast of forty days.

The same inference must be drawn from the language of Tertullian only a few years later. When writing as a Montanist, he contrasts the very slender term of fasting observed by the Catholics (i.e., "the days on which the bridegroom was taken away", probably meaning the Friday and Saturday of Holy Week) with the longer but still restricted period of a fortnight which was kept by the Montanists. No doubt he was referring to fasting of a very strict kind (xerophagiæ — dry fasts), but there is no indication in his works, though he wrote an entire treatise "De Jejunio", and often touches upon the subject elsewhere, that he was acquainted with any period of forty days consecrated to more or less continuous fasting (see Tertullian, "De Jejun.", ii and xiv; cf. "de Orat.", xviii; etc.).

And there is the same silence observable in all the pre-Nicene Fathers, though many had occasion to mention such an Apostolic institution if it had existed. We may note for example that there is no mention of Lent in St. Dionysius of Alexandria (ed. Feltoe, 94 sqq.) or in the "Didascalia", which Funk attributes to about the year 250; yet both speak diffusely of the paschal fast.

Further, there seems much to suggest that the Church in the Apostolic Age designed to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ, not by an annual, but by a weekly celebration (see "the Month", April 1910, 337 sqq.). If this be so, the Sunday liturgy constituted the weekly memorial of the Resurrection, and the Friday fast that of the Death of Christ. Such a theory offers a natural explanation of the wide divergence which we find existing in the latter part of the second century regarding both the proper time for keeping Easter, and also the manner of the paschal fast. Christians were at one regarding the weekly observance of the Sunday and the Friday, which was primitive, but the annual Easter festival was something superimposed by a process of natural development, and it was largely influenced by the conditions locally existing in the different Churches of the East and West. Moreover, with the Easter festival there seems also to have established itself a preliminary fast, not as yet anywhere exceeding a week in duration, but very severe in character, which commemorated the Passion, or more generally, "the days on which the bridegroom was taken away".

Be this as it may, we find in the early years of the fourth century the first mention of the term tessarakoste. It occurs in the fifth canon of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), where there is only question of the proper time for celebrating a synod, and it is conceivable that it may refer not to a period but to a definite festival, e.g., the Feast of the Ascension, or the Purification, which Ætheria calls quadragesimæ de Epiphania. But we have to remember that the older word, pentekoste (Pentecost) from meaning the fiftieth day, had come to denote the whole of the period (which we should call Paschal Time) between Easter Sunday and Whit-Sunday (cf. Tertullian, "De Idololatria", xiv, — "pentecosten implere non poterunt"). In any case it is certain from the "Festal Letters" of St. Athanasius that in 331 the saint enjoined upon his flock a period of forty days of fasting preliminary to, but not inclusive of, the stricter fast of Holy Week, and secondly that in 339 the same Father, after having traveled to Rome and over the greater part of Europe, wrote in the strongest terms to urge this observance upon the people of Alexandria as one that was universally practiced, "to the end that while all the world is fasting, we who are in Egypt should not become a laughing-stock as the only people who do not fast but take our pleasure in those days". Although Funk formerly maintained that a Lent of forty days was not known in the West before the time of St. Ambrose, this is evidence which cannot be set aside.

Duration of the Fast

In determining this period of forty days the example of Moses, Elias, and Christ must have exercised a predominant influence, but it is also possible that the fact was borne in mind that Christ lay forty hours in the tomb. On the other hand just as Pentecost (the fifty days) was a period during which Christians were joyous and prayed standing, though they were not always engaged in such prayer, so the Quadragesima (the forty days) was originally a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily a period in which the faithful fasted every day. Still, this principle was differently understood in different localities, and great divergences of practice were the result. In Rome, in the fifth century, Lent lasted six weeks, but according to the historian Socrates there were only three weeks of actual fasting, exclusive even then of the Saturday and Sunday and if Duchesne's view may be trusted, these weeks were not continuous, but were the first, the fourth, and sixth of the series, being connected with the ordinations (Christian Worship, 243). Possibly, however, these three weeks had to do with the "scrutinies" preparatory to Baptism, for by some authorities (e.g., A.J. Maclean in his "Recent Discoveries") the duty of fasting along with the candidate for baptism is put forward as the chief influence at work in the development of the forty days. But throughout the Orient generally, with some few exceptions, the same arrangement prevailed as St. Athanasius's "Festal Letters" show us to have obtained in Alexandria, namely, the six weeks of Lent were only preparatory to a fast of exceptional severity maintained during Holy Week. This is enjoined by the "Apostolic Constitutions" (V, xiii), and presupposed by St. Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Gen., I). But the number forty, having once established itself, produced other modifications. It seemed to many necessary that there should not only be fasting during the forty days but forty actual fasting days. Thus we find Ætheria in her "Peregrinatio" speaking of a Lent of eight weeks in all observed at Jerusalem, which, remembering that both the Saturday and Sunday of ordinary weeks were exempt, gives five times eight, i.e., forty days for fasting. On the other hand, in many localities people were content to observe no more than a six weeks' period, sometimes, as at Milan, fasting only five days in the week after the oriental fashion (Ambrose, "De Elia et Jejunio", 10). In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five. At a later date the wish to realize the exact number of forty days led to the practice of beginning Lent upon our present Ash Wednesday, but the Church of Milan, even to this day adheres to the more primitive arrangement, which still betrays itself in the Roman Missal when the priest in the Secret of the Mass on the first Sunday of Lent speaks of "sacrificium quadragesimalis initii", the sacrifice of the opening of Lent.

Nature of the fast

Neither was there originally less divergence regarding the nature of the fast. For example, the historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl., V, 22) tells of the practice of the fifth century: "Some abstain from every sort of creature that has life, while others of all the living creatures eat of fish only. Others eat birds as well as fish, because, according to the Mosaic account of the Creation, they too sprang from the water; others abstain from fruit covered by a hard shell and from eggs. Some eat dry bread only, others not even that; others again when they have fasted to the ninth hour (three o'clock) partake of various kinds of food". Amid this diversity some inclined to the extreme limits of rigor. Epiphanius, Palladius, and the author of the "Life of St. Melania the Younger" seem to contemplate a state of things in which ordinary Christians were expected to pass twenty-four hours or more without food of any kind, especially during Holy Week, while the more austere actually subsisted during part or the whole of Lent upon one or two meals a week (see Rampolla, "Vita di. S. Melania Giuniore", appendix xxv, p. 478). But the ordinary rule on fasting days was to take but one meal a day and that only in the evening, while meat and, in the early centuries, wine were entirely forbidden. During Holy Week, or at least on Good Friday it was common to enjoin the xerophagiæ, i.e., a diet of dry food, bread, salt, and vegetables. There does not seem at the beginning to have been any prohibition of lacticinia, as the passage just quoted from Socrates would show. Moreover, at a somewhat later date, Bede tells us of Bishop Cedda, that during Lent he took only one meal a day consisting of "a little bread, a hen's egg, and a little milk mixed with water" (Hist. Eccl., III, xxiii), while Theodulphus of Orleans in the eighth century regarded abstinence from eggs, cheese, and fish as a mark of exceptional virtue. None the less St. Gregory writing to St. Augustine of England laid down the rule, "We abstain from flesh meat, and from all things that come from flesh, as milk, cheese, and eggs." This decision was afterwards enshrined in the "Corpus Juris", and must be regarded as the common law of the Church. Still exceptions were admitted, and dispensations to eat "lacticinia" were often granted upon condition of making a contribution to some pious work. These dispensations were known in Germany as Butterbriefe, and several churches are said to have been partly built by the proceeds of such exceptions. One of the steeples of Rouen cathedral was for this reason formerly known as the Butter Tower. This general prohibition of eggs and milk during Lent is perpetuated in the popular custom of blessing or making gifts of eggs at Easter, and in the English usage of eating pancakes on Shrove Tuesday.

Relaxations of the Lenten Fast

From what has been said it will be clear that in the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays. From the beginning to the end of that time all flesh meat, and also, for the most part, "lacticinia", were forbidden even on Sundays, while on all the fasting days only one meal was taken, which single meal was not permitted before evening. At a very early period, however (we find the first mention of it in Socrates), the practice began to be tolerated of breaking the fast at the hour of none, i.e., three o'clock. We learn in particular that Charlemagne, about the year 800, took his lenten repast at 2 p.m. This gradual anticipation of the hour of dinner was facilitated by the fact that the canonical hours of none, vespers, etc., represented rather periods than fixed points of time. The ninth hour, or none, was no doubt strictly three o'clock in the afternoon, but the Office of none might be recited as soon as sext, which, of course, corresponded to the sixth hour, or midday, was finished. Hence none in course of time came to be regarded as beginning at midday, and this point of view is perpetuated in our word noon which means midday and not three o'clock in the afternoon. Now the hour for breaking the fast during Lent was after Vespers (the evening service), but by a gradual process the recitation of Vespers was more and more anticipated, until the principle was at last officially recognized, as it is at present, that Vespers in lent may be said at midday. In this way, although the author of the "Micrologus" in the eleventh century still declared that those who took food before evening did not observe the lenten fast according to the canons (P.L., CLI, 1013), still, even at the close of the thirteenth century, certain theologians, for example the Franciscan Richard Middleton, who based his decision in part upon contemporary usage, pronounced that a man who took his dinner at midday did not break the lenten fast. Still more material was the relaxation afforded by the introduction of "collation". This seems to have begun in the ninth century, when the Council of Aix la Chapelle sanctioned the concession, even in monastic houses, of a draught of water or other beverage in the evening to quench the thirst of those who were exhausted by the manual labor of the day. From this small beginning a much larger indulgence was gradually evolved. The principle of parvitas materiae, i.e., that a small quantity of nourishment which was not taken directly as a meal did not break the fast, was adopted by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians, and in the course of centuries a recognized quantity of solid food, which according to received authorities must not exceed eight ounces, has come to be permitted after the midday repast. As this evening drink, when first tolerated in the ninth-century monasteries, was taken at the hour at which the "Collationes" (Conferences) of Abbot Cassian were being read aloud to the brethren, this slight indulgence came to be known as a "collation", and the name has continued since. Other mitigations of an even more substantial character have been introduced into lenten observance in the course of the last few centuries. To begin with, the custom has been tolerated of taking a cup of liquid (e.g., tea or coffee, or even chocolate) with a fragment of bread or toast in the early morning. But, what more particularly regards Lent, successive indults have been granted by the Holy See allowing meat at the principal meal, first on Sundays, and then on two, three, four, and five weekdays, throughout nearly the whole of Lent. Quite recently, Maundy Thursday, upon which meat was hitherto always forbidden, has come to share in the same indulgence. In the United States, the Holy See grants faculties whereby working men and their families may use flesh meat once a day throughout the year, except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. The only compensation imposed for all these mitigations is the prohibition during Lent against partaking of both fish and flesh at the same repast. (See Abstinence; Fast; Impediments; Canonical (III); Laetare Sunday; Septuagesima; Sexagesima; Quinquagesima; Quadragesima; Vestments).

HERBERT THURSTON

Publius Lentulus

Publius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius, and to have written the following letter to the Roman Senate: "Lentulus, the Governor of the Jerusalemites to the Roman Senate and People, greetings. There has appeared in our times, and there still lives, a man of great power (virtue), called Jesus Christ. The people call him prophet of truth; his disciples, son of God. He raises the dead, and heals infirmities. He is a man of medium size (statura procerus, mediocris et spectabilis); he has a venerable aspect, and his beholders can both fear and love him. His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut, straight down to the ears, but below the ears wavy and curled, with a bluish and bright reflection, flowing over his shoulders. It is parted in two on the top of the head, after the pattern of the Nazarenes. His brow is smooth and vary cheerful with a face without wrinkle or spot, embellished by a slightly reddish complexion. His nose and mouth are faultless. His beard is abundant, of the colour of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin. His aspect is simple and mature, his eyes are changeable and bright. He is terrible in his reprimands, sweet and amiable in his admonitions, cheerful without loss of gravity. He was never known to laugh, but often to weep. His stature is straight, his hands and arms beautiful to behold. His conversation is grave, infrequent, and modest. He is the most beautiful among the children of men."

Different manuscripts vary from the foregoing text in several details: Dobschutz ("Christusbilder", Leipzig, 1899) enumerates the manuscripts and gives an "apparatus criticus" . The letter was first printed in the "Life of Christ" by Ludolph the Carthusian (Cologne, 1474), and in the "Introduction to the works of St. Anselm" (Nuremberg, 1491). But it is neither the work of St. Anselm nor of Ludolph. According to the manuscript of Jena, a certain Giacomo Colonna found the letter in 1421 in an ancient Roman document sent to Rome from Constantinople. It must be of Greek origin, and translated into Latin during the thirteenth or fourteenth century, though it received its present form at the hands of humanist of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The description agrees with the so-called Abgar picture of our Lord; it also agrees with the portrait of Jesus Christ drawn by Nicephorus, St. John Damascene, and the Book of Painters (of Mt. Athos). Munter ("Die Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen", Altona 1825, p. 9) believes he can trace the letter down to the time of Diocletian; but this is not generally admitted. The letter of Lentulus is certainly apocryphal: there never was a Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate, but the emperor, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men", "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, shows us a description of our Lord such as Christian piety conceived him.

VON-DOBSCHUTZ, Christusbilder in Texte und Untersuchungen, XVIII, (Leipzig, 1899); supplement, 308-29; KRAUS, Real-Encyklopadie der christlichen Alterhumer, s. v.; HARNACK in HERZOG, Realencyklopadie, VIII (1881), 548; Vig., Dict. de la Bible.

A.J. MAAS

Pope St. Leo I (the Great)

(Reigned 440-61).

Place and date of birth unknown; died 10 November, 461. Leo's pontificate, next to that of St. Gregory I, is the most significant and important in Christian antiquity. At a time when the Church was experiencing the greatest obstacles to her progress in consequence of the hastening disintegration of the Western Empire, while the Orient was profoundly agitated over dogmatic controversies, this great pope, with far-seeing sagacity and powerful hand, guided the destiny of the Roman and Universal Church. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Mommsen, I, 101 sqq., ed. Duchesne, I, 238 sqq.), Leo was a native of Tuscany and his father's name was Quintianus. Our earliest certain historical information about Leo reveals him a deacon of the Roman Church under Pope Celestine I (422-32). Even during this period he was known outside of Rome, and had some relations with Gaul, since Cassianus in 430 or 431 wrote at Leo's suggestion his work "De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium" (Migne, P.L., L, 9 sqq.), prefacing it with a letter of dedication to Leo. About this time Cyril of Alexandria appealed to Rome against the pretensions of Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem. From an assertion of Leo's in a letter of later date (ep. cxvi, ed. Ballerini, I, 1212; II, 1528), it is not very clear whether Cyril wrote to him in the capacity of Roman deacon, or to Pope Celestine. During the pontificate of Sixtus III (422-40), Leo was sent to Gaul by Emperor Valentinian III to settle a dispute and bring about a reconciliation between Aëtius, the chief military commander of the province, and the chief magistrate, Albinus. This commission is a proof of the great confidence placed in the clever and able deacon by the Imperial Court. Sixtus III died on 19 August, 440, while Leo was in Gaul, and the latter was chosen his successor. Returning to Rome, Leo was consecrated on 29 September of the same year, and governed the Roman Church for the next twenty-one years.

Leo's chief aim was to sustain the unity of the Church. Not long after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, he saw himself compelled to combat energetically the heresies which seriously threatened church unity even in the West. Leo had ascertained through Bishop Septimus of Altinum, that in Aquileia priests, deacons, and clerics, who had been adherents of Pelagius, were admitted to communion without an explicit abjuration of their heresy. The pope sharply censured this procedure, and directed that a provincial synod should be assembled in Aquileia, at which such persons were to be required to abjure Pelagianism publicly and to subscribe to an unequivocal confession of Faith (epp. i and ii). This zealous pastor waged war even more strenuously against Manichæism, inasmuch as its adherents, who had been driven from Africa by the Vandals, had settled in Rome, and had succeeded in establishing a secret Manichæan community there. The pope ordered the faithful to point out these heretics to the priests, and in 443, together with the senators and presbyters, conducted in person an investigation, in the course of which the leaders of the community were examined. In several sermons he emphatically warned the Christians of Rome to be on their guard against this reprehensible heresy, and repeatedly charged them to give information about its followers, their dwellings, acquaintances, and rendezvous (Sermo ix, 4, xvi, 4; xxiv, 4; xxxiv, 4 sq.; xlii, 4 sq.; lxxvi, 6). A number of Manichæans in Rome were converted and admitted to confession; others, who remained obdurate, were in obedience to imperial decrees banished from Rome by the civil magistrates. On 30 January, 444, the pope sent a letter to all the bishops of Italy, to which he appended the documents containing his proceedings against the Manichæans in Rome, and warned them to be on their guard and to take action against the followers of the sect (ep. vii). On 19 June, 445, Emperor Valentinian III issued, doubtless at the pope's instigation, a stern edict in which he estasblished seven punishments for the Manichæans ("Epist. Leonis", ed. Ballerini, I, 626; ep. viii inter Leon. ep). Prosper of Aquitaine states in his "Chronicle" (ad an. 447; "Mon. Germ. hist. Auct. antiquissimi", IX, I, 341 sqq.) that, in consequence of Leo's energetic measures, the Manichæans were also driven out of the provinces, and even Oriental bishops emulated the pope's example in regard to this sect. In Spain the heresy of Priscillianism still survived, and for some time had been attracting fresh adherents. Bishop Turibius of Astorga became cognizant of this, and by extensive journeys collected minute information about the condition of the churches and the spread of Priscillianism. He compiled the errors of the heresy, wrote a refutation of the same, and sent these documents to several African bishops. He also sent a copy to the pope, whereupon the latter sent a lengthy letter to Turibius (ep. xv) in refutation of the errors of the Priscillianists. Leo at the same time ordered that a council of bishops belonging to the neighbouring provinces should be convened to institute a rigid enquiry, with the object of determining whether any of the bishops had become tainted with the poison of this heresy. Should any such be discovered, they were to be excommunicated without hesitation. The pope also addressed a similar letter to the bishops of the Spanish provinces, notifying them that a universal synod of all the chief pastors was to be summoned; if this should be found to be impossible, the bishops of Galicia at least should be assembled. These two synods were in fact held in Spain to deal with the points at issue "Hefele, "Konziliengesch." II, 2nd ed., pp. 306 sqq.).

The greatly disorganized ecclesiastical condition of certain countries, resulting from national migrations, demanded closer bonds between their episcopate and Rome for the better promotion of ecclesiastical life. Leo, with this object in view, determined to make use of the papal vicariate of the bishops of Arles for the province of Gaul for the creation of a centre for the Gallican episcopate in immediate union with Rome. In the beginning his efforts were greatly hampered by his conflict with St. Hilary, then Bishop of Arles. Even earlier, conflicts had arisen relative to the vicariate of the bishops of Arles and its privileges. Hilary made excessive use of his authority over other ecclesiastical provinces, and claimed that all bishops should be consecrated by him, instead of by their own metropolitan. When, for example, the complaint was raised that Bishop Celidonius of Besançon had been consecrated in violation of the canons–the grounds alleged being that he had, as a layman, married a widow, and, as a public officer, had given his consent to a death sentence–Hilary deposed him, and consecrated Importunus as his successor. Celidonius thereupon appealed to the pope and set out in person for Rome. About the same time Hilary, as if the see concerned had been vacant, consecrated another bishop to take the place of a certain Bishop Projectus, who was ill. Projectus recovered, however, and he too laid a complaint at Rome about the action of the Bishop of Arles. Hilary then went himself to Rome to justify his proceedings. The pope assembled a Roman synod (about 445) and, when the complaints brought against Celidonius could not be verified, reinstated the latter in his see. Projectus also received his bishopric again. Hilary returned to Arles before the synod was over; the pope deprived him of jurisdiction over the other Gallic provinces and of metropolitan rights over the province of Vienne, only allowing him to retain his Diocese of Arles.

These decisions were disclosed by Leo in a letter to the bishops of the Province of Vienne (ep. x). At the same time he sent them an edict of Valentinian III of 8 July, 445, in which the pope's measures in regard to St. Hilary were supported, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church solemnly recognized "Epist. Leonis," ed. Ballerini, I, 642). On his return to his bishopric Hilary sought a reconciliation with the pope. After this there arose no further difficulties between these two saintly men and, after his death in 449, Hilary was declared by Leo as "beatæ memoriæ". To Bishop Ravennius, St. Hilary's successor in the see of Arles, and the bishops of that province, Leo addressed most cordial letters in 449 on the election of the new metropolitan (epp. xl, xli). When Ravennius consecrated a little later a new bishop to take the place of the deceased Bishop of Vaison, the Archbishop of Vienne, who was then in Rome, took exception to this action. The bishops of the province of Arles then wrote a joint letter to the pope, in which they begged him to restore to Ravennius the rights of which his predecessor Hilary had been deprived (ep. lxv inter ep. Leonis). In his reply dated 5 May, 450 (ep. lxvi), Leo acceded to their request. The Archbishop of Vienne was to retain only the suffragan Bishoprics of Valence, Tarentaise, Geneva, and Grenoble; all the other sees in the Province of Vienne were made subject to the Archbishop of Arles, who also became again the mediator between the Holy See and the whole Gallic episcopate. Leo transmitted to Ravennius (ep. lxvii), for communication to the other Gallican bishops, his celebrated letter to Flavian of Constantinople on the Incarnation. Ravennius thereupon convened a synod, at which forty-four chief pastors assembled. In their synodal letter of 451, they affirm that they accept the pope's letter as a symbol of faith (ep. xxix inter ep. Leonis). In his answer Leo speaks further of the condemnation of Nestorius (ep. cii). The Vicariate of Arles for a long time retained the position Leo had accorded it. Another papal vicariate was that of the bishops of Thessalonica, whose jurisdiction extended over Illyria. The special duty of this vicariate was to protect the rights of the Holy See over the district of Eastern Illyria, which belonged to the Eastern Empire. Leo bestowed the vicariate upon Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, just as Pope Siricius had formerly entrusted it to Bishop Anysius. The vicar was to consecrate the metropolitans, to assemble in a synod all bishops of the Province of Eastern Illyria, to oversee their administration of their office; but the most important matters were to be submitted to Rome (epp. v, vi, xiii). But Anastasius of Thessalonica used his authority in an arbitrary and despotic manner, so much so that he was severely reproved by Leo, who sent him fuller directions for the exercise of his office (ep. xiv).

In Leo's conception of his duties as supreme pastor, the maintenance of strict ecclesiastical discipline occupied a prominent place. This was particularly important at a time when the continual ravages of the barbarians were introducing disorder into all conditions of life, and the rules of morality were being seriously violated. Leo used his utmost energy in maintining this discipline, insisted on the exact observance of the ecclesiastical precepts, and did not hesitate to rebuke when necessary. Letters (ep. xvii) relative to these and other matters were sent to the different bishops of the Western Empire–e.g., to the bishops of the Italian provinces (epp. iv, xix, clxvi, clxviii), and to those of Sicily, who had tolerated deviations from the Roman Liturgy in the administration of Baptism (ep. xvi), and concerning other matters (ep. xvii). A very important disciplinary decree was sent to bishop Rusticus of Narbonne (ep. clxvii). Owing to the dominion of the Vandals in Latin North Africa, the position of the Church there had become extremely gloomy. Leo sent the Roman priest Potentius thither to inform himself about the exact condition, and to forward a report to Rome. On receiving this Leo sent a letter of detailed instructions to the episcopate of the province about the adjustment of numerous ecclesiastical and disciplinary questions (ep. xii). Leo also sent a letter to Dioscurus of Alexandria on 21 July, 445, urging him to the strict observance of the canons and discipline of the Roman Church (ep. ix). The primacy of the Roman Church was thus manifested under this pope in the most various and distinct ways. But it was especially in his interposition in the confusion of the Christological quarrels, which then so profoundly agitated Eastern Christendom, that Leo most brilliantly revealed himself the wise, learned, and energetic shepherd of the Church (see Monophysitism). From his first letter on this subject, written to Eutyches on 1 June, 448 (ep. xx), to his last letter written to the new orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, Timotheus Salophaciolus, on 18 August, 460 (ep. clxxi), we cannot but admire the clear, positive, and systematic manner in which Leo, fortified by the primacy of the Holy See, took part in this difficult entanglement. For particulars refer to the articles: Eutyches; Saint Flavian; Robber Council of Ephesus.

Eutyches appealed to the pope after he had been excommunicated by Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, on account of his Monophysite views. The pope, after investigating the disputed question, sent his sublime dogmatic letter to Flavian (ep. xxviii), concisely setting forth and confirming the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the union of the Divine and human natures in the one Person of Christ . In 449 the council, which was designated by Leo as the "Robber Synod", was held. Flavian and other powerful prelates of the East appealed to the pope. The latter sent urgent letters to Constantinople, particularly to Emperor Theodosius II and Empress Pulcheria, urging them to convene a general council in order to restore peace to the Church. To the same end he used his influence with the Western emperor, Valentinian III, and his mother Galla Placidia, especially during their visit to Rome in 450. This general council was held in Chalcedon in 451 under Marcian, the successor of Theodosius. It solemnly accepted Leo's dogmatical epistle to Flavian as an expression of the Catholic Faith concerning the Person of Christ. The pope confirmed the decrees of the Council after eliminating the canon, which elevated the Patriarchate of Constantinople, while diminishing the rights of the ancient Oriental patriarchs. On 21 March, 453, Leo issued a circular letter confirming his dogmatic definition (ep. cxiv). Through the mediation of Bishop Julian of Cos, who was at that time the papal ambassador in Constantinople, the pope tried to protect further ecclesiastical interests in the Orient. He persuaded the new Emperor of Constantinople, Leo I, to remove the heretical and irregular patriarch, Timotheus Ailurus, from the See of Alexandria. A new and orthodox patriarch, Timotheus Salophaciolus, was chosen to fill his place, and received the congratulations of the pope in the last letter which Leo ever sent to the Orient.

In his far-reaching pastoral care of the Universal Church, in the West and in the East, the pope never neglected the domestic interests of the Church at Rome. When Northern Italy had been devastated by Attila, Leo by a personal encounter with the King of the Huns prevented him from marching upon Rome. At the emperor's wish, Leo, accompanied by the Consul Avienus and the Prefect Trigetius, went in 452 to Upper Italy, and met Attila at Mincio in the vicinity of Mantua, obtaining from him the promise that he would withdraw from Italy and negotiate peace with the emperor. The pope also succeeded in obtaining another great favour for the inhabitants of Rome. When in 455 the city was captured by the Vandals under Genseric, although for a fortnight the town had been plundered, Leo's intercession obtained a promise that the city should not be injured and that the lives of the inhabitants should be spared. These incidents show the high moral authority enjoyed by the pope, manifested even in temporal affairs. Leo was always on terms of intimacy with the Western Imperial Court. In 450 Emperor Valentinian III visited Rome, accompanied by his wife Eudoxia and his mother Galla Placidia. On the feast of Cathedra Petri (22 February), the Imperial family with their brilliant retinue took part in the solemn services at St. Peter's, upon which occasion the pope delivered an impressive sermon. Leo was also active in building and restoring churches. He built a basilica over the grave of Pope Cornelius in the Via Appia. The roof of St. Paul's without the Walls having been destroyed by lightning, he had it replaced, and undertook other improvements in the basilica. He persuaded Empress Galla Placidia, as seen from the inscription, to have executed the great mosaic of the Arch of Triumph, which has survived to our day. Leo also restored St. Peter's on the Vatican. During his pontificate a pious Roman lady, named Demetria, erected on her property on the Via Appia a basilica in honour of St. Stephen, the ruins of which have been excavated.

Leo was no less active in the spiritual elevation of the Roman congregations, and his sermons, of which ninety-six genuine examples have been preserved, are remarkable for their profundity, clearness of diction, and elevated style. The first five of these, which were delivered on the anniversaries ofh his consecration, manifest his lofty conception of the dignity of his office, as well as his thorough conviction of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, shown forth in so outspoken and decisive a manner by his whole activity as supreme pastor. Of his letters, which are of great importance for church history, 143 have come down to us: we also possess thirty which were sent to him. The so-called "Sacramentarium Leonianum" is a collection of orations and prefaces of the Mass, prepared in the second half of the sixth century. Leo died on 10 November, 461, and was buried in the vestibule of St. Peter's on the Vatican. In 688 Pope Sergius had his remains transferred to the basilica itself, and a special altar erected over them. They rest to-day in St. Peter's, beneath the altar specially dedicated to St. Leo. In 1754 Benedict XIV exalted him to the dignity of Doctor of the Church (doctor ecclesiæ). In the Latin Church the feast day of the great pope is held on 11 April, and in the Eastern Church on 18 February.

Leonis Opera omnia, ed. Ardicinio della Porta, (Rome, 1470); ed. Quesnel (2 vols., Paris, 1675); edd. Petrus and Hieronymus Ballerini (2 vols., Venice, 1753-7); ed. in P.L., LIV-VI; Amelli, S. Leone dMagno e l'Oriente (Rome, 1886), 361-8; JaffÉ Regesta Rom. Pont., 2nd ed., I, 58 sqq.; da Nostitz­ Rieneck, Die Briefe Papst Leos I. im Codex Monacen. 14540 in Historisches Jahrbuch (1897), 117- 33; Idem, Die päpstlichen Urbanden f252;r Thessalonike und deren Kritik durch Prof. Friedrich in Zeitsch. für kath. Theologie (1897), 1-50. Translation of letters and sermons given in Feltoe, A select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, XIId (2nd series, New York, 1896); Sacramentarium Leonianum, ed. Feltoe (Cambridge, 1897). Concerning the Sacramentarium, cf. Duchesne, Christian Worship; its origin and evolution (London, 1903), 135 sqq.; and Probst, Die ältesten römischen Sacramentarien und Ordines erklärt (Münster, 1892). ;–Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, 238 sqq.; Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccles., XV, 414 sqq.; Arendt, Leo der Grosse u. seine Zeit (Mainz, 1835); Perthel, Papst Leos I. Leben u. Lehren (Jena, 1843d); de Saint­ ChÉron, Hist. du Pontificat de Saint-Léon le Grand (Paris, 1845; 2nd ed., 1861-4); Fr. and P. BÖhringer, Die Väter den Papsttums Leo I und Gregor I in Die Kirche Christi u. ihre Zeugen (Stuttgart, 1879); Bertani, Vita di Leone Magno (2 vols., Monza, 1880-2); Gore in Dict. Christ. Biog. (London, 1882), s. v.; Langen, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, II (Bonn, 1885), 1 sqq.; Grisar, Gesch. Roms u. der Päpste im Mittelalter, I, 308 sqq.; Idem, Il Primato romano nel secolo quinto in Analecta Romana, I (Rome, 1900), 307-52; Idem, Rom u. die fränkische Kirche vornehmlich im VI. Jahrhundert in Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie (1890), 447-93; Gundlach, Der Streit der Bistümer Arles u. Vienne um den Primatus Galliarum in Neues Archiv (1899), 250 sqq.; (1890), 9 sqq., 233 sqq.; Kuhn, Die Christologie Leos I. des Grossen (Würtzburg, 1894); Hefele, Konziliengesch., II (2nd ed.), passim.

J.P. Kirsch

Pope St. Leo II

Pope (682-83), date of birth unknown; d. 28 June, 683. He was a Sicilian, and son of one Paul. Though elected pope a few days after the death of St. Agatho (10 June, 681), he was not consecrated till after the lapse of a year and seven months (17 Aug., 682). Under Leo's predecessor St. Agatho, negotiations had been opened between the Holy See and Emperor Constantine Pogonatus concerning the relations of the Byzantine Court to papal elections. Constantine had already promised Agatho to abolish or reduce the tax which for about a century the popes had had to pay to the imperial treasury on the occasion of their consecration, and under Leo's successor he made other changes in what had hitherto been required of the Roman Church at the time of a papal election. In all probability, therefore, it was continued correspondence on this matter which caused the delay of the imperial confirmation of Leo's election, and hence the long postponement of his consecration. The most important act accomplished by Leo in his short pontificate was his confirmation of the acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council (680-1). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelites, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted.

The fact that Ravenna had long been the residence of the emperors or of their representatives, the exarchs, had awakened the ambition of its archbishops. They aspired to the privileges of patriarchs and desired to be autocephalous, i.e. free from the direct jurisdiction of the pope, considered as their primate. As they could not succeed in inducing the popes to agree to their wishes, they attempted to secure their accomplishment by an imperial decree recognizing them as autocephalous. But this did not prove sufficient to enable the archbishops to effect their purpose, and Leo obtained from Constantine Pogonatus the revocation of the edict of Constans. On his side, however, Leo abolished the tax which the archbishops had been accustomed to pay when they received the pallium. And though he insisted that the archbishops-elect must come to Rome to be consecrated, he consented to the arrangement that they should not be obliged to remain in Rome more than eight days at the time of their consecration, and that, while they were not to be bound to come again to Rome themselves in order to offer their homage to the pope, they were each year to send a delegate to do so in their name. Perhaps because he feared that the Lombards might again ravage the catacombs, Leo transferred thence many of the relics of the martyrs into a church which he built to receive them. This pope, who is called by his contemporary biographer both just and learned, is commemorated as a saint in the Roman Martyrology on 28 June.

[ Note: The feast of Saint Leo II was formerly observed on 3 July with the rank of a semi-double.]

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I (Paris, 1886), 359 sqq.; VILLANUNO, Summa Concil. Hispaniae, I (Barcelona, 1850), 310 sq.; Acta SS., June, V, 375 sqq.; MANN, Lives of the Popes, I (London, 1902), pt. II, 49 sqq.

HORACE K. MANN

Pope St. Leo III

Date of birth unknown; died 816. He was elected on the very day his predecessor was buried (26 Dec., 795), and consecrated on the following day. It is quite possible that this haste may have been due to a desire on the part of the Romans to anticipate any interference of the Franks with their freedom of election. Leo was a Roman, the son of Atyuppius and Elizabeth. At the time of his election he was Cardinal-Priest of St. Susanna, and seemingly also vestiarius, or chief of the pontifical treasury, or wardrobe. With the letter informing Charlemagne that he had been unanimously elected pope, Leo sent him the keys of the confession of St. Peter, and the standard of the city. This he did to show that he regarded the Frankish king as the protector of the Holy See. In return he received from Charlemagne letters of congratulation and a great part of the treasure which the king had captured from the Avars. The acquisition of this wealth was one of the causes which enabled Leo to be such a great benefactor to the churches and charitable institutions of Rome.

Prompted by jealousy or ambition, or by feelings of hatred and revenge, a number of the relatives of Pope Adrian I formed a plot to render Leo unfit to hold his sacred office. On the occasion of the procession of the Greater Litanies (25 April, 799), when the pope was making his way towards the Flaminian Gate, he was suddenly attacked by a body of armed men. He was dashed to the ground, and an effort was made to root out his tongue and tear out his eyes. After he had been left for a time bleeding in the street, he was hurried off at night to the monastery of St. Erasmus on the Cœ;lian. There, in what seemed quite a miraculous manner, he recovered the full use of his eyes and tongue. Escaping from the monastery, he betook himself to Charlemagne, accompanied by many of the Romans. He was received by the Frankish king with the greatest honour at Paderborn, although his enemies had filled the king's ears with malicious accusations against him. After a few months' stay in Germany, the Frankish monarch caused him to be escorted back to Rome, where he was received with every demonstration of joy by the whole populace, natives and foreigners. The pope's enemies were then tried by Charlemagne's envoys and, being unable to establish either Leo's guilt or their own innocence, were sent as prisoners to France (Frankland). In the following year (800) Charlemagne himself came to Rome, and the pope and his accusers were brought face to face. The assembled bishops declared that they had no right to judge the pope; but Leo of his own free will, in order, as he said, to dissipate any suspicions in men's minds, declared on oath that he was wholly guiltless of the charges which had been brought against him. At his special request the death sentence which had been passed upon his principal enemies was commuted into a sentence of exile.

A few days later, Leo and Charlemagne again met. It was on Christmas Day in St. Peter's. After the Gospel had been sung, the pope approached Charlemagne, who was kneeling before the Confession of St. Peter, and placed a crown upon his head. The assembled multitude at once made the basilica ring with the shout: "To Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, to our great and pacific emperor life and victory!" By this act was revived the Empire in the West, and, in theory, at least, the world was declared by the Church subject to one temporal head, as Christ had made it subject to one spiritual head. It was understood that the first duty of the new emperor was to be the protector of the Roman Church and of Christendom against the heathen. With a view to combining the East and West under the effective rule of Charlemagne, Leo strove to further the project of a marriage between him and the Eastern empress Irene. Her deposition, however (801), prevented the realization of this excellent plan. Some three years after the departure of Charlemagne from Rome (801), Leo again crossed the Alps to see him (804). According to some he went to discuss with the emperor the division of his territories between his sons. At any rate, two years later, he was invited to give his assent to the emperor's provisions for the said partition. Equally while acting in harmony with the pope, Charlemagne combatted the heresy of Adoptionism which had arisen in Spain; but he went somewhat further than his spiritual guide when he wished to bring about the general insertion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. The two were, however, acting together when Salzburg was made the metropolitical city for Bavaria, and when Fortunatus of Grado was compensated for the loss of his see of Grado by the gift of that of Pola. The joint action of the pope and the emperor was felt even in England. Through it Eardulf of Northumbria recovered his kingdom, and the dispute between Eanbald, Archbishop of York, and Wulfred, Archbishop of Canterbury, was regulated.

Leo had, however, many relations with England solely on his own account. By his command the synod of Beccanceld (or Clovesho, 803), condemned the appointing of laymen as superiors of monasteries. In accordance with the wishes of Ethelheard, Archbishop of Canterbury, Leo excommunicated Eadbert Praen for seizing the throne of Kent, and withdrew the pallium which had been granted to Litchfield, authorizing the restoration of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the See of Canterbury "just as St. Gregory the Apostle and Master of the nation of the English had arranged it". Leo was also called upon to intervene in the quarrels between Archbishop Wulfred and Cenulf, King of Mercia. Very little is known of the real causes of the misunderstandings between them, but, whoever was the more to blame, the archbishop seems to have had the more to suffer. The king appears to have induced the pope to suspend him from the exercise of his episcopal functions, and to keep the kingdom under a kind of interdict for a period of six years. Till the hour of his death (822), greed of gold caused Cenulf to continue his persecution of the archbishop. It also caused him to persecute the monastery of Abingdon, and it was not until he had received from its abbot a large sum of money that, acting, as he declared, at the request of "the lord Apostolic and most glorious Pope Leo", he decreed the inviolability of the monastery.

During the pontificate of Leo, the Church of Constantinople was in a state of unrest. The monks, who at this period were flourishing under the guidance of such men as St. Theodore the Studite, were suspicious of what they conceived to be the lax principles of their patriarch Tarasius, and were in vigorous opposition to the evil conduct of their emperor Constantine VI. To be free to marry Theodota, their sovereign had divorced his wife Maria. Though Tarasius condemned the conduct of Constantine, still, to avoid greater evils, he refused, to the profound disgust of the monks, to excommunicate him. For their condemnation of his new marriage Constantine punished the monks with imprisonment and exile. In their distress the monks turned for help to Leo, as they did when they were maltreated for opposing the arbitrary reinstatement of the priest whom Tarasius had degraded for marrying Constantine to Theodota. The pope replied, not merely with words of praise and encouragement, but also by the dispatch of rich presents; and, after Michael I came to the Byzantine throne, he ratified the treaty between him and Charlemagne which was to secure peace for East and West.

Not only in the last mentioned transaction, but in all matters of importance, did the pope and the Frankish emperor act in concert. It was on Charlemagne's advice that, to ward off the savage raids of the Saracens, Leo maintained a fleet, and caused his coast line to be regularly patrolled by his ships of war. But because he did not feel competent to keep the Moslem pirates out of Corsica, he entrusted the guarding of it to the emperor. Supported by Charlemagne, he was able to recover some of the patrimonies of the Roman Church in the neighbourhood of Gaeta, and again to administer them through his rectors. But when the great emperor died (28 Jan., 814), evil times once more broke on Leo. Af fresh conspiracy was formed against him, but on this occasion the pope was apprised of it before it came to a head. He caused the chief conspirators to be seized and executed. No sooner had this plot been crushed than a number of nobles of the Campagna rose in arms and plundered the country. They were preparing to march on Rome itself, when they were overpowered by the Duke of Spoleto, acting under the orders of the King of Italy (Langobardia). The large sums of money which Charlemagne gave to the papal treasury enabled Leo to become an efficient helper of the poor and a patron of art, and to renovate the churches, not only of Rome, but even of Ravenna. He employed the imperishable art of mosaic not merely to portray the political relationship between Charlemagne and himself, but chiefly to decorate the churches, especially his titular church of St. Susanna. Up to the end of the sixteenth century a figure of Leo in mosaic was to be seen in that ancient church.

Leo III was buried in St. Peter's (12 June, 816), where his relics are to be found along with those of Sts. Leo I, Leo II, and Leo IV. He was canonized in 1673. The silver denarii of Leo III still extant bear the name of the Frankish emperor upon them as well as that of Leo, showing thereby the emperor as the protector of the Church, and overlord of the city of Rome.

      Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II (Paris, 1892), 1 sqq.; Codex Carolinus, ed. JaffÉ (Berlin, 1867); Annales Einhardi (so called) and other Chronicles, in Mon. Germ.: Script., I; Carmen de Carolo Magno, in P.L., XCVIII. Cf. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire (London, 1889A); Kleinklausz, L'Empire Carolingien (Paris, 1902); Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, VIII (Oxford, 1899); BÖhmer, Regesta Imperii, ed. MÜhlbacher, I (Innsbruck, 1908); Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, II (London, 1906), 1 sqq.

Horace K. Mann

Pope St. Leo IV

(Reigned 847-55)

A Roman and the son of Radoald, was unanimously elected to succeed Sergius II, and as the alarming attack of the Saracens on Rome in 846 caused the people to fear for the safety of the city, he was consecrated (10 April, 847) without the consent of the emperor. Leo received his early education at Rome in the monastery of St. Martin, near St. Peter's. His pious behaviour attracted the notice of Gregory IV, who made him a subdeacon; and he was created Cardinal-Priest of the church of the Quatuor Coronati by Sergius II. As soon as Leo, much against his will, became pope, he began to take precautions against a repetition of the Saracen raid of 846. He put the walls of the city into a thorough state of repair, entirely rebuilding fifteen of the great towers. He was the first to enclose the Vatican hill by a wall. To do this, he received money from the emperor, and help from all the cities and agricultural colonies (domus cultae) of the Duchy of Rome. The work took him four years to accomplish, and the newly fortified portion was called the Leonine City, after him. In 852 the fortifications were completed, and were blessed by the pope with great solemnity.

Whilst the work of refortifying the city was in progress, a great fleet of the Saracens sailed for Rome, seemingly from Sardinia, but it was completely destroyed off Ostia by the allied fleets of Rome, Naples, Amalfi, and Gaeta, and by a tempest (849). When the rebuilding of the walls of Rome was accomplished, Leo rebuilt Portus, and handed it over to a number of Corsican exiles, whom the ravages of the Saracens had driven from their homes. Other cities too in the Roman duchy were fortified, either by the pope himself or in consequence of his exhortations. Leo also endeavoured to make good the damage which the Saracen raid of 846 had done to the different churches. St. Peter's had suffered very severely, and though as a whole it never again reached its former magnificence, Leo managed to make it in parts at least more beautiful than it had been before. St. Martin's, where he had been educated, the Quatuor Coronati, of which he had been the priest, the Lateran Palace, the Anglo-Saxon Borgo, Subiaco, and many other places both in Rome and out of it were renovated by the energetic Leo. It was by this pope that the church of S. Maria Nova was built, to replace S. Maria Antiqua, which the decaying Palace of the Caesars threatened to engulf, and of which the ruins have recently been brought to light. In 850 Leo associated with Lothair in the empire his son Louis, by imposing on him the imperial crown. Three years later "he hallowed the child Alfred to king [says an old English historian] by anointing; and receiving him for his own child by adoption, gave him confirmation, and sent him back [to England] with the blessing of St. Peter the Apostle."

The same year (853) he held an important synod in Rome, in which various decrees were passed for the furtherance of ecclesiastical discipline and learning, and for the condemnation of the refractory Anastasius, Cardinal of St. Marcellus, and sometime librarian of the Roman Church. Equally rebellious conduct on the part of John, Archbishop of Ravenna, forced Leo to undertake a journey to that city to inspire John and his accomplices with respect for the law. It was while engaged in endeavouring to inspire another archbishop, Hincmar of Reims, with this same reverence, that Leo died. Another man who, till his death (851), defied the authority of the pope was Nomenoe, Duke of Brittany. Anxious to be independent of the imperial authority Nomenoe, in defiance both of Leo and Charles the Bald, not only deposed a number of bishops, but made new ones, and subjected them to a metropolitan see (Dol) of his own creation. It was not till the thirteenth century that the Archbishop of Tours recovered his jurisdiction over the Breton bishops. For consecrating a bishop outside his own diocese, St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had suspended Gregory Asbestas, Bishop of Syracuse. St. Ignatius, who succeeded St. Methodius, in consequence forbade Gregory to be present at his consecration. This led Gregory to break all bounds. St. Ignatius accordingly caused him to be deposed, and begged the pope to confirm the deposition. This, however, Leo would not do, because, as he said, Ignatius had assembled bishops and deposed others without his knowledge, whereas he ought not to have done so "in the absence of our legates or of letters from us". Despite the fact that Leo was then in opposition to the Patriarch of Constantinople, one of his dependents, Daniel, a magister militum, accused him to the Frankish Emperor Louis of wishing to overthrow the domination of the Franks by a Greek alliance. Leo had, however, no difficulty in convincing Louis that the charge was absolutely groundless. Daniel was condemned to death and only escaped it by the intercession of the emperor. Shortly after this Leo died, and was buried in St. Peter's (17 July, 855). He is credited with being a worker of miracles both by his biographer and by the Patriarch Photius. His name is found in the Roman Martyrology.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II, 106 sq.; his letters in P.L., CXV, CXXIX; the letters of Hincmar in P.L., CXXVI; the annals of Hincmar etc. Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., I; Life of St. Ignatius and other documents in LABBE, Concilia, VIII; cf. LANCIANI, The Destruction of Ancient Rome (London, 1901), 132 sq.; THURSTON, The Roman Sacring of King Alfred in The Month (Oct., 1901); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 136 sq.; DE BROLO, Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia (Palermo, 1884), II, 265 sq.; MANN, Lives of the Popes, II (London, 1902), 258 sqq.

HORACE K. MANN

Pope Leo V

Very little is known of him. We have no certainty either as to when he was elected or as to exactly how long he reigned. It is highly probable that he was pope during August, 903. He was a native of Priapi, a small place in the district of Ardea. When chosen he was not one of the cardinal-priests of Rome, but was attached to some church outside the City. Hence, in contemporary catalogues of the popes he is called a presbiter forensis. Auxilius, a writer of the time, says that he held "the rudder of the Holy Roman Church" for thirty days, and that "he was a man of God and of praiseworthy life and holiness." Except that he issued a Bull exempting the canons of Bologna from the payment of taxes, we know of nothing that he did as pope. The circumstances of his death are as obscure as those of his life. After a pontificate of somewhat over a month he was seized by Christopher, Cardinal-Priest of St. Damasus, and cast into prison. The intruder promptly seated himself in the chair of Peter, but was soon after displaced by Sergius III. According to one authority, Sergius took "pity" on the two imprisoned pontiffs, and caused them both to be put to death. However, it seems more likely that Leo died a natural death in prison or in a monastery.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 234; JAFFE, Reg. Pontif., II (Leipzig, 1888), 746. Cf. MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV (London, 1906), 111 sqq.

HORACE K. MANN

Pope Leo VI

The exact dates of the election and death of Leo VI are uncertain, but it is clear that he was pope during the latter half of 928. If, as some suppose, he was elected in June, 928, then he died in February, 929, as he reigned seven months and five days. Others, however, believe he became pope before the month of June. He was a Roman, the son of the primicerius, Christopher, who had been prime-minister of John VIII. When Leo became pope, he was Cardinal-Priest of St. Susanna. His immediate predecessor, John X, had been engaged in settling questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Dalmatia; some of these were decided by Leo VI, and there is extant a Bull of his in which he states that he has granted the pallium to Archbishop John of Spalato, orders all the bishops of Dalmatia to obey him, and to confine their operations within the limits of their own dioceses, and instructs Bishop Gregory to be content with the Diocese of Scodra. The only other item of information regarding Leo which has reached us is that "according to most writers he was buried in St. Peter's".

Liber Pontifcalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 242: MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV, 188.

HORACE K. MANN

Pope Leo VII

Date of birth unknown; d. 13 July, 939. A Roman and priest of St. Sixtus, and probably a Benedictine monk, he was elected pope 3 January, 936. He seems to have been placed upon the Chair of Peter by the power of Alberic, prince and senator of the Romans. Alberic's authority in Rome was disputed by Hugo, who bore the title of King of Italy (Langobardia). The city was being besieged by Hugo when the famous Odo, Abbot of Cluny, reached it. He had been summoned by Leo, who knew his great influence with both Alberic and Hugo, to make peace between them. Odo accomplished the desires of the pope, and a marraige between Alberic and Hugo's daughter Alda effected at least a temporary understanding between the belligerents. The Bulls of Leo consist for the most part of grants of privilege to various monasteries, especailly to Cluny. One, however, is a letter to Frederick, Archbishop of Mainz. With a view to co-operating in the work of reform which was being accomplished in Germany by Henry I (the Fowler) and his son Otho I, Leo named Frederick his vicar throughout all Germany, with power to proceed against all erring clerics. He would not, however, allow the archbishop to baptize the Jews by force, though he did authorize their expulsion from the cities on their refusal to embrace Christianity.

      Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II (Paris, 1892), 244; JaffÉ Reg. Pontif., I (Leipzig, 1888), 3597 sqq.; Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV (London, 1906), 205 sqq.

Horace K. Mann.

Pope Leo VIII

Date of birth unknown; d. between 20 February and 13 April, 965. When the Emperor Otho I illegally brought about the deposition of the unworthy Pope John XII (Nov., 963), he equally illegally caused to be elected, to fill his place, a layman, "Leo, the venerable protonotary". Leo was a Roman and the son of one John. His family was well known in the Clivus Argentarii (now Via di Marforio, between the Corso and the Forum Romanum), and he himself gave his name to various streets in the neighbourhood of his home. Chosen pope on 4 December, he was consecrated Bishop of Rome on 6 December, all the lesser orders having, in violation of the canon law, been bestowed upon him in the meantime by Sico, Bishop of Ostia. A few weeks after Leo's consecration, the Romans made a vain effort to overthrow the authority of the emperor. They were severely punished for their attempt; but, through the intercession of Leo, Otho restored to them the hostages he had received from them. No sooner, however, did the emperor leave Rome, than the people rose and expelled his nominee (Feb., 964). John XII at once returned to the city, summoned a council, condemned Leo "one of the employees of our curia, who has broken his faith with us", and degraded those clerics who had been ordained by him. Soon after this John died (14 May, 964), and the Romans unwisely elected to succeed him the Cardinal-Deacon Benedict. Indignant at the expulsion of Leo, and the election of Benedict, Otho hurried to Rome, and was soon in possession of both it and the new pope. Leo returned with the emperor, and at once brought Benedict to trial. With the consent of all his would-be judges, Benedict was degraded to the rank of a deacon, Leo himself tearing the pallium from his shoulders (July, 964). If it be the fact, as is asserted by a contemporary, that Benedict acquiesced in his deposition, and if, as seems certain, no further protest was made against Leo's position, he may well be regarded as a true pope from July, 964, to his death in 965, about the month of March.

No extant records inform us of any deeds which Leo performed during the period when he may be safely regarded as a true pope. He is said, indeed, to have given Otho the right of nominating any one he chose to be pope or bishop, and to have restored to Otho all the lands which his predecessors had bestowed upon the papacy. It is generally allowed, however, that the documents which make these statements are imperial productions forged during the investiture quarrel.

      Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II (Paris, 1892), 250; Liutprand, Hist. Ottonis (Hanover, 1877), ix sqq.; Ann. Altahenses majores (Hanover, 1868), an., 963 sq.; JaffÉ, Reg., I (Leipzig, 1888), 467 sqq. Cf. Fisher, The Medieval Empire, II (London, 1897), 113; Duchesne, The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes (London, 1908), 222 sqq.; Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV, 260-81.

Horace K. Mann.

Pope St. Leo IX

(1049-54), b. at Egisheim, near Colmar, on the borders of Alsace, 21 June, 1002; d. 19 April, 1054. He belonged to a noble family which had given or was to give saints to the Church and rulers to the Empire. He was named Bruno. His father Hugh was first cousin to Emperor Conrad, and both Hugh and his wife Heilewide were remarkable for their piety and learning. As a sign of the tender conscience which soon began to manifest itself in the saintly child, we are told that, though he had given abundant proofs of a bright mind, on one occasion he could not study out of an exceptionally beautiful book which his mother had bought and given to him. At length it transpired that the book had been stolen from the Abbey of St. Hubert in the Ardennes. When Heilewide had restored the volume to its rightful owners, the little Bruno's studies proceeded unchecked. When five years of age, he was committed to the care of the energetic Berthold, Bishop of Toul, who had a school for the sons of the nobility. Intelligent, graceful in body, and gracious in disposition, Bruno was a favourite with his schoolfellows. Whilst still a youth and at home for his holidays, he was attacked when asleep by some animal, and so much injured that for some time he lay between life and death. In that condition he saw, as he used afterwards to tell his friends, a vision of St. Benedict, who cured him by touching his wounds with a cross. This we are told by Leo's principal biographer, Wibert, who was his intimate friend when the saint was Bishop of Toul.

Bruno became a canon of St. Stephen's at Toul (1017), and though still quite young exerted a soothing influence on Herimann, the choleric successor of Bishop Berthold. When, in 1024, Conrad, Bruno's cousin, succeeded the Emperor Henry I, the saint's relatives sent him to the new king's court "to serve in his chapel". His virtue soon made itself felt, and his companions, to distinguish him from others who bore the same name, always spoke of him as "the good Bruno". In 1026 Conrad set out for Italy to make his authority respected in that portion of his dominions, and as Herimann, Bishop of Toul, was too old to lead his contingent into the peninsula, he entrusted the command of it to Bruno, then a deacon. There is reason to believe that this novel occupation was not altogether uncongenial to him, for soldiers seem always to have had an attraction for him. While he was thus in the midst of arms, Bishop Herimann died and Bruno was at once elected to succeed him. Conrad, who destined him for higher things, was loath to allow him to accept that insignificant see. But Bruno, who was wholly disinclined for the higher things, and wished to live in as much obscurity as possible, induced his sovereign to permit him to take the see. Consecrated in 1027, Bruno administered the Diocese of Toul for over twenty years, in a season of stress and trouble of all kinds. He had to contend not merely with famine, but also with war, to which as a frontier town Toul was much exposed. Bruno, however, was equal to his position. He knew how to make peace, and, if necessary, to wield the sword in self-defence. Sent by Conrad to Robert the Pious, he established so firm a peace between France and the empire that it was not again broken even during the reigns of the sons of both Conrad and Robert. On the other hand, he held his episcopal city against Eudes, Count of Blois, a rebel against Conrad, and "by his wisdom and exertions" added Burgundy to the empire. It was whilst he was bishop that he was saddened by the death not merely of his father and mother, but also of two of his brothers. Amid his trials Bruno found some consolation in music, in which he proved himself very efficient.

The German Pope Damasus II died in 1048, and the Romans sent to ask Henry III, Conrad's successor, to let them have as the new pope either Halinard, Archbishop of Lyons, or Bruno. Both of them were favourably known to the Romans by what they had seen of them when they came to Rome on pilgrimage. Henry at once fixed upon Bruno, who did all he could to avoid the honour which his sovereign wished to impose upon him. When at length he was overcome by the combined importunities of the emperor, the Germans, and the Romans, he agreed to go to Rome, and to accept the papacy if freely elected thereto by the Roman people. He wished, at least, to rescue the See of Peter from its servitude to the German emperors. When, in company with Hildebrand he reached Rome, and presented himself to its people clad in pilgrim's guise and barefooted, but still tall, and fair to look upon, they cried out with one voice that him and no other would they have as pope. Assuming the name of Leo, he was solemnly enthroned 12 February, 1049. Before Leo could do anything in the matter of the reform of the Church on which his heart was set, he had first to put down another attempt on the part of the ex-Pope Benedict IX to seize the papal throne. He had then to attent to money matters, as the papal finances were in a deplorable condition. To better them he put them in the hands of Hildebrand, a man capable of improving anything.

He then began the work of reform which was to give the next hundred years a character of their own, and which his great successor Gregory VII was to carry so far forward. In April, 1049, he held a synod at which he condemned the two notorious evils of the day, simony and clerical incontinence. Then he commenced those journeys throughout Europe in the cause of a reformation of manners which gave him a pre- eminent right to be styled Peregrinus Apostolicus. Leaving Rome in May, he held a council of reform at Pavia, and pushed on through Germany to Cologne, where he joined the Emperor Henry III. In union with him he brought about peace in Lorraine by excommunicating the rebel Godfrey the Bearded. Despite the jealous efforts of King Henry I to prevent him from coming to France, Leo next proceeded to Reims, where he held an important synod, at which both bishops and abbots from England assisted. There also assembled in the city to see the famous pope an enormous number of enthusiastic people, "Spaniards, Bretons, Franks, Irish, and English". Besides excommunicating the Archbishop of Compostela (because he had ventured to assume the title of Apostolicus, reserved to the pope alone), and forbidding marriage between William (afterwards called the Conqueror) and Matilda of Flanders, the assembly issued many decrees of reform. On his way back to Rome Leo held another synod at Mainz, everywhere rousing public opinion against the great evils of the time as he went along, and everywhere being received with unbounded enthusiasm. It is apparently in connexion with this return journey that we have the first mention of the Golden Rose. The Abbess of Woffenheim, in return for certain privileges bestowed by the pope, had to send to Rome "a golden rose" before Lætare Sunday, on which day, says Leo, the popes are wont to carry it. Also before he returned to Rome, he discussed with Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, the formation of all the Scandinavian countries, including Iceland and Greenland, into a patriarchate, of which the see was to be Bremen. The scheme was never accomplished, but meanwhile Leo authorized the consecration by Adalbert of the first native bishop for Iceland.

In January, 1050, Leo returned to Rome, only to leave it again almost immediately for Southern Italy, whither the sufferings of its people called him. They were being heavily oppressed by the Normans. To the expostulations of Leo the wily Normans replied with promises, and when the pope, after holding a council at Spoleto, returned to Rome, they continued their oppressions as before. At the usual paschal synod which Leo was in the habit of holding at Rome, the heresy of Berengarius of Tours was condemned–a condemnation repeated by the pope a few months later at Vercelli. Before the year 1050 had come to a close, Leo had begun his second transalpine journey. He went first to Toul, in order solemnly to translate the relics of Gerard, bishop of that city, whom he had just canonized, and then to Germany to interview the Emperor Henry the Black. One of the results of this meeting was that Hunfrid, Archbishop of Ravenna, was compelled by the emperor to cease acting as though he were the independent ruler of Ravenna and its district, and to submit to the pope. Returning to Rome, Leo held another of his paschal synods in April, 1051, and in July went to take possession of Benevento. Harassed by their enemies, the Beneventans concluded that their only hope of peace was to submit themselves to the authority of the pope. This they did, and received Leo into their city with the greatest honour. While in this vicinity, Leo again made further efforts to lessen the excesses of the Normans, but they were crippled by the native Lombards, who with as much folly as wickedness massacred a number of the Normans in Apulia. Realizing that nothing could then be done with the irate Norman survivors, Leo retraced his steps to Rome (1051).

The Norman question was henceforth ever present to the pope's mind. Constantly oppressed by the Normans, the people of Southern Italy ceased not to implore the pope to come and help them. The Greeks, fearful of being expelled from the peninsula altogether, begged Leo to co-operate with them against the common foe. Thus urged, Leo sought assistance on all sides. Failing to obtain it, he again tried the effect of personal mediation (1052). But again failure attended his efforts. He began to be convinced that appeal would have to be made to the sword. At this juncture an embassy arrived from the Hungarians, entreating him to come and make peace between them and the emperor. Again Leo crossed the Alps, but, thinking he was sure of success, Henry would not accept the terms proposed by the pope, with the result that his expedition against the Hungarians proved a failure. And though he at first undertook to let Leo have a German force to act against the Normans, he afterwards withdrew his promise, and the pope had to return to Italy with only a few German troops raised by his relatives (1053). In March, 1053, Leo was back in Rome. Finding the state of affairs in Southern Italy worse than ever, he raised what forces he could among the Italian princes, and, declaring war on the Normans, tried to effect a junction with the Greek general. But the Normans defeated first the Greeks and then the pope at Civitella (June, 1053). After the battle Leo gave himself up to his conquerors, who treated him with the utmost respect and consideration, and professed themselves his soldiers.

Though he gained more by defeat than he could have gained by victory, Leo betook himself to Benevento, a broken-hearted man. The slain at Civitella were ever before him, and he was profoundly troubled by the attitude of Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. That ambitious prelate was determined, if possible, to have no superior in either Church or State. As early as 1042, he had struck the pope's name off the sacred diptychs, and soon proceeded, first in private and then in public, to attack the Latin Church because it used unfermented bread (azymes) in the Sacrifice of the Mass. At length, and that, too, in a most barbarous manner, he closed the Latin churches in Constantinople. In reply to this violence, Leo addressed a strong letter to Michael (Sept., 1053), and began to study Greek in order the better to understand the matters in dispute. However, if Michael had taken advantage of the pope's difficulties with the Normans to push his plans, the Greek Emperor, seeing that his hold on Southern Italy was endangered by the Norman success, put pressure on the patriarch to make him more respectful to the pope. To the conciliatory letters which Constantine and Cærularius now dispatched to Rome, Leo sent suitable replies (Jan., 1054), blaming the arrogance of the patriarch. His letters were conveyed by two distinguished cardinals, Humbert and Frederick, but he had departed this life before the momentous issue of his embassy was known in Rome. On 16 July, 1054, the two cardinals excommunicated Cærularius, and the East was finally cut off from the body of the Church.

The annals of England show that Leo had many relations with that country, and its saintly King Edward. He dispensed the king from a vow which he had taken to make a pilgrimage to Rome, on condition that he give alms to the poor, and endow a monastery in honour of St. Peter. Leo also authorized the translation of the See of Crediton to Exeter, and forbade the consecration of the unworthy Abbot of Abingdon (Spearhafor) as Bishop of London. Throughout the troubles which Robert of Jumièges, Archbishop of Canterbury, had with the family of Earl Godwin, he received the support of the pope, who sent him the pallium and condemned Stigand, the usurper of his see (1053?). King Macbeth, the supposed murderer of Duncan, whom Shakespeare has immortalized, is believed to have visited Rome during Leo's pontificate, and may be thought to have exposed the needs of his soul to that tender father. After the battle of Civitella Leo never recovered his spirits. Seized at length with a mortal illness, he caused himself to be carried to Rome (March, 1054), where he died a most edifying death. He was buried in St. Peter's, was a worker of miracles both in life and in death, and found a place in the Roman Martyrology.

      Wibert and other contemporary biographers of the saint in Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, I (Leipzig, 1862); P. L., CXLIII, etc.; Anselm of Reims, ibid., CXLII; Libuin in Watterich and in P. L., CXLIII; see also Bonizo of Sutri; St. Peter Damian, Lanfranc, and other contemporaries of the saint. His letters are to be found in P. L., CXLIII; cf. Delarc, Un pape Alsacien (Paris, 1876); Brucker, l'Alsace et l'élglise au temps du pape S. Léon (Paris, 1889); Martin, S. Léon IX (Paris, 1904); BrÉhier, Le Schisme Oriental au XI ^e Siecle (Paris, 1899); Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), v; Mann, Lives of the Popes, VI (London, 1910).

Horace K. Mann.

Pope Leo X

(Giovanni de Medici).

Born at Florence, 11 December, 1475; died at Rome, 1 December, 1521, was the second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449-1492) and Clarice Orsini, and from his earliest youth was destined for the Church. He received tonsure in 1482 and in 1483 was made Abbot of Font Douce in the French Diocese of Saintes and appointed Apostolic prothonotary by Sixtus IV. All the benefices which the Medici could obtain were at his disposal; he consequently became possessed of the rich Abbey of Passignano in 1484 and in 1486 of Monte Cassino. Owing to the constant pressure brought to bear by Lorenzo and his envoys, Innocent VIII in 1489, created the thirteen year-old child a cardinal, on condition that he should dispense with the insignia and the privilege of his office for three years. Meanwhile his education was completed by the most distinguished Humanists and scholars, Angelo Poliziano, Marsilio Ficino, and Bernardo Dovizi (later Cardinal Bibbiena). From 1489 to 1491 Giovanni de' Medici studied theology and canon law, at Pisa, under Filippo Decio and Bartolomeo Sozzini. On 9 March, 1492, at Fiesole, he was invested with the insignia of a cardinal and on 22 March entered Rome. The next day the pope received him in consistory with the customary ceremonies. The Romans found the youthful cardinal more mature than his age might warrant them to expect. His father sent him an impressive letter of advice marked by good sense and knowledge of human nature, besides bearing witness to the high and virtuous sentiments to which the elder Lorenzo returned towards the end of his life. In this letter he enjoins upon his son certain rules of conduct, and admonishes him to be honourable, virtuous, and exemplary, the more so as the College of Cardinals at that time was deficient in these good qualities.

In the very next month Lorenzo's death recalled the cardinal to Florence. He returned once more to Rome for the papal election, which resulted, very much against his approval, in the elevation of the unworthy Alexander VI, after which Giovanni remained in Florence from August, 1492, until the expulsion of the Medici in 1494, when he fled from his native city in the habit of a Franciscan monk. After several fruitless attempts to restore the supremacy of his family, he led the life of a literary and artistic amateur. Patronage, liberality, and poor financial administration frequently reduced him even then to distressing straits; indeed, he remained a bad manager to the last. But though his manner of life was quite worldly he excelled in dignity, propriety, and irreproachable conduct most of the cardinals. Towards the end of the pontificate of Julius II (1503-1513), fortune once more smiled on Giovanni de' Medici. In August, 1511, the pope was dangerously ill and the Medici cardinal already aspired to the succession. In October, 1511, he became legate in Bologna and Romagna, and cherished the hope that his family would again rule in Florence. The Florentines had taken the part of the schismatic Pisans (see Julius II) for which reason the pope supported the Medici. Meanwhile the cardinal suffered another reverse. The army, Spanish and papal, with which he was sojourning, was defeated in 1512 at Ravenna by the French and he was taken prisoner. But it was a Pyrrhic victory, for the French soon lost all their possessions in Italy, and the cardinal, who was to have been taken to France, succeeded in making his escape. The supremacy of the Medici in Florence was re-established in September, 1512, and this unexpected change in the fortunes of his family was only the prelude to higher honours.

Julius II died on 21 February, 1513, and on 11 March Giovanni de' Medici, then but thirty-eight years old, was elected pope. In the first scrutiny he received only one vote. His adherents, the younger cardinals, held back his candidacy until the proper moment. The election met with approval even in France, although here and there a natural misgiving was felt as to whether the youthful pope would prove equal to his burden. In many quarters high hopes were placed in him by politicians who relied on his pliancy, by scholars and artists of whom he was already a patron, and by theologians who looked for energetic church reforms under a pacific ruler. Unfortunately he realized the hopes only of the artists, literati, and worldlings who looked upon the papal court as a centre of amusement.

Leo's personal appearance has been perpetuated for us in Raphael's celebrated picture at the Pitti Gallery in Florence, which represents him with Cardinals Medici and Rossi. He was not a handsome man. His fat, shiny, effeminate countenance with weak eyes protrudes in the picture from under a close-fitting cap. The unwieldy body is supported by thin legs. His movements were sluggish and during ecclesiastical functions his corpulence made him constantly wipe the perspiration from his face and hands, to the distress of the bystanders. But when he laughed or spoke the unpleasant impression vanished. He had an agreeable voice, knew how to express himself with elegance and vivacity, and his manner was easy and gracious. "Let us enjoy the papacy since God has given it to us", he is said to have remarked after his election. The Venetian ambassador who related this of him was not unbiased, nor was he in Rome at the time, nevertheless the phrase illustrates fairly the pope's pleasure-loving nature and the lack of seriousness that characterized him. He paid no attention to the dangers threatening the papacy, and gave himself up unrestrainedly to amusements, that were provided in lavish abundance. He was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure, that distinctive trait of his family. Music, the theatre, art, and poetry appealed to him as to any pampered worldling. Though temperate himself, he loved to give banquets and expensive entertainments, accompanied by revelry and carousing; and notwithstanding his indolence he had a strong passion for the chase, which he conducted every year on the largest scale. From his youth he was an enthusiastic lover of music and attracted to his court the most distinguished musicians. At table he enjoyed hearing improvisations and though it is hard to believe, in view of his dignity and his artistic tastes, the fact remains that he enjoyed also the flat and absurd jokes of buffoons. Their loose speech and incredible appetites delighted him. In ridicule and caricature he was himself a master. Pageantry, dear to the pleasure-seeking Romans, bull-fights, and the like, were not neglected. Every year he amused himself during the carnival with masques, music, theatrical performances, dances, and races. Even during the troubled years of 1520 he took part in unusually brilliant festivities. Theatrical representations, with agreeable music and graceful dancing, were his favourite diversions. The papal palace became a theatre and the pope did not hesitate to attend such improper plays as the immoral "Calendra" by Bibbiena and Ariosto's indecent "Suppositi". His contemporaries all praised and admired Leo's unfailing good temper, which he never entirely lost even in adversity and trouble. Himself cheerful, he wished to see others cheerful. He was good-natured and liberal and never refused a favour either to his relatives and fellow Florentines, who flooded Rome and seized upon all official positions, or to the numerous other petitioners, artists and poets. His generosity was boundless, nor was his pleasure in giving a pose or desire for vainglory; it came from the heart. He never was ostentatious and attached no importance to ceremonial. He was lavish in works of charity; convents, hospitals, discharged soldiers, poor students, pilgrims, exiles, cripples, the blind, the sick, the unfortunate of every description were generously remembered, and more than 6000 ducats were annually distributed in alms.

Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the large treasure left by Julius II was entirely dissipated in two years. In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope's income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats. On his unexpected death his creditors faced financial ruin. A lampoon proclaimed that "Leo X had consumed three pontificates; the treasure of Julius II, the revenues of his own reign, and those of his successor." It is proper, however, to pay full credit to the good qualities of Leo. He was highly cultivated, susceptible to all that was beautiful, a polished orator and a clever writer, possessed of good memory and judgment, in manner dignified and majestic. It was generally acknowledged, even by those who were unfriendly towards him, that he was unfeignedly religious and strictly fulfilled his spiritual duties. He heard Mass and read his Breviary daily and fasted three times a week. His piety cannot truly be described as deep or spiritual, but that does not justify the continued repetition of his alleged remark: "How much we and our family have profited by the legend of Christ, is sufficiently evident to all ages." John Bale, the apostate English Carmelite, the first to give currency to these words in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was not even a contemporary of Leo. Among the many sayings of Leo X that have come down to us, there is not one of a sceptical nature. In his private life he preserved as pope the irreproachable reputation that he had borne when a cardinal. His character shows a remarkable mingling of good and bad traits.

The fame of Leo X is due to his promotion of literature, science, and art. Under him Rome became more than ever the centre of the literary world. "From all parts", wrote Cardinal Riario in 1515 to Erasmus at Rotterdam, "men of letters are hurrying to the Eternal City, their common country, their support, and their patroness." Poets were especially numerous in Rome and few princes have been so lauded in verse as Leo X. He lavished gifts, favours, positions, titles, not only on real poets and scholars, but often on poetasters and commonplace jesters. He esteemed particularly the papal secretaries Bembo and Sadoleto, both celebrated poets and prose writers. Bembo charmed everyone by his polish and wit. His classic Ciceronian letters exhibit a remarkably varied intercourse with almost all the celebrities of his day. Among other things, he prepared a critical edition of Dante's works and was a zealous collector of manuscripts, books, and works of art. His conduct was not in accord with his position as papal notary, count palatine, and incumbent of numerous benefices, for he was worldly and self-indulgent. Sadoleto was quite another man. He led a pure and spotless life, was a model priest, united in himself the different phases of ancient and modern culture and was an ardent enthusiast for antiquity. In elegance and polish he was in no way inferior to Bembo. Among the Latin poets of Medicean Rome we may briefly mention Vida, who composed a poem of great merit, the "Christiade" and was extolled by his contemporaries as the Christian Virgil; Sannazaro, author of an epic poem on the birth of Christ which is a model of style; the Carmelite Spagnolo Mantovano with his "Calendar of Feasts"; Ferreri, who in the most naïve way recast the hymns in the Breviary with heathen terms, images, and allusions. The total number of these poets exceeds one hundred; and a lampoon of 1521 says they were more numerous than the stars in heaven. Most of them have fallen into well-deserved oblivion.

This is equally true of the contemporary Italian poetry–more prolific than notable. Among the Italian poets Trissino wrote a tragedy, "Sophonisba", and an epic "L'Italia liberata dai Gothi", but had no real success with either in spite of earnest purpose and beauty of language. Rucellai, a relative of the pope, whose clever and sympathetic didactic poem on bees met with great approval from his contemporaries, owed his reputation chiefly to an inferior work, the tragedy of "Rosmonda". The celebrated improvisatore, Tebaldeo wrote in both Latin and Italian. Towards Ariosto the pope was remarkably harsh. Archæology received great encouragement. One of its most distinguished representatives was Manetti. In 1521 the first collection of Roman topographical inscriptions appeared and introduced a new era. Important progress was due to the works of the learned antiquary, Fulvio. Fulvio, Calvo, Castiglione, and Raphael had planned an archælogical survey of ancient Rome with accompanying text. Raphael's early death abruptly interrupted the work which was carried on by Fulvio and Calvo. The Greek language also found favour and encouragement; Aldus Manutius, the Venetian publisher, whose excellent and correct editions of Greek classics became so popular, was one of Leo's protégés. Andreas Johannes Lascaris and Musurus were summoned from Greece to Rome and founded a Greek college, the "Medicean Academy". Moreover, the pope encouraged the collection of manuscripts and books. He recovered his family library which had been sold by the Florentines in 1494 to the monks of San Marco, had it brought to Rome, and enforced the regulations of Sixtus IV for the Vatican Library. The most distinguished of his librarians was Inghirami, less indeed through any learned works than for his gift of eloquence. He was called the Cicero of his age and played an important rôle at court. In 1516 he was succeeded by the Bolognese Humanist Beroaldo. Leo tried, as Nicholas V had formerly done, to increase the treasures of the Vatican Library, and with this object sent emissaries in all directions, even to Scandinavia and the Orient, to discover literary treasures and either obtain them, or borrow them for the purpose of making copies. The results, however, were unimportant. The Roman university, which had entered on decay, was reformed, but did not long flourish. On the whole, Leo, as a literary Mæcenas, has been overrated by his biographer Giovio and later panegyrists. Relatively little was accomplished, partly on account of the constant lack of money and partly because of the thoughtlessness and haste which the pope often showed in distributing his favours. He was in reality only a dilettante. Yet he gave an important stimulus to scientific and literary life, and was a potent factor in the cultural development of the West.

More important results ensued from his promotion of art, though he was unquestionably inferior in taste and judgment to his predecessor Julius II. Leo encouraged painting beyond all other branches of art; pre-eminent in this class stand the immortal productions of Raphael. In 1508 he had come to Rome, summoned by Julius II, and remained there until his death in 1520. The protection extended to this master genius is Leo's most enduring claim on posterity. Raphael's achievements, already numerous and important, took on more dignity and grandeur under Leo. He painted, sketched, and engraved from antique works of art, modeled in clay, made designs for palaces, directed the work of others by order of the pope, gave advice and assistance alike to supervisors and workmen. "Everything pertaining to art the pope turns over to Raphael", wrote an ambassador in 1518. This is not, of course, the place to treat Raphael's prodigious activity. We limit ourselves to brief mention of a few of his works. He finished the decoration of the Vatican halls or "Stanze" begun under Julius II, and in the third hall cleverly referred to Leo X by introducing scenes from the pontificates of Leo III and Leo IV. A more important commission was given him to paint the cartoons for the tapestries of the Sistine Chapel, the highest of Raphael's achievements, the most magnificent of them being "St. Peter's miraculous draught of fishes" and "St. Paul preaching in Athens". A third famous enterprise was the decoration of the Vatican Loggia done by Raphael's pupils under his direction, and mostly from his designs. The most exquisite of his paintings are the wonderful Sistine Madonna and the "Transfiguration". Sculpture showed a marked decline under Leo X. Michaelangelo offered his services and worked from 1516 to 1520 on a marble façade for the church of San Lorenzo in Florence, but did not finish it. On the other hand the pope gave especial attention and encouragement to the minor arts, e.g. decorative carving, and furthered the industrial arts. The greatest and most difficult task of Leo was in the field of architecture and was inherited from his predecessor, viz., the continuation of the new St. Peter's. Bramante remained its chief architect until his death in 1514. Raphael succeeded him, but in his six years of office little was done, much to his regret, through lack of means.

We may now turn to the political and religious events of Leo's pontificate. Here the bright splendour that diffuses itself over his literary and artistic patronage, is soon changed to deepest gloom. His well-known peaceable inclinations made the political situation a disagreeable heritage, and he tried to maintain tranqillity by exhortations, to which, however, no one listened. France desired to wreak vengeance for the defeat of 1512 and to reconquer Milan. Venice entered into an alliance with her, whereupon Emperor Maximilian, Spain, and England in 1513 concluded a Holy League against France. The pope wished at first to remain neutral but such a course would have isolated him, so he decided to be faithful to the policy of his predecessors and sought accordingly to oppose the designs of France, but in doing so, to avoid severity. In 1513 the French were decisively routed at Novara and were forced to effect a reconciliation with Rome. The schismatic cardinals (see Julius II) submitted and were pardoned, and France then took part in the Lateran Council which Leo had continued.

But success was soon clouded by uncertainty. France endeavoured to form an alliance with Spain and to obtain Milan and Genoa by a matrimonial alliance. Leo feared for the independence of the Papal States and for the so-called freedom of Italy. He negotiated on all sides without committing himself, and in 1514 succeeded in bringing about an Anglo-French alliance. The fear of Spain now gave way to the bugbear of French supremacy and the pope began negotiating in a deceitful and disloyal manner with France and her enemies simultaneously. Before he had decided to bind himself in one way or the other, Louis XII died and the young and ardent Francis I succeeded him. Once more Leo sought delay. He supported the League against France, but until the last moment hoped for an arrangement with Francis. But the latter shortly after his descent upon Italy, won the great victory of Marignano, 13-14 September, 1515, and the pope now made up his mind to throw himself into the arms of the Most Christian King and beg for mercy. He was obliged to alter his policy completely and to abandon to the French king Parma and Piacenza, which had been reunited with Milan. An interview with King Francis at Bologna resulted in the French Concordat (1516), that brought with it such important consequences for the Church. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), deeply inimical to the papacy, was revoked, but the pope paid a high price for this concession, when he granted to the king the right of nomination to all the sees, abbeys, and priories of France. Through this and other concessions, e.g. that pertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the royal influence over the French Church was assured. Great discontent resulted in France among the clergy and in the parliaments. The abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, drawn up in compliance with the decrees of the Council of Basle, affected the adherents of the conciliar system of church government. The abolition of free ecclesiastical elections affected grievously the interests of many and opposition to the Concordat was maintained for centuries. The advantage to the Church and the pope of such a great sacrifice was that France, hitherto schismatical in attitude, now stood firmly bound to the Holy See, which thus turned aside the danger of complete estrangement. However, the way in which the French crown abused its control over the Church led at a later period to great evils.

Meanwhile the Lateran Council, continued by Leo after his elevation to the papacy, was nearing its close, having issued numerous and very timely decrees, e.g. against the false philosophical teachings of the Paduan professor, Pietro Pompanazzi, who denied the immortality of the soul. The encroachments of pagan Humanism on the spiritual life were met by the simultaneous rise of a new order of philosophical and theological studies. In the ninth session was promulgated a Bull that treated exhaustively of reforms in the Curia and the Church. Abbeys and benefices were henceforth to be bestowed only on persons of merit and according to canon law. Provisions of benefices and consistorial proceedings were regulated; ecclesiastical depositions and transfers made more difficult; commendatory benefices were forbidden; and unions and reservations of benefices, also dispensations for obtaining them, were restricted. Measures were also taken for reforming the curial administration and the lives of cardinals, clerics, and the faithful. The religious instruction of children was declared a duty. Blasphemers and incontinent, negligent, or simoniac ecclesiastics were to be severely punished. Church revenues were no longer to be turned to secular uses. The immunities of the clergy must be respected, and all kinds of superstition abolished. The eleventh session dealt with the cure of souls, particularly with preaching. These measures, unhappily, were not thoroughly enforced, and therefore the much-needed genuine reform was not realized. Towards the close of the council (1517) the noble and highly cultured layman, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, delivered a remarkable speech on the necessity of a reform of morals; his account of the moral condition of the clergy is saddening, and reveals the many and great difficulties that stood in the way of a genuine reform. He concluded with the warning that if Leo X left such offences longer unpunished and refused to apply healing remedies to these wounds of the Church, it was to be feared that God Himself would cut off the rotten limbs and destroy them with fire and sword. That very year this prophetic warning was verified. The salutary reforms of the Lateran Council found no practical acceptance. Pluralism, commendatory benefices, and the granting of ecclesiastical dignities to children remained customary. Leo himself did not scruple to set aside repeatedly the decrees of the council. The Roman Curia, then much despised and against which so many inveighed with violence, remained as worldly as ever. The pope was either unwilling or not in a position to regulate the unworthy and immoral conduct of many of the Roman courtiers. The political situation absorbed his attention and was largely responsible for the premature close of the council.

In March, 1516, Emperor Maximilian crossed the Alps to make war on the French and Venetians. The pope followed his usual course of shifting and dissimulation. At first, when events seemed favourable for the French, he supported Francis. But his former double-dealing had left Francis in such ill-humour that he now adhered to an antipapal policy, whereupon Leo adopted an unfriendly attitude towards the king. Their relations were further strained apropos of the Duchy of Urbino. During the French invasion the Duke of Urbino had withheld the assistance which he was in duty bound to render the pope, who now exiled him and gave the title to his nephew, Lorenzo de' Medici. The French king was highly displeased with the papal policy, and when Francis I and Maximilian formed the alliance of Cambrai in 1517 and agreed on a partition of Upper and Central Italy, Pope Leo found himself in a disagreeable position. In part by reason of his constant vacillation he had drifted into a dangerous isolation, added to which the Duke of Urbino reconquered his duchy; to crown all other calamities came a conspiracy of cardinals against the pope's life. The ringleader, Cardinal Petrucci, was a young worldly ecclesiastic who thought only of money and pleasure. He and the other cardinals who had brought about Leo's selection, made afterwards such numerous and insistent demands that the pope could not yield to them. Other causes for discontent were found in the unfortunate war with Urbino and in the abolition of the election capitulations and the excessive privileges of the cardinals. Petrucci bore personal ill-will towards the "ungrateful pope", who had removed his brother from the government of Siena. He tried to have the pope poisoned by a physician, but suspicion was aroused and the plot was betrayed through a letter. The investigation implicated Cardinals Sauli, Riario, Soderini, and Castellesi; they had been guilty at least of listening to Petrucci, and perhaps had desired his success, though their full complicity was not actually proved. Petrucci was executed and the others punished by fines; Riario paid the enormous sum of 150,000 ducats.

The affair throws a lurid light on the degree of corruption in the highest ecclesiastical circles. Unconcerned by the scandal he was giving, Leo took advantage of the proceeding to create thirty-one new cardinals, thereby obtaining an entirely submissive college and also money to carry on the unlucky war with Urbino. Not a few of these cardinals were chosen on account of the large sums they advanced. But this wholesale appointment also brought several virtuous and distinguished men into the Sacred College, and it was further important because it definitively established the superiority of the pope over the cardinals. The war with Urbino, encouraged by Francis I and Maximilian for the purpose of increasing Leo's difficulties, was finally brought to a close, after having cost enormous sums and emptied the papal treasury. Lorenzo de' Medici remained in possession of the duchy (1517). Faithful to the ancient tradition of the Holy See, from the very beginning of his reign, Leo zealously advocated a crusade against the Turks, and at the close of the war with Urbino took up the cause with renewed determination. In November, 1517, he submitted an exhaustive memorial to all the princes of Europe, and endeavored to unite them in a common effort, but in vain. The replies of the powers proved widely dissimilar. They were suspicious of one another and each sought naturally to realize various secondary purposes of its own. Leo answered a threatening letter from the sultan by active exertions. Religious processions were held, a truce of five years was proclaimed throughout Christendom and the Crusade was preached (1518). The pope showed real earnestness, but his great plan miscarried through lack of cooperation on the part of the powers. Moreover, Cardinal Wolsey, Lord Chancellor of England, thwarted the pope's peaceful efforts and thus dealt a grievous blow to the international prestige of the papacy. When the Crusade was preached in Germany, it found a large section of the people strongly predisposed against the Curia, and furnished them with an occasion to express their views in plain terms. It was believed that the Curia merely sought to obtain more money. One of the numerous spiteful pamphlets issued declared that the real Turks were in Italy and that these demons could only be pacified by streams of gold. The good cause was gradually merged with an important political question, the succession to the imperial throne. Maximilian sought the election for his grandson, Charles of Spain. A rival appeared in the person of Francis I, and both he and Charles vied with each other in seeking to win the pope's favour by repeated assurances of their willingness to move against the Turks. The event of the election relegated the crusade to the background. In 1519 the pope realized that there was no longer any prospect of carrying out his design.

Leo's attitude towards the imperial succession was influenced primarily by his anxiety concerning the power and independence of the Holy See and the so-called freedom of Italy. Neither candidate was acceptable to him, Charles, if possible, less than Francis, owing to the preponderance of power that must result from his accession. The pope would have preferred a German electoral prince, that of Saxony or later, the Elector of Brandenburg. He "sailed", as usual, "with two compasses", held both rivals at bay by a double game played with matchless skill, and even succeeded in concluding simultaneously an alliance with both. The deceitfulness and insincerity of his political dealings cannot be entirely excused, either by the difficult position in which he was placed or by the example of his secular contemporaries. Maximilian's death (January, 1519) ended the pope's irresolution. First he tried to defeat both candidates by raising up a German elector. Then he worked zealously for Francis I in the endeavour to secure his firm friendship in case Charles became emperor, an event which grew daily more likely. Only at the last moment when the election of Charles was certain and unavoidable did Leo come over to his side; after the election he watched in great anxiety the attitude the new emperor might assume.

The most important occurrence of Leo's pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. We cannot enter into a minute account of this movement, the remote cause of which lay in the religious, political, and social conditions of Germany. It is certain, however, that the seeds of discontent amid which Luther threw his firebrand had been germinating for centuries. The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the "Indulgences for the Dead" became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.

The pope's last political efforts were directed to expanding the States of the Church, establishing a dominating power in central italy by means of the acquisition of Ferrara. In 1519 he concluded a treaty with Francis I against Emperor Charles V. But the selfishness and encroachments of the French and the struggle against the Lutheran movement, induced him soon to unite with Charles, after he had again resorted to his double-faced method of treating with both rivals. In 1521 pope and emperor signed a defensive alliance for the purpose of driving the French out of Italy. After some difficulty, the allies occupied Milan and Lombardy. Amid the rejoicings over these successes, the pope died suddenly of a malignant malaria. His enemies are wrongly accused of having poisoned him. The magnificent pope was given a simple funeral and not until the reign of Paul III was a monument erected to his memory in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. It is cold, prosaic, and quite unworthy of such a connoisseur as Leo.

The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: "In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes". Von Reumont says pertinently–"Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church."

      Pastor, History of the Popes, VII (St. Louis, 1908); Leonis X. P. M. Regesta, ed. HergenrnrÖther, Fasc. I-VIII (to 16 October, 1515), (Freiburg, 1884-91); Jovius, De vita Leonis X (Florence, 1548, 1551); Fabronius, Leonis X. P. M. vita (Pisa, 1707); Roscoe, Life and Pontificate of Leo X (Liverpool, 1805, London, 1883); Italian tr. with new materials by Bossi (Milan, 1816); Audin, Histoire de Léon X. et de son siècle (Paris, 1844); Nitti, Leone X et la sua politica (Florence, 1892); Conforti, Leone X ed il suo secolo (Parma, 1896); Von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, III (Berlin, 1870), part ii; Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, VIII (Stuttgart, 1896); Geiger, Renaissance und Humanismus in Deutschland und Italien (Berlin, 1882).

Klemens LÖffler

Pope Leo XI

(ALESSANDRO OTTAVIANO DE' MEDICI).

Born at Florence in 1535; died at Rome 27 April, 1605, on the twenty-seventh day after his election to the papacy. His mother, Francesca Salviati, was a daughter of Giacomo Salviati and Lucrezia Medici, the latter being a sister of Leo X. From his boyhood he led a life of piety and always had an earnest desire to enter the ecclesiastical state, but could not obtain his mother's consent. After her death he was ordained priest and somewhat later Grand Duke Cosimo of Tuscany sent him as ambassador to Pius V, a position which he held for fifteen years. Gregory XIII made him Bishop of Pistoia in 1573, Archbishop of Florence in 1574, and cardinal in 1583. Clement VIII sent him, in 1596, as legate to France where he did good service for the Church in repressing the Huguenot influence at the court of Henry IV, and helping to restore the Catholic religion. On his return to Italy he was appointed prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. In 1600 he became Bishop of the suburbicarian Diocese of Albano, whence he was transferred to Palestrina in 1602. Alessandro was an intimate friend of St. Philip Neri with whom he spent much time in spiritual conversation and whose advice he sought in all important matters. When Alessandro was Tuscan ambassador at the court of Pius V Philip predicted his election to the papacy.

On 14 March, 1605, eleven days after the death of Clement VIII, sixty-two cardinals entered the conclave. Prominent among the candidates for the papacy were the great historian Baronius and the famous Jesuit controversialist Bellarmine. But Aldobrandini, the leader of the Italian party among the cardinals, made common cause with the French party and brought about the election of Alessandro against the express wish of King Philip III of Spain. King Henry IV of France, who had learned to esteem Alessandro when papal legate at his court, and whose wife, Maria de' Medici was related to Alessandro, is said to have spent 300,000 écus in the promotion of Alessandro's candidacy. On 1 April, 1605, Alessandro ascended the papal throne as Leo XI, being then seventy years of age. He took sick immediately after his coronation. During his sickness he was importuned by many members of the Curia and by a few ambassadors from foreign courts to confer the cardinalate on one of his grandnephews, whom he had himself educated and whom he loved dearly, but he had such an aversion for nepotism that he firmly refused the request. When his confessor urged him to grant it, he dismissed him and sent for another confessor to prepare him for death.

CARDELLA, Memorie storiche de' cardinali della s. romana chiesa, V (Rome, 1792), 181 sq.; CAPECELATRO, Life of Philip Neri, tr. POPE, II (2nd ed., London, 1894), 227-232.

MICHAEL OTT

Pope Leo XII

(Annibale Francesco Clemente Melchiore Girolamo Nicola della Genga)

Born at the Castello della Genga in the territory of Spoleto, 22 August, 1760; died in Rome, 10 February, 1820. His father's family had been ennobled by Leo XI in 1605; his mother was Maria Luisa Periberti of Fabriano. They had a large family, seven sons and three daughters, of which Annibale was the fifth son and sixth child. At the age of thirteen he was placed in the Collegio Campana of Osimo, whence he was transferred, in 1778, to the Collegio Piceno in Rome and shortly afterwards to the Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici. He was ordained subdeacon four years later, and deacon in 1783. Two months later he was ordained priest, dispensation being obtained for the defect of age, as he was only twenty-three. He was of handsome person and engaging manners and, soon after his ordination, attracted the notice of Pius VII, who was visiting the Accademia, and by him was raised to the prelature as cameriere segreto. In 1790 he was chosen to deliver in the Sixtine Chapel the oration on the death of the Emperor Joseph II and accomplished his difficult task to the admiration of all hearers, without offending the susceptibilities of Austria or compromising the authority of the Holy See. In 1792 he became a canon of the Vatican church, and the following year was consecrated titular Archbishop of Tyre and sent as nuncio to Lucerne. Thence he was transferred to the nunciature at Cologne in 1794, a post which he occupied with great success for eleven years. In 1895 he was accredited as nuncio extraordinary to the Diet of Ratisbon by Pius VII in order that he might deal with the difficulties between the German Church and its Prussian rulers. Returning to Rome to confer with Consalvi on these matters, he learnt that Napoleon desired the substitution of another nuncio more devoted to his interests, in the person of Bernier, Bishop of Orléans. Pius VII, however, was firm and Della Genga returned to Munich. In 1798 he went with Cardinal Caprara to Paris with the object of arranging some agreement between the Holy See and Napoleon I. He was received, however, but coldly, and the negotiations soon came to nothing. Della Genga returned to Rome where he witnessed the indignities offered to Pius VII by the French. He returned in dismay to the Abbey of Monticelli, which had been granted to him in commendam for life by Pope Pius VI. Here he spent his time teaching his choir of peasants to play the organ and to sing plain-chant.

Expecting to end his days there, he built in the abbey church the tombs of his mother and himself. But in 1814, with the fall of Napoleon, Pius VII returned to Rome and Mgr Della Genga was sent to Paris as envoy extraordinary to convey the pope's congratulations to King Louis XVIII. Consalvi, however, who was accredited to all the sovereigns then at Paris, strongly resented this mission, which he held to be a slight to himself. Louis XVIII endeavoured to smooth over matters, but the powerful Secretary of State had his way, and Della Genga returned to Rome, whence he again retired to Monticelli. Here he remained for two years, when Pius VII created him cardinal of Santa Maria in Trastevere and appointed him Bishop of Sinigaglia. But his ill-health necessitated residence in the healthy air of Spoleto and he never entered his diocese, which he resigned two years later. In 1820, his health being improved, he was made Vicar of Rome, arch-priest of the Liberian Basilica and prefect of several congregations. Three years later, on 20 August, Pius VII died; and on 2 September the conclave opened at the Quirinal. It lasted for twenty-six days. At first the most prominent candidates were Cardinal Severoli, the representative of the Zelanti, and Cardinal Castiglioni (afterwards Pius VIII), the representative of the moderate party. Castiglioni was the candidate most desired by the great Catholic powers, but, in spite of their wishes Severoli's influence grew daily and by the morning of 21 September, he had received as many as twenty-six votes. As this meant that he would probably be elected at the next scrutiny, Cardinal Albani, who represented Austria at the conclave, informed his colleagues that the election of Cardinal Severoli would not be acceptable to the emperor and pronounced a formal veto. The Zelanti were furious, but, at Severoli's suggestion, transferred their support to Della Genga, and before the powers realized what was happening, triumphantly elected him by thirty-four votes on the morning of 28 September. At first, however, the pope-elect was unwilling to accept the office. With tears he reminded the cardinals of his ill-health. "You are electing a dead man", he said, but, when they insisted that it was his duty to accept, he gave way and gracefully assuring Cardinal Castiglioni that he some day was to be Pius VIII, announced his own intention of taking the style of Leo XII.

Immediately after his election he appointed Della Somaglia, an octogenarian, Secretary of State, an act significant of the policy of the new reign. Leo was crowned on 5 October. His first measures were some not very successful attempts to repress the brigandage and license then prevalent in Maritima and the Campagna, and the publication of an ordinance that confined again to their Ghettoes the Jews, who had moved into the city during the period of the Revolution. These measures are typical of the temper and policy of Leo XII. There is something pathetic in the contrast between the intelligence and masterly energy displayed by him as ruler of the Church and the inefficiency of his policy as ruler of the Papal States. In face of the new social and political order, he undertook the defence of ancient custom and accepted institutions; he had little insight into the hopes and visions of those who were then pioneers of the greater liberty that had become inevitable. Stern attempts were made to purify the Curia and to control the crowd of inefficient and venal officials that composed its staff. Indifferentism and the Protestant proselytism of the period were combated; the devotion of the Catholic world was estimated by the jubilee of 1825, in spite of the opposition of timid and reactionary prelates or sovereigns; the persecution of the Catholics in the Netherlands was met and overcome, and the movement for the emancipation of the Catholics in the British Isles was managed and encouraged till success was assured. Popular discontent with the government of the Papal States was met by the severities of Cardinal Rivarola.

The legitimist cause in France and in Spain, though marked in both countries by the misuse of religion as an instrument of political reaction, was supported, even when (as in the suppression of the Jesuit schools in France, and the vacancy of Mexican sees owing to the claims of Spain over her former colonies) the representatives of that cause showed themselves indifferent or opposed to the interests of the Faith. Consalvi was consulted and admired by the pope, who, both in this case and that of the treasurer Cristaldi, showed himself too magnanimous to allow personal grievances to weigh against the appreciation of merit, but the cardinal's death in 1824 prevented the contribution of his wisdom to the councils of the Holy See. The Collegio Romano was restored to the efficient hands of the Jesuits in 1824; the Free-masons and other secret societies were condemned in 1825; the Vatican printing press was restored and the Vatican Library enriched; scholars like Zurla, Martucci, and Champollion were encouraged; much was done towards the rebuilding of St. Paul's and the restoration of the seemliness of worship. But Leo's health was too frail to support his unremitting devotion to the affairs of the Church. Even in December, 1823, he had nearly died, and recovered only as by a miracle, through the prayers of the venerable Bishop of Marittima, Vincenzo Strambi, whose life was offered to God and accepted in the stead of the pope's. On 5 February, 1829, after a private audience with Cardinal Bernetti, who had replaced Somaglia as Secretary of State in 1828, he was suddenly taken ill and seemed himself to know that his end was near. On the eighth he asked for and received the Viaticum and was anointed. On the evening of the ninth he lapsed into unconsciousness and on the morning of the tenth he died. He had a noble character, a passion for order and efficiency, but he lacked insight into, and sympathy with, the temporal developments of his period. His rule was unpopular in Rome and in the Papal States, and by various measures of his reign he diminished greatly for his successors their chances of solving the new problems that confronted them.

Artaud de Montor, Histoire du Pape Léon XII (Paris, 1843); Chateau7briand, Mémoires d'outre-tombe, II (Brussels, 1892), 149-202; XXXVIII, 50-83; Wiseman, Recollections of the Last Four Popes (London, 1858), 209-352.
Non-Catholic: Benrath in Herzog and Hauck, Real-encyclopädie, XI (Leipzig, 1902), 390-393; Nielsen, History of the Papacy in the XIXth Century, II (London, 1906), 1-30.

Leslie A. St. L. Toke.

Pope Leo XIII

Born 2 March, 1810, at Carpineto; elected pope 20 February, 1878; died 20 July, 1903, at Rome. Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi was the sixth of the seven sons of Count Lodovico Pecci and his wife Anna Prosperi­Buzi. There was some doubt as to the nobility of the Pecci family, and when the young Gioacchino sought admission to the Accademia dei Nobili in Rome he met with a certain opposition, whereupon he wrote the history of his family, showing that the Pecci of Carpineto were a branch of the Pecci of Siena, obliged to emigrate to the Papal States in the first half of the sixteenth century, under Clement VII, because they had sided with the Medici.

At the age of eight, together with his brother Giuseppe, aged ten, he was sent to study at the new Jesuit school in Viterbo, the present seminary. He remained there six years (1818-24), and gained that classical facility in the use of Latin and Italian afterwards justly admired in his official writings and his poems. Much credit for this is due to his teacher, Padre Leonardo Garibaldi. When, in 1824, the Collegio Romano was given back to the Jesuits, Gioacchino and his brother Giuseppe entered as students of humanities and rhetoric. At the end of his rhetoric course Gioacchino was chosen to deliver the address in Latin, and selected as his subject, "The Contrast between Pagan and Christian Rome". Not less successful was his three years' course of philosophy and natural sciences.

He remained yet uncertain as to his calling, though it had been the wish of his mother that he should embrace the ecclesiastical state. Like many other young Romans of the period who aimed at a public career, he took up meanwhile the study of theology as well as canon and civil law. Among his professors were the famous theologian Perrone and the scripturist Patrizi. In 1832 he obtained the doctorate of theology, whereupon, after the difficulties referred to above, he asked and obtained admission to the Academy of Noble Ecclesiastics, and entered upon the study of canon and civil law at the Sapienza University. Thanks to his talents, and to the protection of Cardinals Sala and Pacca, he was appointed domestic prelate by Gregory XVI in January, 1837, while still in minor orders, and in March of that year was made "referendario della Segnatura", which office he soon exchanged for one in the Congregazione del Buon Governo, or Ministry of the Interior for the Pontifical States, of which his protector Cardinal Sala was at that time prefect. During the cholera epidemic in Rome he ably assisted Cardinal Sala in his duties as overseer of all the city hospitals. His zeal and ability convinced Cardinal Sala that Pecci was fitted for larger responsibilities, and he again urged him to enter the priesthood, hinting in addition that before long he might be promoted to a post where the priesthood would be necessary. Yielding to these solicitations, he was ordained priest 31 Dec., 1837, by Cardinal Odeschalchi, Vicar of Rome, in the chapel of St. Stanislaus on the Quirinal. The post hinted at by Cardinal Sala was that of Delegate or civil Governor of Benevento, a city subject to the Holy See but situated in the heart of the Kingdom of Naples. Its condition was very unsatisfactory; the brigands of the Neapolitan territory infested the country in great numbers, survivals of the Napoleonic Wars and the guerrilla of the Sanfedisti. Gregory XVI thought a young and energetic delegate necessary. Cardinal Lambruschini, secretary of state, and Cardinal Sala suggested the name of Mgr. Pecci, who set out for Benevento 2 February, 1838. On his recovery from an attack of typhoid fever, he set to work to stamp out brigandage, and soon his vigilance, indomitable purpose, and fearless treatment of the nobles who protected the brigands and smugglers, pacified the whole province. Aided by the nuncio at Naples, Mgr. di Pietro, the youthful delegate drew up an agreement with the Naples police for united action against brigands. He also turned his attention to the roads and highways, and arranged for a more just distribution of taxes and duties, until then the same as those imposed by the invading French, and, though exorbitant, exacted with the greatest rigour. Meanwhile the Holy See and Naples were discussing the exchange of Benevento for a stretch of Neapolitan territory bordering on the Papal States. When Mgr. Pecci heard of this he memorialized the Holy See so strongly against it that the negotiations were broken off.

The results obtained in three years by the delegate at Benevento led Gregory XVI to entrust another delegation to him where a strong personality was required, though for very different reasons. He was first destined for Spoleto, but on 17 July, 1841, he was sent to Perugia, a hotbed of the anti-papal revolutionary party. For three years he improved the material conditions of his territory and introduced a more expeditious and economical administration of justice. He also began a savings bank to assist small tradesmen and farmers with loans at a low rate of interest, reformed educational methods, and was otherwise active for the common welfare.

In January, 1843, he was appointed nuncio to Brussels, as successor of Mgr. Fornari, appointed nuncio at Paris. On 19 Feb., he was consecrated titular Archbishop of Damiata by Cardinal Lambruschini, and set out for his post. On his arrival he found rather critical conditions. The school question was warmly debated between the Catholic majority and the Liberal minority. He encouraged the bishops and the laity in their struggle for Catholic schools, yet he was able to win the good will of the Court, not only of the pious Queen Louise, but also of King Leopold I, strongly Liberal in his views. The new nuncio succeeded in uniting the Catholics, and to him is owing the idea of a Belgian college in Rome (1844). He made a journey (1845) through Rhenish Prussia (Cologne, Mainz, Trier), and owing to his vigilance the schismatic agitation of the priest Ronge, on the occasion of the exposition of the Holy Coat of Trier in 1844, did not affect Belgium. Meanwhile the See of Perugia became vacant, and Gregory XVI, moved by the wishes of the Perugians and the needs of that city and district, appointed Mgr. Pecci Bishop of Perugia, retaining however the title of archbishop.

With a very flattering autograph letter from King Leopold, Mgr. Pecci left Brussels to spend a month in London and another in Paris. This brought him in touch with both courts, and afforded him opportunities for meeting many eminent men, among others Wiseman, afterwards cardinal. Rich in experience and in new ideas, and with greatly broadened views, he returned to Rome on 26 May, 1846, where he found the pope on his deathbed, so that he was unable to report to him. He made his solemn entry into Perugia 27 July, 1846, where he remained for thirty-two years. Gregory XVI had intended to make him a cardinal, but his death and the events that troubled the opening years of the pontificate of Pius IX postponed this honour until 19 December, 1853. Pius IX desired to have him near his person, and repeatedly offered him a suburbicarian see, but Mgr. Pecci preferred Perugia, and perhaps was not in accord with Cardinal Antonelli. It is certainly untrue that Pius IX designedly left him in Perugia, much more untrue that he did so because Pecci's views were liberalistic and conciliatory. As Bishop of Perugia he sought chiefly to inculcate piety and knowledge of the truths of Faith. He insisted that his priests should preach, and should catechise not only the young but the grown up; and for this purpose he wished one hour in the afternoon set apart on Sundays and feast days, thus forestalling one of the regulations laid down by Pius X in 1905 for the whole Church. He brought out a new edition of the diocesan catechism (1856), and for his clergy he wrote a practical guide for the exercise of the ministry (1857). He provided frequently for retreats and missions. After the Piedmontese occupation and the suppression of the religious orders the number of priests was greatly diminished; to remedy this lack of ecclesiastical ministers, he established an association of diocesan missionaries ready to go wherever sent (1875). He sought to create a learned and virtuous clergy, and for this purpose spent much care on the material, moral, and scientific equipment of his seminary, which he called the apple of his eye. Between 1846 and 1850 he enlarged its buildings at considerable personal sacrifice, secured excellent professors, presided at examinations, and himself gave occasional instruction. He introduced the study of the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas, and in 1872 established an "Accademia di S. Tommaso", which he had planned as far back as 1858.

In 1872 also he introduced the government standards for studies of the secondary schools and colleges. When the funds of the seminary were converted into state bonds, its revenues were seriously affected, and this entailed new sacrifices on the bishop. With the exception of a few troublesome priests who relied on the protection of the new government, the discipline of the clergy was excellent. For the assistance of many priests impoverished by the confiscation of church funds, he instituted in 1873 the Society of S. Gioacchino, and for charitable works generally, conferences of St. Vincent de Paul. He remodelled many educational institutions for the young and began others, for the care of which he invited from Belgium nuns of the Sacred Heart and Brothers of Mercy. During his episcopate thirty-six new churches were built in the diocese. His charity and foresight worked marvels during the famine of 1854, consequent on the earthquake which had laid waste a large part of Umbria. Throughout the political troubles of the period, he was a strong supporter of the temporal power of the Holy See, but he was careful to avoid anything that might give the new government pretext for further annoyances.

Shortly after his arrival in Perugia there occurred a popular commotion which his personal intervention succceeded in appeasing. In 1849, when bands of Garibaldians expelled from Rome were infesting the Umbrian hills, the Austrians under Prince Liechtenstein hastened to occupy Perugia, but Mgr. Pecci, realizing that this foreign occupation would only increase the irritation of the inhabitants, set out for the Austrian camp and succeeded in saving the town from occupation. In 1859 a few outlaws set up in Perugia a provisional government; when the cardinal heard that, few as they were, they were preparing to resist the pontifical troops advancing under Colonel Schmidt he wrote a generous letter to try and dissuade them from their mad purpose and to avoid a useless shedding of blood. Unfortunately they spurned his advice, and the result was the so-called "Massacre of Perugia" (20 June). In February, 1860, he wrote a pastoral letter on the necessity of the temporal power of the Holy See; but on 14 September of that year Perugia and Umbria were annexed to Piedmont. In vain he besought General Fanti not to bombard the town; and during the first years that followed the annexation he wrote, either in his own name or in the name of the bishops of Umbria, eighteen protests against the various laws and regulations of the new Government on ecclesiastical matters: against civil marriage, the suppression of the religious orders and the inhuman cruelty of their oppressors, the "Placet" and "Exequatur"in ecclesiastical nominations, military service for ecclesiastics, and the confiscation of church property. But withal he was so cautious and prudent, in spite of his outspokenness, that he was never in serious difficulties with the civil power. Only once was he brought before the courts, and then he was acquitted.

In August, 1877, on the death of Cardinal de Angelis, Pius IX appointed him camerlengo, so that he was obliged to reside in Rome. Pope Pius died 7 February, 1878, and during his closing years the Liberal press had often insinuated that the Italian Government should take a hand in the conclave and occupy the Vatican. However the Russo-Turkish War and the sudden death of Victor Emmanuel II (9 January, 1878) distracted the attention of the Government, the conclave proceeded as usual, and after the three scrutinies Cardinal Pecci was elected by forty-four votes out of sixty-one

Shortly before this he had written an inspiring pastoral to his flock on the Church and civilization. Ecclesiastical affairs were in a difficult and tangled state. Pius IX, it is true, had won for the papacy the love and veneration of Christendom, and even the admiration of its adversaries. But, though inwardly strengthened, its relations with the civil powers had either ceased or were far from cordial. But the fine diplomatic tact of Leo succeeded in staving off ruptures, in smoothing over difficulties, and in establishing good relations with almost all the powers.

Throughout his entire pontificate he was able to keep on good terms with France, and he pledged himself to its Government that he would call on all Catholics to accept the Republic. But in spite of his efforts very few monarchists listened to him, and towards the end of his life he beheld the coming failure of his French policy, though he was spared the pain of witnessing the final catastrophe which not even he could have averted. It was to Leo that France owed her alliance with Russia; in this way he offset the Triple Alliance, hoped to ward off impending conflicts, and expected friendly assistance for the solution of the Roman question. With Germany he was more fortunate. On the very day of his election, when notifying the emperor of the event, he expressed the hope of seeing relations with the German Government re-established, and, though the emperor's reply was coldly civil, the ice was broken. Soon Bismarck, unable to govern with the Liberals, to win whose favour he had started the Kulturkampf (q. v.), found he needed the Centre Party, or Catholics, and was willing to come to terms. As early as 1878 negotiations began at Kissingen between Bismarck and Aloisi-Masella, the nuncio to Munich; they were carried a step farther at Venice between the nuncio Jacobini and Prince von Reuss; soon after this some of the Prussian laws against the Church were relaxed. From about 1883 bishops began to be appointed to various sees, and some of the exiled bishops were allowed to return. By 1884 diplomatic relations were renewed, and in 1887 a modus vivendi between Church and State was brought about. Bismarck proposed that Pope Leo should arbitrate between Germany and Spain. The good feeling with Germany found expression in the three visits paid Leo by William II (1888, 1893, and 1903), whose father also, when crown prince (1883) had visited the Vatican. As a sort of quid pro quo Bismarck thought the pope ought to use his authority to prevent the Catholics from opposing some of his political schemes. Only once did Leo interfere in a parliamentary question, and then his advice was followed. In 1880 relations with the Belgian Government were again broken off à propos of the school question, on the pretext that the pope was lending himself to duplicity, encouraging the bishops to resist, and pretending to the Government that he was urging moderation. As a matter of fact, the suppression of the Belgian embassy to the Vatican had been settled on before the school question arose. In 1883 the new Catholic Government restored it. During Pope Leo's pontificate the condition of the Church in Switzerland improved somewhat, especially in the Ficino, in Aargau, and in Basle. In Russia Soloviev's attempt on Alexander II (14 April, 1879) and the silver jubilee of that czar's reign (1888) gave the pope an opportunity to attempt a rapprochement. But it was not until after Alexander III came to the throne (1883) that an agreement was reached, by which a few episcopal sees were tolerated and some of the more stringent laws against the Catholic clergy slightly relaxed. But when in 1884, Leo consented to present to the czar a petition from the Ruthenian Catholics against the oppression they had to suffer, the persecution only increased in bitterness. In the last year of Alexander III (May, 1894) diplomatic relations were re­established. On the day of his election, Leo had expressed to this emperor the wish to see diplomatic relations restored; Alexander, like William, though more warmly, answered in a non-committal manner. In the meantime Leo was careful to exhort the Poles under Russian domination to be loyal subjects.

Among the acts of Leo XIII that affected in a particular way the English-speaking world may be mentioned: for England, the elevation of John Henry Newman to the cardinalate (1879), the "Romanos Pontifices" of 1881 concerning the relations of the hierarchy and the regular clergy, the beatification (1886) of fifty English martyrs, the celebration of the thirteenth centenary of St. Gregory the Great, Apostle of England (1891), the Encyclicals "Ad Anglos" of 1895, on the return to Catholic unity, and the "Apostolicæ Curæ" of 1896, on the non-validity of the Anglican orders. He restored the Scotch hierarchy in 1878, and in 1898 addressed to the Scotch a very touching letter. In English India Pope Leo established the hierarchy in 1886, and regulated there long-standing conflicts with the Portugese authorities. In 1903 King Edward VII paid him a visit at the Vatican. The Irish Church experienced his pastoral solicitude on many occasions. His letter to Archbishop McCabe of Dublin (1881), the elevation of the same prelate to the cardinalate in 1882, the calling of the Irish bishops to Rome in 1885, the decree of the Holy Office (13 April, 1888) on the plan of campaign and boycotting, and the subsequent Encyclical of 24 June, 1888, to the Irish hierarchy represent in part his fatherly concern for the Irish people, however diverse the feelings they aroused at the height of the land agitation.

The United States at all times attracted the attention and admiration of Pope Leo. He confimed the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), and raised to the cardinalate Archbishop Gibbons of that city (1886). His favourable action (1888), at the instance of Cardinal Gibbons, towards the Knights of Labour won him general approval. In 1889 he sent a papal delegate, Monsignor Satolli, to represent him at Washington on the occasion of the foundation of the Catholic University of America. The Apostolic Delegation at Washington was founded in 1892; in the same year appeared his Encyclical on Christopher Columbus. In 1893 he participated in the Chicago Exposition held to commemorate the fourth centenary of the discovery of America; this he did by the loan of valuable relics, and by sending Monsignor Satolli to represent him. In 1895 he addressed to the hierarchy of the United States his memorable Encyclical "Longinqua Oceani Spatia"; in 1898 appeared his letter "Testem Benevolentiæ" to Cardinal Gibbons on "Americanism"; and in 1902 his admirable letter to the American hierarchy in response to their congratulations on his pontifical jubilee. In Canada he confirmed the agreement made with the Province of Quebec (1889) for the settlement of the Jesuit Estates question, and in 1897 sent Monsignor Merry del Val to treat in his name with the Government concerning the obnoxious Manitoba School Law. His name will also long be held in benediction in South America for the First Plenary Council of Latin America held at Rome (1899), and for his noble Encyclical to the bishops of Brazil on the abolition of slavery (1888).

In Portugal the Government ceased to support the Goan schism, and in 1886 a concordat was drawn up. Concordats with Montenegro (1886) and Colombia (1887) followed. The Sultan of Turkey, the Shah of Persia, the Emperors of Japan and of China (1885), and the Negus of Abyssinia, Menelik, sent him royal gifts and received gifts from him in return. His charitable intervention with the negus in favour of the Italians taken prisoners at the unlucky battle of Adna (1898) failed owing to the attitude taken by those who ought to have been most grateful. He was not successful in establishing direct diplomatic relations with the Sublime Porte and with China, owing to the jealousy of France and her fear of losing the protectorate over Christians. During the negotiations concerning church property in the Philippines, Mr. Taft, later President of the United States, had an opportunity of admiring the pope's great qualities, as he himself declared on a memorable occasion.

With regard to the Kingdom of Italy, Leo XIII maintained Pius IX's attitude of protest, thus confirming the ideas he had expressed in his pastoral of 1860. He desired complete independence for the Holy See, and consequently its restoration as a real sovereignty. Repeatedly, when distressing incidents took place in Rome, he sent notes to the various governments pointing out the intolerable position in which the Holy See was placed through its subjection to a hostile power. For the same reason he upheld the "Non expedit", or prohibition against Italian Catholics taking part in political elections. His idea was that once the Catholics abstained from voting, the subversive elements in the country would get the upper hand and the Italian Government be obliged to come to terms with the Holy See. Events proved he was mistaken, and the idea was abandoned by Pius X. At one time, however, "officious" negotiations were kept up between the Holy See and the Italian Government through the agency of Monsignor Carini, Prefect of the Vatican Library and a great friend of Crispi. But it is not known on what lines they were conducted. On Crispi's part there could have been no question of ceding any territory to the Holy See. France, moreover, then irritated against Italy because of the Triple Alliance, and fearing that any rapprochement between the Vatican and the Quirinal would serve to increase her rival's prestige, interfered and forced Leo to break off the aforesaid negotiations by threatening to renew hostilities against the Church in France. The death of Monsignor Carini shortly after this (25 June, 1895) gave rise to the senseless rumour that he had been poisoned. Pope Leo was no less active concerning the interior life of the Church. To increase the piety of the faithful, he recommended in 1882 the Third Order of St. Francis, whose rules in 1883 he wisely modified; he instituted the feast of the Holy Family, and desired societies in its honour to be founded everywhere (1892); many of his encyclicals preach the benefits of the Rosary; and he favoured greatly devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Under Leo the Catholic Faith made great progress; during his pontificate two hundred and forty­eight episcopal or archiepiscopal sees were created, and forty-eight vicariates or prefectures Apostolic. Catholics of Oriental rites were objects of special attention; he had the good fortune to see the end of the schism which arose in 1870 between the Uniat Armenians and ended in 1879 by the conversion of Mgr. Kupelian and other schismatical bishops. He founded a college at Rome for Armenian ecclesiastical students (1884), and by dividing the college of S. Atanasio he was able to give the Ruthenians a college of their own; already in 1882 he had reformed the Ruthenian Order of St. Basil; for the Chaldeans he founded at Mossul a seminary of which the Dominicans have charge. In a memorable encyclical of 1897 he appealed to all the schismatics of the East, inviting them to return to the Universal Church, and laying down rules for governing the relations between the various rites in countries of mixed rites. Even among the Copts his efforts at reunion made headway.

The ecclesiastical sciences found a generous patron in Pope Leo. His Encyclical "Æterni Patris" (1880) recommended the study of Scholastic philosophy, especially that of St. Thomas Aquinas, but he did not advise a servile study. In Rome he established the Apollinare College, a higher institute for the Latin, Greek, and Italian classics. At his suggestion a Bohemian college was founded at Rome. At Anagni he founded and entrusted to the Jesuits a college for all the dioceses of the Roman Campagna, on which are modelled the provincial or "regional" seminaries desired by Pius X. Historical scholars are indebted to him for the opening of the Vatican Archives (1883), on which occasion he published a splendid encyclical on the importance of historical studies, in which he declares that the Church has nothing to fear from historical truth. For the administration of the Vatican Archives and Library he called on eminent scholars (Hergenröther, Denifle, Ehrle; repeatedly he tried to obtain Janssen, but the latter declined, as he was eager to finish his "History of the German People"). For the convenience of students of the archives and the library he established a consulting library. The Vatican Observatory is also one of the glories of Pope Leo XIII. To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time to guide their studies, he published the "Providentissimus Deus" (1893), which won the admiration even of Protestants, and in 1902 he appointed a Biblical Commission. Also, to guard against the dangers of the new style of apologetics founded on Kantism and now known as Modernism, he warned in 1899 the French clergy (Encycl. "Au Milieu"), and before that, in a Brief addressed to Cardinal Gibbons, he pointed out the dangers of certain doctrines to which had been given the name of "Americanism" (22 Jan., 1899). In the Brief "Apostolicæ Curæ"(1896) he definitively decided against the validity of Anglican Orders. In several other memorable encyclicals he treated of the most serious questions affecting modern society. They are models of classical style, clearness of statement, and convincing logic. The most important are: "Arcanum divinæ sapientiæ" (1880) on Christian marriage; "Diuturnum illlud" (1881), and "Immortale Dei" (1885) on Christianity as the foundation of political life; "Sapientiæ christianæ" (1890) on the duties of a Christian citizen; "Libertas" (1888) on the real meaning of liberty; "Humanum genus" (1884) against Freemasonry (he also issued other documents bearing on this subject).

Civilization owes much to Leo for his stand on the social question. As early as 1878, in his encyclical on the equality of all men, he attacked the fundamental error of Socialism. The Encyclical "Rerum novarum" (18 May, 1891) set forth with profound erudition the Christian principles bearing on the relations between capital and labour, and it gave a vigorous impulse to the social movement along Christian lines. In Italy, especially, an intense, well­organized movement began; but gradually dissensions broke out, some leaning too much towards Socialism and giving to the words "Christian Democracy" a political meaning, while others erred by going to the opposite extreme. In 1901 appeared the Encyclical "Graves de Communi", destined to settle the controverted points. The "Catholic Action" movement in Italy was recognized, and to the "Opera dei Congressi" was added a second group that took for its watchword economic-social action. Unfortunately this latter did not last long, and Pius X had to create a new party which has not yet overcome its internal difficulties.

Under Leo the religious orders developed wonderfully; new orders were founded, older ones increased, and in a short time made up for the losses occasioned by the unjust spoliation they had been subjected to. Along every line of religious and educational activity they have proved no small factor in the awakening and strengthening of the Christian life of the whole country. For their better guidance wise constitutions were issued; reforms were made; orders such as the Franciscans and Cistercians, which in times past had divided off into sections, were once more united; and the Benedictines were given an abbot-primate, who resides at St. Anselm's College, founded in Rome under the auspices of Pope Leo (1883). Rules were laid down concerning members of religious orders who became secularized.

In canon law Pope Leo made no radical change, yet no part of it escaped his vigilance, and opportune modifications were made as the needs of the times required. On the whole his pontificate of twenty-five years was certainly, in external success, one of the most brilliant. It is true the general peace between nations favoured it. The people were tired of that anticlericalism which had led governments to forget their real purpose, i.e. the well-being of the governed; and, on the other hand, prudent statesmen feared excessive catering to the elements subversive of society. Leo himself used every endeavour to avoid friction. His three jubilees (the golden jubilees of his priesthood and of his episcopate, and the silver jubilee of his pontificate) showed how wide was the popular sympathy for him. Moreover, his appearance either at Vatican receptions or in St. Peter's was always a signal for outbursts of enthusiasm. Leo was far from robust in health, but the methodical regularity of his life stood him in good stead. He was a tireless worker, and always exacted more than ordinary effort from those who worked with him. The conditions of the Holy See did not permit him to do much for art, but he renewed the apse of the Lateran Basilica, rebuilt its presbytery, and in the Vatican caused a few halls to be painted.

Bach, Leonis XIII Carmina. Inscriptiones, Numismata (1903), tr Henry (Philadelphia–); Acta Leonis XIII, 26 vols. (Rome, 1878-1903); Scelta di atti apostolici del card. Pecci (Rome, 1879); Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis (14 vols., Rome, 1878-93); biographies by O' Reilly (1886); T' Serclaes (3 vols., Paris, 1894-1906); Schneider (1901); Justin Mc Carthy (London, 1896); Furey (New York, 1903); Spahn (1905); Jean Darras (Paris, 1902); Guillermin (Paris, 1902); Boyer Dagen, La Jeunesse de Léon XIII (Tours, 1896); Idem, La Prélature de Léon XIII (ibid., 1900); de Germiny, La Politique de Léon XIII (Paris, 1902); Lefebvre de BÉhaine, Léon XIII et le prince Bismarck (Paris, 1898); Geffken, Léon XIII devant l'Allemagne (Paris, 1896); de Cesare, Il conclave di Leone XIII (3rd ed., Città di Castello, 1887); Bonacina, Continuazione della storia eccl. di Rohrbacher e di Balan (Turin, 1899); de Meester, Leone XIII e la chiesa greco (Rome, 1905); Protzner, Die Entwickelung des kirchlichen Eherechts unter Leo XIII (Salzburg, 1908). Cf. also The Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII, ed. Wynne (New York, 1902).

U. Benigni

Brother Leo

Friar Minor, companion of St. Francis of Assisi, date of birth uncertain; died at Assisi, 15 November, 1271. He appears to have been a native of Assisi and not of Viterbo, as some later writers have asserted. Although not one of the original twelve companions of St. Francis, Leo was one of the first to join him after the approbation of the first Rule of the Friars Minor (1209-1210) and perhaps was already a priest. In the course of time he became the confessor and secretary of the saint, and from about 1220 up to the time of Francis's death Leo was his constant companion. He was with the "Poverello" when the latter retired to Fonte Colombo near Rieti in 1223; to re-write the rule of the order and he accompanied him on his subsequent journey to Rome to seek its approval. The year following Leo was with the saint on Mount La Verna when Francis received the stigmata and he has left us a clear and simple account of that great miracle. This statement he wrote across the face of the autograph blessing which St. Francis had given him on La Verna, as a talisman against temptation, and which is still preserved at S. Francesco in Assisi. The text of a letter written by the saint to Leo some time before is also extant. It is a word of tender encouragement and counsel to the "Frate Pecorello di Dio" (little brother sheep of God) as the Saint had named his faithful disciple because of his simplicity and tenderness. And one of the most golden chapters in the "Fioretti" (Chapter 7) tells how St. Francis showed to Brother Leo "which things were perfect joy". Leo nursed his master during his last illness and as the saint lay dying it was he, together with Angelo, another favourite companion, who consoled Francis by singing the "Canticle of the Sun".

Leo had entered deeply into the bitter disappointments experienced by the saint during the last few years of his life, and soon after Francis's death he came into conflict with those whom he considered traitors to the Poverello and his ideal of poverty. Having protested against the collection of money for the erection of the basilica of San Francesco and having actually smashed the vase which Brother Elias had set up for contributions (see Elias), Leo was whipped by order of Elias and expelled from Assisi. He thereupon retired to some hermitage of the order and from thenceforth we catch only occasional glimpses of him. Thus we find him present in 1253 at the death-bed of St. Clare of whom he was a life-long friend. Leo appears to have passed much of his latter years at the Porziuncola and to have employed himself in writing those works which exerted such a marked influence on Conrad d'Offida, Angelo Clareno, Ubertino da Casale, and other "Spirituals" of a later generation. These writings, in which Leo set forth what he considered to be the real intention of St. Francis regarding the observance of poverty, he is said to have confided to the nuns of S. Chiara in Assisi in order to save them to posterity. Leo died at the Porziuncola on 15 November, 1271, at an advanced age and was buried in the lower church of San Francesco near the tomb of his seraphic father. He is commemorated in the Franciscan Martyrology which gives him the title of Blessed, and the cause of his formal beatification is now (1910) pending with that of the other early companions of St. Francis.

Considerable doubt still exists as to how much Leo actually wrote. The famous "rotuli" and "cedulae" which he deposited with the Poor Clares have not come down to us, but these documents are believed to have been the source from which the "Speculum Perfectionis" and some other compilations of 'materia seraphica' were more or less directly derived. This "Speculum Perfectionis" was first published as a separate work in 1898 by Paul Sabatier, who called it the "Legenda Antiguissima S. Francisci" and claimed that it was written by Leo as early as 1227, as a manifesto against Elias and the other abettors of laxity among the friars. This claim gave rise to a large controversial literature. The majority of critics ascribe the "Speculum Perfectionis" to a later date and regard it as the work of different writers. However this may be, the "Speculum Perfectionis" remains of the utmost value and interest. In spite of its polemic tone--which reflects the controversy raging within the order between the zelanti and mitigati in Leo's day--and its shortcomings from a literary standpoint if compared with the "Legends" of Thomas of Celano and of St. Bonaventure, the portrait of St. Francis which the "Speculum" presents, and which all admit to be substantially due to Leo, affords an insight into the life of the Poverello such as no formal biography contains and such as none but an intimate could have given. Leo was moreover associated with Angelo and Rufino in the composition of the celebrated "Legend of the Three Companions", a work which has been the subject of scarcely less controversy than the "Speculum Perfectionis"; he is also credited with the authorship of a life of Blessed Giles or Aegidius of Assisi inserted in the "Chronicle of the XXIV Generals", and is thought to have collaborated in the biography of St. Clare written about 1257.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

St. Leocadia

Virgin and martyr, d. 9 December, probably 304, in the Diocletian persecution. The last great persecution gave the Church in Spain a succession of martyrs, who from 303 until 305 suffered death for the Christian Faith. In the historical martyrologies of the ninth century, St. Leocadia of Toledo is honoured among these martyrs on 9 December. Her name is not mentioned by Prudentius in his hymn on the Spanish Martyrs, but in very early times there was a church dedicated to her at Toledo. In the first half of the seventh century this church was mentioned as the meeting-place of the Fourth Synod of Toledo in 633, as well as of the fifth in 636, and the sixth in 638 (Concil. Toletanum IV, mentions the "basilica beatissimae et sanctae Confessoris Leocadiae"; Mansi, "Concil. Coll.", X, 615). Long before that date, therefore, Leocadia must have been publicly honoured as a martyr. The basilica in question was evidently erected over her grave. There is no doubt of the historical fact of her martyrdom, whilst the date of 9 December for her annual commemoration obviously rests on the tradition of the Church of Toledo. More recently compiled Acts relate that Leocadia was filled with a desire for martyrdom through the story of the martyrdom of St. Eulalia. By order of the governor, Decianus, who is described in the martyrology as the most furious persecutor of the Christians in Spain, she was seized and cruelly tortured in order to make her apostatize, but she remained steadfast and was sent back to prison, where she died from the effects of the torture. A church was built over her grave, besides which two others at Toledo are dedicated to her. She is the patroness of the diocese, and 9 December is still given as her feast in the Roman Martyrology. She is represented with a tower, to signify that she died in prison.

FLOREZ, Espana Sagrada, VI, 315-17; LA FUENTE, Historia eclesiastica de Espana, 2nd ed., I (Madrid, 1873), 335-7; SURIUS, Vita Sanctorum, 9 December, XII, 199; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 9 December.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Leodegar

(LEGER)

Bishop of Autun, b. about 615; d. a martyr in 678, at Sarcing, Somme. His mother was called Sigrada, and his father Bobilo. His parents being of high rank, his early childhood was passed at the court of Clotaire II. He went later to Poitiers, to study under the guidance of his uncle, the bishop of that town. Having given proof of his learning and virtue, and feeling a liking for the priestly life, his uncle ordained him deacon, and associated him with himself in the government of the diocese. Shortly afterwards he became a priest and with the bishop's approval withdrew to the monastery of St. Maxentius in 650. He was soon elected abbot and signalized himself by reforming the community and introducing the Rule of St. Benedict. In 656 he was called to the court by the widowed Queen Bathildis to assist in the government of the kingdom and in the education of her children. In reward for his services he was named to the Bishopric of Autun in 610. He again undertook the work of reform and held a council at Autun in 661. It dealt a crushing blow to Manichæism and was the first to adopt the Creed of St. Athanasius. He made reforms among the secular clergy and the religious communities, and he impressed on all pastors the importance of preaching and of administering the sacraments, especially baptism. For this purpose the bishop had three baptisteries erected in the town. The church of Saint-Nazaire was enlarged and embellished, and a refuge established for the indigent. Leodegar also caused the public buildings to be repaired and the old Roman walls to be restored. The latter still exist and are among the finest specimens preserved.

Serious trouble soon arose in the state. The Austrasians demanded a king and young Childeric II was sent to them through the influence of Ebroin, the mayor of the palace in Neustria. The latter was practically a ruler and desired to get rid of all who thwarted his plans. The queen withdrew from the court to an abbey she had founded at Chelles, near Paris. On the death of Clotaire III, in 670, Ebroin raised Thierry to the throne, but Leodegar and the other bishops supported the claims of his elder brother Childeric, who, by the help of the Austrasians and Burgundians, was eventually made king. Ebroin was exiled to Luxeuil and Thierry sent to St. Denis. Leodegar remained at court, guiding the young king. When the bishop protested against the marriage of Childeric and his first cousin, he also was sent to Luxeuil, his enemies representing him to the king as a conspirator. Childeric II was murdered at Bondi in 673, by a Frank whom he had maltreated. Thierry III now ascended the throne in Neustria, making Leudesius his mayor. Leodegar and Ebroin hastened from Luxeuil to the court. In a short time Ebroin caused Leudesius to be murdered and became mayor. He vowed vengeance on the bishop, whom he looked on as the cause of his imprisonment. About 675 the Duke of Champagne and the Bishops of Chalons and Valence stirred up by Ebroin, attacked Autun. To save the town, Leodegar surrendered to them. He was brutally treated and his eyes put out, the sockets being seared with red-hot irons. Ebroin's bloodthirsty instincts were not yet satiated; he caused the holy bishop's lips to be cut off and his tongue to be torn out. Some years later he persuaded the king that Childeric had been assassinated at the instigation of Leodegar. The bishop was seized again, and, after a mock trial, was degraded and condemned. He was led out into a forest by Ebroin's order and murdered. His testament drawn up at the time of the council as well as the Acts of the council, are preserved. A letter which he caused to be sent to his unit her after his mutilation is likewise extant. His relics, which had been at Sarcing in Artois, were translated to the Abbey of St. Maxentius at Poitiers in 782. Later they were removed to Rennes and thence to Ebreuil, which place took the name of Saint-LÈger. Some of them are still kept in the cathedral of Autun and the Grand SÈminaire of Soissons. In 1458 Cardinal Rolin caused his feast day to be observed as a holiday of obligation.

PITRA, Histoire de LÈger (Paris, 1846); BENNETT in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. Leodegarius; FAURIEL, Histoire de la Gaule mÈridionale, II (Paris 1836), 461-473; GUIZOT,Collection des mÈmoires relatifs à l'histoire de France, II (Paris 1823), 325; GUÉRIN, Vie des saints, XI (Paris, 1880), 619-47; MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B., II (Paris. 1669), 680-705; P.L., XCVI, 377-84; CXIII, 373; CXXIV, 529; Analecta Bollandiana, XI (Brussels, 1892), 104-10; KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s.v.

A.A. MACERLEAN

Leo Diaconus

Byzantine historian; b. at Kaloe, at the foot of Mount Tmolos, in Ionia, about the year 950; the year of his death is unknown. In his early youth he came to study at Constantinople and, as his name tells, was ordained deacon. In 986 he took part in the war against the Bulgars under the Emperor Basil II (976-1025), was present at the siege of Triaditza (Sofia), where the imperial army was defeated. and barely escaped with his life. After the year 992 he began to write a history of the empire, presumably at Constantinople. The work is incomplete. Apparently he died before he could finish it. The history, divided into ten books, covers the years from 959 to 975, that is, the reigns of Romanus II (959-963), Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) and John Zimisces (969-976). It describes the wars against the Arabs in which the fortresses of Cilicia and the Island of Cyprus were won back (964-965), the conquest of Antioch and Northern Syria from the Moslems (968-969). the Bulgarian War (969) and the defeat of the Southern Russians (971), one of the most brilliant periods of the later Empire. For the reigns of Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, Leo the Deacon is the one source, the only contemporary historian, from whom all later writers have drawn their material. His authorities are his own observation and the account of eyewitnesses. He says: "The events as I saw them with my own eyes (for eyes are more trustworthy than ears, as Herodotus says) and as I gathered them from those who saw them, these things I write in my book" (Bonn edition. p. 5). Although Leo is so valuable an authority for his period critics do not judge his manner of writing favourably. He is affected and dull, fond of foreign (Latin) words, and has a mania for unusual and extravagant forms; for simple words like "brother", or even the verb "to be" he prefers absurd artificial synonyms. Krumbacher sums up his style as "trivial and pedantic". Leo quotes Procopius, Homer, and especially the Bible (in the Septuagint). His loyalty to the emperor often prejudices his honesty. His history is continued by Michael Psellus. Leo's book was not very popular in the following centuries. Other writers who drew their information from him, were preferred, e.g. Nicephorus Bryennius. A result of this is that only one manuscript of his history is extant (cod. Paris, 1712).

First complete edition in the Paris Corpus, edited with a commentary by HASE (Paris, 1819) reprinted in the Bonn Series (l828), and in P.G., CXVII. 635-926. HASE had already published Book VI with a Latin version and an analysis of the whole work in the Notices et extraits de la bibliothèque nationale, VIII (Paris, 1810), 2, 254-296; FISCHER, Beiträge zur historischen Kritik des Leon Diakonos in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung, VII (1886), 353-377; SCHULMBERGER, NicÈphore Phocas (Paris, 1890).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Leon

(THE DIOCESE AND CIVIL PROVINCE OF LEON)

HISTORY

Probably before the time of Trajan, the Romans founded in the Asturias, in the neighborhood of the ancient Lancia, a military colony to which they gave the name of Legio Septima Gemina. From Legio (acc. legionem) was formed, in accordance with the nature of the Romance-Castilian language, the name León, and the identity of this name with that of the king of beasts (león, from leo, acc. leonem) perhaps explains how, by what in German is called a Volksetimologie, the lion came to be considered the heraldic cognizance of the city and province of this name, and even of the whole Spanish people.

Very soon the original military colony admitted civilian colonists, as the ancient epitaphs prove. Within a few years after its foundation the Legatus Augustalis who governed the Asturias was residing in this settlement.

Christianity must have been introduced very early, for it had its bishops at least as early as the third century, and the names of Basilides and Decentius are known before the time of the Germanic invasions. These invaders do not seem to have established themselves in Leon — a stronghold of the imperial power — until Euric (466-84), or at least Leovigild (572-86), drove out the imperial garrison. In the Roman persecutions Leon had numerous martyrs, among whom were Sts. Facundus, Primitivus the husband and wife Marcellus and Nonia, with their sons Claudius, Victoricus, and Lupercus, Vincent, and Ramiris. The name of St. Facundus took, in the ancient dialect. the form Sa-hagún, which survives as a geographical name. A monastery was built in the fourth century, on the spot where Cladius and his brothers suffered martyrdom.

Leon fell into the power of the Mussulman invaders, but they did not long retain it; it was reconquered by Alfonso I, the Catholic. Destroyed a second time by the Mussulmans in the time of Abderahman II (846), it was again rebuilt by Ordoño I (850-866), who erected there a royal residence which Ordoño II afterwards transformed into a cathedral. Among the bishops of Leon at this period figure Siuntila, Frunimius, Maurus, and Vincent, and the great St. Froilan (900-05), who was followed by Cixila and Frunimius II.

However, as the Court remained at Oviedo during all this period, Leon did not attain any great importance. When Alfonso III (the Great) was dethroned by his sons (910), the eldest of them, García, took for himself the city of Leon, which then began to be the capital of a kingdom. García died early (914), and Galicia, which had been Ordoño's share, was united to Leon. Ordoño II, who vanquished the Moors at S. Esteban de Gormaz, and was routed by them at Valdejunquera reduced the Counts of Castile to submission and founded the cathedral of Leon (914-24). Leon now attained the chief place among the Christian States of Western Spain, but in the middle of the same century (the tenth) Castile began her efforts to achieve her liberation from Leonese vassalage. Meanwhile Leon succumbed for a brief period to the irresistible power of Almanzor (983). But Alfonso V rebuilt and repeopled the city, giving it its famous fuero, or charter, a collection of laws promulgated in the Council of Leon. This council which opened 1 August, 1020, had a politico-ecclesiastical character similar to that of the Toledan councils of the Visigothic period . Among other privileges, this fuero secured to the inhabitants of Leon inviolability of domicile, and it established the rights of benefactoría (whence the local term, be-hetría), by which a vassal might bind himself to any lord who would protect him.

In the spring of 1029 the city of Leon was the scene of a bloody event which was of transcendent importance in Spanish history. Don García, Count of Castile, who was about to be married to Doña Sancha, sister of Bermudo III, King of Leon, was assassinated as he was entering the church of S. Juan Bautista, by the Velas, a party of Castilian nobles, exiles from their own country, who had taken refuge in Leon. Leon and Navarre disputed the succession to the Countship of Castile thus left vacant. Ferdinand, son of Sancho the Elder (or the Great), of Navarre, married Sancha, sister of Bermudo III, of Leon, and received the title of King of Castile, and when, the war being renewed, Bermudo was slain at the battle of Tamar n, the united crowns of Leon and Castile became the possession of Ferdinand I. From that time the hegemony which Leon had enjoyed began to pass to Castile. The causes of this change, which left so deep an impression upon the history of Spain, may be summed up as follows: (1) Ferdinand, first King of Castile, had vanquished Bermudo; (2) Ferdinand I at his death, divided his kingdoms between his sons; Sancho, King of Castile, then wrested the Kingdom of Leon from Alfonso, but, Sancho being himself assassinated before the walls of Zamora by Vellido Dolfos, Alfonso in his turn obtained possession of both the kingdoms. (3) The Kingdoms of Castile and Leon being once more separated upon the death of Alfonso VII (the Emperor — see below) Alfonso VIII of Castile notably advanced the reconquest of Spain by gaining the victory of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212), while Alfonso IX of Leon pursued a dastardly policy of fomenting civil strife. (4) Ferdinand III, the Saint — who inherited Castile through his mother, Doña Berenguela, and then, on the death of his father, Alfonso IX, became King of Leon — transferred the centre of his activities to Castile. (5) Above all, Castile led the van of the reconquest beyond the Carpetan Mountains (Sierras de Gata, de Gredos, de Guadarrama), while Leon, by its separation from Portugal, found its expansion arrested at the boundaries of Estremadura.

The principal events which took place in Leon at this period were the following: The translation of the relics of St. Isidore to the ancient church of S. Juan Bautista, which was rebuilt and dedicated to the Sevillian Doctor, 21 December, 1063. Alvito, Bishop of Leon, went to Seville with an embassy to Ebn Abed, to bring the body of St. Justa, but, not finding it, brought that of St. Isidore. The Monk of Silos has preserved the history of this religious expedition. On 26 May, 1135, Alfonso VII was proclaimed, in the basilica of Sta. María, Emperor of Spain (Ildephonsus pius . . . . . totius Hispaniæ imperator) . In 1176 the Military Order of Santiago was installed in the hospital of S. Marcos. In the minority of Ferdinand IV, the infante Don Juan was proclaimed King of Leon; and in the minority of Alfonso XI, the partisans of the infante brought his son Alfonso into the city of Leon and fortified themselves in the cathedral, which was almost destroyed by the attacking party who tried to dislodge them. The Leonese opposed Henry of Trastamare, who had killed his brother Pedro the Cruel (1368). After his triumph, nevertheless, Henry showed himself favourable to Leon, confirming its privileges, and John I reformed the municipal government which had been established by Alfonso XI (1390). In the Cortes of 1406 and 1407 it was declared that the representatives of Leon had the second place in the order of voting (segundo asiento) after those of Burgos. In 1493, Ferdinand the Catholic, by his presence added solemnity to the translation of the relics of St. Marcellus.

GEOGRAPHY

The Province of Leon as it actually exists, situated in the northern part of the ancient kingdom of the same name, is bounded on the north by the Asturias; on the east by the Provinces of Santander and Valladolid; on the south by that of Zamora; on the west by Galicia (Provinces of Orense and Lugo). Its natural boundaries are: the Cantabrian Mountains (which separate it from the Province of Oviedo on the north) from the peak of Guiña (6570 feet) to the Peña Vieja (8750 feet); its boundaries are continued on the east by the range which separates the basins of the Cea and the Carrión and are prolonged parallel to the course of both those rivers as far as Sahagún, turning thence to the south-east and following the course of the Cea, which bounds the Province of Valladolid. The southern boundaries are formed mostly by the range of the Peña Negra, while the western, beginning from Peña Trevinca, skirts Lake Baña, crosses the River Sil and follows northward the heights which mark on one side the basin of that river, towards the port of Piedrafita. Most of the province is within the great Castilian plateau, at an elevation of more than l600 feet above the sea level, rising towards the Cantabrian Mountains on the north. From north to west it is drained by the Sil and its tributaries, which receive the waters flowing from the southern slope of the Cantabrian Mountains, from the Peña Rubia (6313 feet) onwards; from north to south by the Orbigo and the Bernesga, both affluents of the Esla (which, in turn, is an affluent of the Duero). and by the Cea, which forms the boundaries of the province on the east and south-east. Very mountainous in the north and north-west, it becomes more level towards the south-east, where it marches with the celebrated Gothic Plains (Campi Gothici or Tierra de Campos). From north to southwest it is traversed by the Mountains of Leon, which, joining the Cantabrian Chain, enclose the district of El Vierzo, leaving no other opening but that through which the Sil, a tributary of the Minho, passes.

The Province of Leon abounds in mineral resources. The carboniferous formation, which covers a wide area in the east, runs westward by the Valley of Ponjos, penetrates into El Vierzo, and, extending beyond Igue a, San Pedro de Mallo, and Villamartin, reaches as far as Fabero. The hollows on both banks of the Bernesga contain deposits of coal, with vast masses of carboniferous limestone, the exploitation of which undoubtedly promises great things for the future of Leonese industry. There are also iron, copper, and cobalt. mines (e.g. the Profunda, in the municipal district of Carmenes), and a great abundance of mineral waters — bicarbonate, sulphurous, etc. The climate varies considerably — cold in the mountains of the north, warm in the lowlands of the south-east. El Vierzo, sheltered by the mountains from the north winds, is one of the mildest and most humid regions; there the vine, the olive, and fruits of many kinds are cultivated. In the south great quantities of wheat and other cereals are grown, as well as pulse, beans, esculent herbs, and excellent silky flax. The forests are rich in beech, ilex, and oak. The livestock amounts to more than a million head of sheep, cattle, and swine. The mountainous character of the country, rendering communication difficult. is somewhat unfavourable to industry. which is confined to that of ironworks, mills, and the manufacture of flour. Leather and coarse cloth are produced; linseed oil is extracted, and chocolate and delicious cheeses are manufactured.

STATISTICS

Lying between 42°4'30" and 42°17' north latitude, and between 1—6' and 3°20' longitude east of Madrid (2°35'51" and 21'51" west of Greenwich), this province has an area of 15,377 square kilometers (5934 square miles). The land under cultivation amounts to 937,399 hectares (2,316,313 acres), of which 117,281 hectares (289,801 acres) are irrigated. The population, according to the census of 1900, was 401,172, whereas the census of 1887 gave a population of 388,830 — an increase of 12,342 inhabitants in thirteen years, and a proportion of 26.7 inhabitants to the square kilometre (about 10.31 to the square mile). The Report of the Instituto Geographico y Estadistico on the movement of population for 1901 gives for the Province of Leon 14,784 births, 10,131 deaths, and 2987 marriages, showing that the increase of population continues.

CIVIL DIVISION

The province is divided into ten judicial districts and 234 subdivisions (ayuntamientos). The judicial districts are: Astorga (an episcopal see), La Bañeza, Murias de Paredes, Ponferrada, Riaño, Sahagún, Valencia de D. Juan, La Vecilla, Villafranca de Bierzo, and Leon. The capital has a population of 17,022 inhabitants.

ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISION

The Diocese of Leon belongs to the ecclesiastical Province of Burgos, though that of Astorga, which is in the same civil province, belongs to the ecclesiastical Province of Valladolid. It (Leon) consists of 345 parishes, grouped in 37 archipresbyteries, and comprises part of the territory of the civil Provinces of Valladolid and Oviedo. The lists of its bishops was interrupted by the Arab conquest. It possesses two ecclesiastical seminaries: that of S. Froilan and that of S. Mateo de Valderas. The college of S. Isidoro at Leon, for poor scholars, is incorporated with the seminary of S. Froilan. There are two chapters in the diocese: that of the cathedral, and the collegiate chapter of San Isidoro, with an abbot and sixteen canons. The present incumbent of the see, the Right Reverend Juan Manuel Sanz y Saravia, b. at Puebla de los Infantes, 30 March, 1848, was preconized 27 March, 1905. Religious Communities in the Diocese. At the capital there is a convent of Capuchins and a house of Augustinians who have charge of the pupils of the Instituto Provincial. There are also the Benedictine nuns of Sta. María de Carvajal, Franciscan Conceptionists, Augustinian nuns, and Discalced nuns of Sta. Cruz, besides other uncloistered communities of women, viz., the Sisters of Charity in the Hospital Provincial and the Chapter Hospital and in the Asilo Municipal, an asylum of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a college of Carmelites of Charity, Servants of Jesus for the aid of the sick, and a convent of Carmelite Sisters. At Sahagún three are Benedictines of Sta. Cruz, and a hospital and college of Sisters of Charity; at Mayorga (Province of Valladolid), a convent of Franciscan Fathers occupied in teaching, Dominican nuns, and a hospital of Sisters of Charity; at Castroverde de Campos (Province of Zamora), Franciscan Fathers; at S. Pedro de Duefias And in the monastery of La Vega, Benedictine nuns; at Villalpando, Villalobos, and Villafrechos there are Poor Clares; at Grajal de Campos, Disealced Chamelites; at Cuenca de Campos, Franciscan nuns; at Gradefes, Bernardine nuns; at Villal n, a hospital of Sisters of Charity; at Boadilla de Rioseco, a college of Tertiaries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary; at Saldaña, a college of Servants of Mary.

Education

Besides the colleges of religious orders already mentioned, there are the Instituto Provincial at Leon and a local institute at Ponferrada. Leon is dependent upon the university district of Oviedo

The City of Leon

The City of Leon, capital of the civil province and also of the Diocese of León, is situated on the River Bernesga, at its junction with the Torio. It has a station on the Palencia, Coruña, and Oviedo railroad. A part of the ancient city walls are still standing, some of them being Roman fortifications dating from the third century and decorated with tesseraæ. The best preserved of these remains are in the "Carrera de los Cubos", on the north-west side of the City, between the cathedral and the Puerta del Castillo. The modern city extends beyond this enclosure towards the railroad. The most notable monuments are the cathedral, the collegiate church of S. Isidoro, and the convent of S. Marcos. The cathedral of Sta. María is one of the best examples of primitive Gothic in Spain. It is supposed to have been commenced in the middle of the thirteenth century, in the episcopates of Nuño Alvarez and Martin III (Fernández) (1245-80), and the façade was completed at the end of the sixteenth century. Its excessive weight caused the dilapidation which occasioned repairs under the direction of Madrazo (d. 1881), Demetrio de los Rios (d. 1892), and Lazaro. Its plan is a Latin cross, with three naves, a transept, a choir of five naves, and a chevet of chapels. Above the lateral arcade runs the triforium gallery, and above that again large ogival windows filled with stained glass of great value. The choir, in the middle of the largest nave, is magnificent Florid Gothic; the retrochoir, Renaissance. In the centre of the space behind the altar stands the mausoleum of Ordoño II. On the Gospel side of the main chapel is the tomb of St. Alvitus; on the Epistle side, that of Don Pelayo, the Bishop; in the chapel of the Saviour, that of the Countess Sancha; in the chapel of the Nativity, that of Bishop Rodrigo. The cloister is in the Renaissance Transition ogival style. The exterior, uncovered in front and on one side, is dominated by the spires which crown the two lofty and massive towers; it is sustained by pinnacles and buttresses, strengthened with supports and abutments, and surrounded with cornices and pierced parapets. There are two orders of ogival windows and, opening to the west and south, a triple doorway which is profusely ornamented with magnificent carvings, and gives access to a spacious vestibule paved with marble and closed by an iron grille. The two towers, of unequal height, stand apart from the nave of the church from their bases up, but are connected with it by means of abutments. The northern tower, which is the less lofty, is crowned with a parapet and an octagonal spire. The southern is taller and more ornate; its octagonal spire is of exquisite pierced work. Here, in large Gothic characters, may be real: María—Jesús Xps—Deus homo; and higher up: Ave María—Gratia plena—Dns tecum. The porch consists of three arcades, corresponding to the three entrances; upon the pillar which bisects the middle portal stands the large and beautiful statue of the Blessed Virgin called la Blanca (the White). Towards the north of the city is the basilica of S. Isidoro, predominantly Byzantine in architecture, but with the addition of later constructions. The church has three lofty naves. In the north transept may be read the record of the consecration, performed by eleven bishops, 6 March, 1149. In the crypt of this church is the burial-place of the kings, which was desecrated by the French of Napoleon's army. The convent of S. Marco stands outside the city, to the west. It was once a residence of the Knights of Santiago. Its rebuilding was commenced by Ferdinand the Catholic and was completed in 1715. Its decoration is in the Plateresque style.

FITA, Epigrafía romana de la ciudad deLeón (Leon, 1866); FLÓREZ-RISCO, España Sagrada, XXXIV-VI, Memorias de la Sta. Iglesia exenta deLeón (Madrid. 1784 86): QUADRADO, Espa a, sus monumentos y artes (Barcelona, 1885): Censo de 1900 and Movimiento de la poblacion en 1901 in Memorias del Instituto Geoqráfico y Estadéstico; MUÑOS Y ROMERO, Fueros municipales de Castilla (1847) COLMEIRO, Constitución y gobierno de los reinos deLeón y Castilla (Madrid, 1855); DAVILA, Teatro eclesiástico de España, I (1618); LAVINA, La catedral deLeón (Madrid, 1876); BELLOSO, Anuaria Eclesiástico de España (Madrid, 1904).

RAMÓN RUIZ AMADO

León

DIOCESE OF LEÓN (LEONENSIS)

Suffragan of Michoacan in Mexico, erected in 1863. In the early days of the discovery of Mexico the whole country was divided into dioceses subject to the Archbishop of Seville in Spain as metropolitan. Among those was Michoacan, erected as a bishopric in 1536. On 31 January, 1545, at the request of Charles V, Paul III formed the Archdiocese of Mexico, and Michoacan became one of its suffragan sees, its bishop residing in what is now the town of Morelia. In the Secret Consistory of 16 March, 1863, Pius IX divided the Diocese of Michoacan into the Sees of Michoacan, Zamora, León, and Queretaro. The Diocese of León, which comprises the civil State of Guanajuato, about 8000 sq. miles in area, and having a population of 968,163, is in the heart of a rich agricultural country famous for its cotton and woollen weaving. The richest silver mines in Mexico are in the neighbourhood of Guanajuato. The town of Guanajuato, situated 6000 feet above the level of the sea, and 250 miles north-west of Mexico, is famous also for its churches and monasteries. It was founded by the Spaniards in 1554, and has a population of 53,000, though under Spanish rule the population exceeded 100,000. León, or León de los Aldamas, the chief town of the department of the same name, is the residence of the bishop, Mgr Emeterio Valverde Telles. The town is situated on the right bank of the Rio Torbio, at a height of 5000 feet above sea-level, and had a population of 63,263 in 1900. It was founded in 1576. Another important town in the same department is San Francisco del Rincon. As an episcopal see León dates from 1863, and its present bishop was elected on 7 August, 1909. The cathedral chapter consists of 12 canons and 6 chaplains. There is a diocesan seminary with 24 professors, and the spiritual wants of the diocese are looked after by 264 secular priests and 48 regulars (see MEXICO). Among former bishops may be mentioned Mgr Tomas Baron y Morales, appointed 1882; Mgr Zambrano, appointed 1886; and Mgr Ruiz, appointed 1900.

J.C. GREY

Luis de León

Spanish poet and theologian, b. at Belmonte, Aragon, in 1528; d. at Madrigal, 23 August, 1591. He came from an honourable bourgeois family, his father being "king's advocate" at Madrid. At fourteen the youth was sent to Salamanca to study law. Six months later he entered the Augustinian convent of that city. After completing his theological studies and obtaining his university degrees (1560) he was appointed to the chair of theology. The decree of the Council of Trent as to the authenticity of the Vulgate was then causing great dissension among the professors at Salamanca. Some of them, Grajal, Martinez, de León, and others continued to use in their courses or in their exegetical writings the Hebraic texts, the Septuagint, and even the version of Vatable. Some, like Medina and León de Castro, saw in this a defiance of the council's decree, and effectively denounced their adversaries, whom they called rabbinists. Early in 1572 Grajal and Martinez were arrested at Salamanca and accused of heresy. On 27 March, de León met the same fate, and was incarcerated at Valladolid by order of the Inquisition as being their abettor. After examining his writings and hearing the witnesses, the Inquisition summed up in seventeen propositions the accusations urged against him. In these propositions he was not charged with heresy, but with imprudence and rashness, particularly on account of his rather disrespectful appreciation of the Vulgate. The tribunal at Valladolid, after a trial extending over nearly five years, declared him guilty and asked that he be put to the rack and rebuked. This sentence, however, had to be ratified by the supreme council at Madrid. But nine days later (7 December, 1576) this body reversed the sentence, acquitted de León, and ordered his chair to be given back to him, but warned him to be more cautious in his teaching. He renounced the chair, however, for the time being, in favour of the professor who had filled it during his absence, and was satisfied with pecuniary compensation and supplementary teaching.

In 1582 he got into fresh difficulties with the Inquisition, having in some points opposed the doctrine of St. Augustine on predestination. He was summoned before the high inquisitor at Toledo and warned to be more circumspect. He was appointed by the University of Salamanca a member of the committee on the reformation of the calendar, but in 1587 he refused to act on the commission for correction of the Vulgate, declaring that by comparing the present version with the original one would get further away from the Hebrew.

He was appointed provincial of his order a few days before his death. He left many works, published in six volumes (Madrid, 1806-1816). The first five contained his theological writings, of which the most important are Biblical commentaries superior to any of his time (on Abdias, Job, the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Canticle of Canticles). The sixth volume contains his vernacular writings: "La perfecta casada" (The Perfect Housewife); "De los nombres de Cristo", a metrical version of the Canticle of Canticles (employed against him on his trial), versions of the Eclogues and the Georgics of Virgil, versions of thirty odes of Horace, of forty psalms, and a few original odes, the most. celebrated of which are: "The Prophecy of the Tagus", "The Life of the Fields", "The Serene Night", "Hymn on the Ascension". "La perfecta casada", one of the gems of sixteenth century pedagogical literature, has recently been edited by Elizabeth Wallace (Chicago University Decennial Publications, 1903); for a French version see Jane Dieulafoy "La Parfaite Epouse" (Paris, 1904). Despite a certain unevenness of style Luis de León is one of the greatest masters of Castilian lyric poetry. His virile national spirit, at once religious and patriotic, and his rare classical purity, magnanimity, and sure judgment conspire to save him from effeminacy, affectation, and pedantry.

Obras del M. Fr. Lois de León (Madrid, 1804-16); Proceso original quo in Inquisición hizo at M. Fr. Luiz do León in Coleción do Documentos inÈditos para la historia de España, X, XI (Madrid, 1847): GONZALES DE TEJADA, Vida do Fray Luis de León (Madrid, 1863): GETINO, Vida y processos del Maestro F. Luiz de León (Salamanca, 1907); TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (Boston, 1864); FORD, Lois de León, the Spanish Poet, Humanist, and Mystic in Public Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, XIV, no. 2; HURTER, Nomenclator.

ANTOINE DEGERT

Leonard of Chios

Born at an uncertain date on the Island of Chios, then under Genoese domination; died in Chios or in Italy, 1842. He himself says he was of humble parents. He entered the Dominican Order in Chios, and after profession was sent to Padua for his philosophical and theological studies. After ordination he taught at both Padua and Genoa, then at the request of Maria Justiniani returned to his native island, and was made Bishop of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos by Eugene IV. Emperor Constantine Palaelogus had sent a request to the pope, asking that efforts be made to effect a union between the Latin and Greek Churches: for this purpose Leonard was selected to accompany Isidore, Cardinal-Bishop of Sabine, to Constantinople. Some degree of success was attained through their efforts, and a treaty was ratified in December, 1452. However, the Greeks refused the aid of the Latin troops, and in the following year Leonard was a witness to the devastation of the city by Mohammed II. Leonard and the cardinal were miraculously spared from the slaughter which ensued, the latter returning to Rome and Leonard to his diocese. From Chios he wrote to the pope a detailed account of the fall of Constantinople in a letter, which is often reprinted by historians ("Historia captae a Turcis Constantinopolis,", Nuremberg, 1544; P.G., CLIX, 923 sq.; Lonicer, "Chronica Turcica", I, Frankfurt, 1578: "De capta a Mehemete II. Constantinopoli Leonardi Chiensis et Godefredi Langi narrationes," ed. L'Ecuy, Paris, 1823). He governed his diocese for the next three years, until Lesbos also fell and he was taken captive to Constantinople. He obtained his freedom the following year, and immediately wrote the pope a description of the sack of his diocese ("Leonardi Chiensis de Lesbo a Turcis capta epistola Pio Papae II missa", ed. Hopf, Konigsberg, 1866). His best-known writings are the two letters mentioned above and an apologetical tract in answer to the humanist Poggio. Both tracts with biographical sketches were edited by Michael Justinian (Avila, 1657). There is reason to believe that many of his letters remain unedited in the Vatican Library.

ECHARD and QUETIF, Scriptores O.P., II, 816; STREBER in Kirchenlex., s.v. Leonhard von Chios; HOPF, op. cit.

IGNATIUS SMITH

St. Leonard of Limousin

Nothing absolutely certain is known of his history, as his earliest "Life", written in the eleventh century, has no historical value whatever. According to this extraordinary legend, Leonard belonged to a noble Frankish family of the time of King Clovis, and St. Remy of Reims was his godfather. After having secured from the king the release of a great number of prisoners, and refused episcopal honours which Clovis offered him, he entered a monastery at Micy near Orleans. Later he went to Aquitaine and there preached the Gospel. Having obtained, through prayer, a safe delivery for the Queen of the Franks in her confinement, he received as a gift from the king a domain at Noblac, near Limoges, where he founded a monastery. The veneration of this saint is as widely known as his history is obscure and uncertain. It is true that there is no trace of it before the eleventh century, but from that time it spread everywhere, and little by little churches were dedicated to him, not only in France, but in all Western Europe, especially in England, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, more particularly in Bavaria, and also in Bohemia, Poland, and other countries. Pilgrims, among them kings, princes, and high dignitaries of the Church, flocked to Noblac (now St. Leonard). Numerous miracles are attributed to him, and in one small town alone, Inchenhofen, Bavaria, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century, there are records of about 4000 favours granted through his intercession. The saint wrought the delivery of captives, women in confinement, those possessed of an evil spirit, people and beasts afflicted with diseases. At the end of the eleventh century his name had already become renowned among the Crusaders captured by the Mussulmans. He is generally represented holding chains in his hands. His feast day is celebrated on 6 November.

PONCELET in Acta SS., November, III, 139-209; see also CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., s.v.

A. PONCELET

St. Leonard of Port Maurice

Preacher and ascetic writer, b. 20 Dec., 1676, at Porto Maurizio on the Riviera di Ponente; d. at the monastery of S. Bonaventura, Rome, 26 Nov., 1751. The son of Domenico Casanova and Anna Maria Benza, he joined after a brilliant course of study with the Jesuits in Rome (Collegio Romano), the so- called Riformella, an offshoot of the Reformati branch of the Franciscan Order [see FRIARS MINOR, II, B, (2)]. On 2 October, 1697, he received the habit, and after making his novitiate at Ponticelli in the Sabine mountains, he completed his studies at the principal house of the Riformella, S. Bonaventura on the Palatine at Rome. After his ordination he remained there as lector (professor), and expected to be sent on the Chinese missions. But he was soon afterwards seized with severe gastric haemorrhage, and became so ill that he was sent to his native climate of Porto Maurizio, where there was a monastery of the Franciscan Observants (1704). After four years he was restored to health, and began to preach in Porto Maurizio and the vicinity. When Cosimo III de' Medici handed over the monastery del Monte (that on San Miniato near Florence, also called Monte alle Croci) to the members of the Riformella, St. Leonard was sent hither under the auspices and by desire of Cosimo III, and began shortly to give missions to the people in Tuscany, which were marked by many extraordinary conversions and great results. His colleagues and he always practised the greatest austerities and most severe penances during these missions. In 1710 he founded the monastery of Icontro, on a peak in the mountains about four and a quarter miles from Florence, whither he and his assistants could retire from time to time after missions, and devote themselves to spiritual renewal and fresh austerities.

In 1720 he crossed the borders of Tuscany and held his celebrated missions in Central and Southern Italy, enkindling with zeal the entire population. Clement XII and Benedict XIV called him to Rome; the latter especially held him in high esteem both as a preacher and as a propagandist, and exacted a promise that he would come to Rome to die. Everywhere the saint made abundant conversions, and was very often obliged both in cities and country districts to preach in the open, as the churches could not contain the thousands who came to listen. He founded many pious societies and confraternities, and exerted himself especially to spread the devotion of the Stations of the Cross -- the propagation of which he greatly furthered with the assistance of his brethren -- the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the perpetual adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and devotion to the Immaculate Conception. One of his most ardent desires was to see the last-named defined as a dogma of faith by the Holy See. Besides the celebrated stations in the Colosseum at Rome, St. Leonard erected 571 others in all parts of Italy, while on his different missions. From May to November, 1744, he preached in the Island of Corsica, which at that time belonged to the Republic of Genoa and which was frightfully torn by party strife. In November, 1751, when he was preaching to the Bolognese, Benedict XIV called him to Rome, as already there were indications of his rapidly approaching end. The strain of his missionary labours and his mortifications had completely exhausted his body. He arrived on the evening of 26 November, 1751, at his beloved monastery of S. Bonaventura on the Palatine, and expired on the same night at eleven o'clock at the age of seventy-five. In the church of this monastery (which must soon make way for the excavations of the ground occupied by the palace of the Caesars) the partly incorrupt body of the saint is kept in the high altar. Pius VI pronounced his beatification on 19 June, 1796, and Pius IX his canonization on 29 June, 1867. The Franciscan Order celebrates his feast on 26 November, but outside this order it is often celebrated on 27 November.

The numerous writings of the saint consist of sermons, letters, ascetic treatises, and books of devotion for the use of the faithful and of priests, especially missionaries. The "Diary" (Diario) of his missions is written by Fra Diego da Firenze. A treasure for asceticism and homiletics, many of his writings have been translated into the most diverse languages and often republished: for example his "Via Sacrea spianata ed illuminata" (the Way of the Cross simplified and explained), "Il Tesoro Nascosto" (on the Holy Mass); his celebrated "Proponimenti", or resolutions for the attainment of higher Christian perfection. A complete edition of his works appeared first at Rome in thirteen octavo volumes (1853-84), "Collezione completa delle opere di B. Leonardo da Porto Maurizio". Then another in five octavo volumes, "Opere complete di S. Leonardo di Porto Maurizio" (Venice, 1868-9). In English, German, etc., only single works have been issued, but a French translation of the entire set has appeared: "OEuvres completes de S. Leonard de Port-Maurice" (8 vols., Paris and Tournai, 1858), and "Sermons de S. Leonard de Port Maurice" (3 vols., Paris).

Summarium processus beatificationis V.S.D. Leon. a P.M. (Rome, 1781); RAFELLO DA ROMA, Vita del P. Leonardoda P.M. (Rome, 1754); JOS. De MASSERANO, Vita del B. Leonardo da P.M. (Rome, 1796), written by the postulator and dedicated to the duke of York, son of James [III] of England; SALVATORE DI ORMEA, Vita del B. Leonardo da P.M. (Innsbruck, 1869); L. De CHERANCE, S. Leonard de Port-Maurice (Paris, 1903) in Nouvelle Bibliotheque Franciscaine (1st series), XIII. Chapter xx of this last mentioned work had already appeared in Etudes Franciscaines, VIII (Paris, 1902), 501-10.

MICHAEL BIHL

St. Leonidas

(Or LEONIDES.)

The Roman Martyrology records several feast days of martyrs of this name in different countries. Under date of 28 January there is a martyr called Leonides, a native of the Thebaid, whose death with several companions is supposed to have occurred during the Diocletian persecution (Acta SS., January, II, 832). Another Leonides appears on 2 September, in a long list of martyrs headed by a St. Diomedes. Together with a St. Eleutherius, a Leonides is honoured on 8 August. From other sources we know of a St. Leonidas, Bishop of Athens, who lived about the sixth century, and whose feast is celebrated on 15 April ("Acta SS.", April, II, 378; "Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca", 2nd ed., 137). Still another martyr of the name is honoured on 16 April, with Callistus, Charysius, and other companions (Acta SS., April, II, 402). The best known of them all, however, is St. Leonides of Alexandria, father of the great Origen. From Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., VI, 1, 2) we learn that he died a martyr during the persecution under Septimius Severus in 202. He was condemned to death by the prefect of Egypt, Lactus, and beheaded. His property was confiscated. Leonides carefully cultivated the brilliant intellect of his son Origen from the latter's childhood, and imparted to him the knowledge of Holy Scripture. The feast of St. Leonidas of Alexandria is celebrated on 22 April.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Leontius

Bishop of FrÈjus, in Provence. France, b. probably at Nimes, towards the end of the fourth century; d. in his episcopal town in 488. according to some authorities, though others say 443 or even 448. The date of his episcopal ordination is uncertain, but most likely it took place between the years 400 and 419; indeed the obscurity surrounding his life has not been entirely dissipated by the most conscientious labours of historians. It is however, indisputable that he was a man of eminent sanctity, and his episcopate was marked with important results, else he would not have been from an early date associated with the Blessed Virgin as patron of the cathedral church of FrÈjus. A tenth-century document mentions him in this connection. There is reason to believe that he was a brother of St. Castor, Bishop of Apt, and that consequently like him he was a native of Nimes. At times he has been mistaken for other persons of the same name, especially for Leontius, Bishop of Arles, who lived at the end of the fifth century. But besides the difference in time, the important events associated with the name of the latter Leontius render the identification impossible. The principal occurrence during the episcopate of Leontius of FrÈjus was the establishment of the monastery of Lerins at the beginning of the fifth century. The name of this bishop is inseparably united to that of Honoratus, the founder of the monastery, and he seems to have played an important part in the development of the monastic life in the south-east of Gaul. Honoratus called him his superior and his father, whilst Cassian who governed the numerous religious of the Abbey of St. Victor at Marseilles, dedicated most of his "Conferences" to him.

The relations of the monastery of. LÈrins to the diocesan bishop were most cordial and liberal. Some writers believe that this was due merely to the common custom of the age, but others hold, and not without reason it would seem, that it was the result of special privileges granted by Leontius to Honoratus, with whom he was intimately united in the bonds of friendship. Be that as it may, these regulations, which, while safeguarding the episcopal dignity, assured the independence of the monastery, and were confirmed by the Third Council of Arles, seem to have been the beginning of those immunities which hence-forward were enjoyed in an increasing degree by the religious communities. Moreover, the most cordial relations existed between the saint and the sovereign pontiffs. This is proved by the fact that St. Leo I, after his memorable quarrel with St. Honoratus, Bishop of Arles, deprived the latter of the prerogatives which gave him a kind of primacy over the district of Vienne, and bestowed them on Leontius. It is true that this important event took place only in 445, whilst Leontius had been succeeded in the episcopate by Theodore in 433. That is why some authorities have held that these prerogatives were granted to another Bishop of FrÈjus, likewise named Leontius, who would have been a successor of Theodore. To this the supporters of a loved tradition reply that St. Leontius abandoned his see in 432 to go and preach the Gospel to the Teutonic tribes, and returned to his diocese in 442 dying only in 445 or even 448. Unfortunately no very solid proof of this apostolate can he adduced. Consequently it is still quite uncertain whether or not the Diocese of FrÈjus had more than one bishop called Leontius. Another tradition, making St. Leontius a martyr, does not seem older than the beginning of the thirteenth century, and merits no credence. Earlier and better authenticated documents give him the title of confessor, which alone is accurate.

ANTELMI, De initiis Ecclesiæ Forojuliensis (Aix. 1680), 55-128; BOUCHE, Description de la Provence, I (Aix, 1664), 578-9; DISDIER, Recherches historiques sur Saint LÈonce, Èvêque de FrÈjus et patron du diocèse in Bull, de la Soc. d'Ètudes scient. archÈol. de Draguignan (Draguignan, 1862-1865), IV, 294, 367; V, 71, 138; DU FOUR, S. Leontius ecpiscopus et martyr suis Forojuliensibus restitutust (Avignon, 1638); GIRARDIN, Histoire de la ville et de l'Èglise de FrÈjus, II (Paris. 1729), 40-88, 131-152; TILLEMONT, MÈm. pour servir à l'histoire ecclÈs., XII (Paris, 1707), 468-70, 476-77, 676-79.

LÉON CLUGNET

Leontius Byzantinus

(Leontios Byzantios)

An important theologian of the sixth century. In spite of his deserved fame there are few Christian writers whose lives have been so much discussed. Till quite lately even his period was not considered certain. Bellarmine and Labbe placed him before the fifth general council (Constantinople A.D. 553; cf. "Scriptores eccles.", Venice, 1728, VII, 204). He has been assigned to the time of Gregory the Great (590-604; Miræus, "Bibl. eccl.", Antwerp, 1639, 211); identified with Bishop Leontius of Salamis in Cyprus (in the VII cent.; Cave, "Script. eccles. hist. litt.", Geneva, 1720, 352); and the Origenist Leontius mentioned in the "Life of Sabas" by Cyril of Scythopolis (Canisius-Basnage, "Thesaurus monum. eccles.", Antwerp, 1725, 529 and 533). There is, or was, the same uncertainty about his works; the authenticity of many books under his name has been discussed continually. In short, Fabricius said with some reason that (at his time) it was impossible to come to any clear conception of who Leontius really was, or what he really wrote (Fabricius Harles, "Biblioth. Græca", Hamburg, 1802, VIII 310). In his account of himself, in a work whose authenticity is undisputed (Contra Nest. et Eutych.) he says that in his youth he had belonged to the Nestorian sect, but was converted by "holy men who cleansed his heart by the works of true theologians" (P.G., LXXXVI, 1358 and 1360). Other works ("Adv. Nest.", and "Adv. Monoph.") describe him in their title as a monk of Jerusalem (P. 0., LXXXVI 1399 and 1769). Friedrich Loofs has made a special study of his life and works. As far as the Life is concerned, his conclusion is accepted in the main by Ehrhard and Krumbacher (Byzant. Litt., 55), Bardenhewer (Patrologie, 506-508), and to some extent Rügamer.

According to Loofs, Leontius was the monk of that name who came with others (Scythians) to Rome in 519, to try to persuade Pope Hormisdas (514-523) to authorize the formula (suspect of Monophysitism) "One of the Trinity suffered", and was also the Ongenist Leontius of the "Vita S. Sabæ". He was born, probably at Constantinople, about 485, of a distinguished family related to the imperial general Vitalian. He then joined the Nestorians in Scythia but was converted and became a stanch defender of Ephesus. Early in his life he became a monk. He came to Constantinople in 519, and then to Rome as part of the embassy of Scythian monks. After that he was for a time in Jerusalem. In 531 he took part in public disputes arranged by Justinian (527-565) between Catholics and the Monophysite followers of Severus of Antioch (538). He stayed at the capital till about 538, then went back to his monastery at Jerusalem. Later he was again at Constantinople, where he died, apparently before the first Edict against the "Three Chapters" (544). Loofs dates his death at "about 543". His change of residence accounts for the various descriptions of him as "a monk of Jerusalem" and "a monk of Constantinople". This theory, explained and defended at length by Loofs, supposes the identification of our author with the "Venerable monk Leontius and Legate of the Fathers (monks) of the holy city (Jerusalem)" who took part in Justinian's controversy (Mansi, VIII, 818; cf. 911 and 1019); with the Scythian monk Leontius who came to Rome in 519 (Mansi, VIII, 498 and 499); and with the Origenist Leontius of Byzantium, of whom Cyril of Scythopolis writes in his "Life of St. Sabas" (Cotelerius, "Ecclesiæ græcæ monumenta", Paris, 1686).

Rügamer admits the period of Leontius's life defended by Loofs (this may now be considered accepted), and the identification with the disputant at Constantinople (Leontius von Byzanz, 56-58). He thinks his identity with the Scythian monk to be doubtful. Leontius himself never mentions Scythia as a place where he has lived; he does not defend the famous sentence "One of the Trinity suffered" with the ardour one would expect in one of its chief patrons (ibid., pp. 54-56). Rügamer altogether denies the identification with the Origenist Leontius. Had he been an Origenist his name would not be so honoured in Byzantine tradition, where he appears as "blessed", "all-wise", and "a great monk" (ibid., pp. 58-63) According to Rügamer, Leontius spent his youth and became a Nestorian at Constantinople at the time of the Henoticon schism (482-519). He went after his conversion to Jerusalem and became a monk there. He had never been a public orator, as some author's (Nirselil, "Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik", Mainz, 1885, p. 553) conclude from the title scholastikos (the common one for such persons; it is often given to him). On the contrary, he shows no special legal or forensic training, and never refers to such a career in his youth. So scholastikos in his case can only mean learned man, He came to Constantinople for the disputation, went back to Jerusalem, was superior of a monastery there, was an enemy of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but yet did not desire the condemnation of the "Three Chapters", and died after 553 (op. cit., pp. 49-72).

The works ascribed to Leontius Byzantinus are: (1) three books "Against the Nestorians and Eutychians" (commonly quoted as "Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos", P.G., LXXXVI 1267-1396). This is certainly authentic (in other words, the person about whom they dispute is the author of this work). It is his earliest composition. Book I refutes the opposite heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, and establishes the Faith of Chalcedon. Book II, in dialogue form, refutes the heresy of the Aphthartodocetes (mitigated Monophysites who made our Lord's human nature incorruptible during His life on earth-therefore not a true human nature). Book III (the title of this book in Migne belongs really to Book II) accuses the Nestorians of dishonest practices to make converts, and vehemently attacks Theodore of Mopsuestia. The whole work is full of well-selected quotations from the Fathers, and shows great learning and controversial skill. All the other works have been disputed, at least in their present form. (2) "Against the Monophysites" ("Adv. Monophysitas", P.G., LXXXVI, 1769-1902), in two parts, but incomplete. Part I argues philosophically from the idea of nature; part II quotes the witness of the Fathers, and refutes texts alleged to favour Monophysitism. (3) "Against the Nestorians" ("Adv. Nestorianos", P.G., LXXXVI, 1399-1768). in eight books, of which the last is wanting. "A classical work" (Nirsehi, op. cit., 555), explaining and defending all the issues against this heresy. Book IV defends the title Theotokos; Book VII defends the formula: "One of the Trinity suffered". (4) "Scholia" or ‘‘Of Sects" ("De Sectis", P. 0., LXXXVI, 1193-1268); ten chapters called "Acts" (praxeis) against all the known heretics at that time, including Jews and Sarnaritans. (5) Solution of the arguments proposed by Severus" (of Antioch; "Adv. Severum" P.G., LXXXVI, 1915-46). A refutation of Monophysitisim in dialogue form. It supposes a Monophysite work (otherwise unknown) whose order it follows. (6) "Thirty chapters against Severus" ("Triginta capita", P.G., LXXXVI, 1901-16), a short work with many parallels to the preceding one. (7) "Against the frauds of the Apollinarists" (‘‘Adv. fraudes Apollinaristarum", P. (1., LXXXVI, 1947-76), a very important work, the beginning of the discovery of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea which still occupies the minds of students. It is an examination of certain works attributed to Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Pope Julius, which are declared to be really by Apollinaris, and fraudulently attributed to these Fathers by his followers. (8) "Discussions of Sacred Things", by Leontius and John ("De rebus sacris", P.G., LXXXVI, 2017-2100). This is a recension of the second book of the "Sacra Parallela" (collections of texts of the Fathers) of which a version is also attributed to St. John Damascene (c. 760). (9) Two homilies by a priest Leontius of Constantinople (P.G., LXXXVI, 1975-2004), certainly another person. Of these works, (1) is certainly genuine, (8) and (9) are certainly not. The "De rebus sacris" was probably composed between 614 and 627. The Leontius of the title is a bishop of that name of Salamis in Cyprus. Of the others, Loofs thinks that (5) and (6) are fragments of a large work by Leontius Byzantinus, called "Scholia"; (2), (3), and (4) are later works founded on it. (7) is by another (unknown) author, written between 511 and 520. Rügamer, on the other hand, defends the authenticity in their present form of all these works, except (8) and (9).

Leontius of Byzantium is, in any case, a theologian of great importance. Apart from the merit of his controversial work against Nestorians and Monophysites, his Aristotelianism marks an epoch in the history of Christian philosophy. He has been described as the first of the Scholastics (KrumbacherEhrhard, "Byzantinische Litteratur", p. 544.

Works in P.G., LXXXVI; LOOFS, Das Leben und die polernischen Werke des Leontius von Byzanz (Leipzig. 1887); RÜGAMER, Leontius von Byzans (Würzburg. 1894); JUNGLAS, Leontius von Byzanz (Paderborm, 1909); KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897). 54-56; BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg, 1908), 544.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Leontopolis

A titular archiepiscopal see of Augustamnica Secunda. Strabo (XVII, 1,19, 20) places it near Mendete and Diospolis, and says (XVII, 1, 40) that the inhabitants worshipped a lion, whence the name of the town. In reality, the name comes from Horus, who according to Egyptian mythology changed himself into a lion (Naville, "Textes relatifs au mythe d'Horus", XVIII, 2). Ptolemy (IV, 5, 22) also mentions the nome and the metropolis of Leontopolis. The geographers Hierocles, George of Cyprus, and others call that locality Leonto, reserving the name of Leontopolis for a town in the province of Ægypta Prima; similarly in the signatures of bishops collected by Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 553) Leonto is always found. Leonto is the modern Tell Mokdam on the right bank of the Nile (Damietta branch), near the railway from Cairo to Damietta which follows the left bank of the river. At Tell Mokdam may be seen the remains of a temple of Osorkon II. The other Leontopolis was situated near Heliopolis or Mataryeh. Here in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, the Jewish high priest Onias built a temple to Jahveh, afterwards closedd by Vespasian. Callinice in Syria was called Leontopolis, also a town in Isauria (Le Quien, "Oriens Christianus", II, 1021) not yet recognized.

S. VAILHÉ

Lepanto

Italian name for Naupactos (Naupactus) a titular metropolitan see of ancient Epirus. The name Naupactus (dockyard) is said to have originated in the traditional building of a fleet there by Heraclidae (Strabo, IX, ix, 7). The site must have been chosen because of the strong position of the hill, the fertile plains of the neighbourhood, and the many streams. Situated on the coast of Loeris, it originally belonged to the Locri Ozolae but was subsequently taken by the Athenians, who in 455 B.C., after the Third Messenian War, established there the Messenian helots, the bitter enemies of Sparta (Pausanias, IV, xxv, 7; X, xxxviii, 10). After the battle of Ægospotami (404 B.C.), the Spartans captured Naupactus, drove out the Messenians, and restored the town to the Locri Ozolae. Subsequently, it passed in turn to the Achaeans, the Thesbians, and to Philip Macedon, who gave it to the Ætolians; hence it was sometimes called the "city of the Ætolians" (Strabo, IX, iv, 7). For two months Naupactus fiercely resisted the Romans, who under M. Acilius Glabrio finally (191 B.C.) captured the town. Pausanias (X, xxxviii, 12-13) saw there near the sea a temple of Poseidon, another of Artemis, a cave dedicated to Aphrodite, and ruins of a temple of Aesculapius. During Justinian's reign Naupactus was almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake (Procopius, "Bell. Goth.", IV, xxv).

Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 197-200) mentions only ten of its Greek bishops, the first of whom took part in the council of Ephesus (431), but our manuscript lists contain ninety-eight names. The metropolitan See of Naupactus depended on the pope, as Western Patriarch, until 733, when Leo III the Isaurian annexed it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the early years of the tenth century it had eight suffragan sees (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum", Munich, 1900, p. 557); nine about 1175 under Emporor Manuel Comnenus (Parthey, "Hieroclis Synecdemus", Berlin, 1866, p. 121), but only four at the close of the fifteenth century (Gelzer, op. Cit.,635). Annexed to the Greek Orthodox Church in 1827, the see was suppressed in 1900, and replaced by the See of Acarnania and Naupactia, whose seat is at Missolonghi; the limits of this diocese are identical to those of the name Ætolia and Acarnania. As to the Latin archbishops of Naupactus during the Frankish occupation, La Quien (Oriens Christ., III, 995) and Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, I, 379; II, 222) mention about twenty in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Occupied by the Turks in 1498, Lepanto is chiefly celebrated for the victory which the combined papal, Spanish, Venetian, and Genoese fleets, under Don John of Austria, gained over the Turkish fleet on 7 Oct., 1571. The latter had 208 galleys and 66 small ships; the Christian fleet about the same number. The crusaders lost 17 ships and 7500 men; 15 Turkish ships were sunk and 177 taken, from 20,000 to 30,000 men disabled, and from 12,000 to 15,000 Christian rowers, slaves on the Turkish galleys, were delivered. Though this victory did not accomplish all that was hoped for, since the Turks appeared the very next year with a fleet of 250 ships before Modon and Cape Matapan, and in vain offered battle to the Christians, it was of great importance as being the first great defeat of the infidels on the sea. Held by the Venetians from 1687 to 1689, and thence by the Turks until 1827, it became in the latter year part of the new Greek realm. Today Naupactus, chief town of the district in the province of Arcarnania and Ætolia, has 4,500 inhabitants, all Orthodox Greeks. The roadstead is rather small and silted up; the strait connects the Bay of Patras with the Gulf of Corinth.

S. VAILHÉ

Leprosy

Leprosy proper, or lepra tuberculosa, in contradistinction to other skin diseases commonly designated by the Greek word lepra (psoriasis, etc.), is a chronic infectious disease caused by the bacillus leprœ, characterized by the formation of growths in the skin, mucous membranes, peripheral nerves, bones, and internal viscera, producing various deformities and mutilations of the human body, and usually terminating in death.

I. HISTORY OF THE DISEASE

Leprosy was not uncommon in India as far back as the fifteenth century b.c. (Ctesias, Pers., xli; Herodian, I, i, 38), and in Japan during the tenth century b.c. Of its origin in these regions little is known, but Egypt has always been regarded as the place whence the disease was carried into the Western world. That it was well known in that country is evidenced by documents of the sixteenth century b.c. (Ebers Papyrus); ancient writers attribute the infection to the waters of the Nile (Lucretius, "De Nat. rer.", VI, 1112) and the unsanitary diet of the people (Galen). Various causes helped to spread the disease beyond Egypt. Foremost among these causes Manetho places the Hebrews, for, according to him, they were a mass of leprosy of which the Egyptians rid their land (" Hist. Græc. Fragm.", ed. Didot, II, pp. 578-81). Though this is romance, there is no doubt but at the Exodus the contamination had affected the Hebrews. From Egypt Phœnician sailors also brought leprosy into Syria and the countries with which they had commercial relations, hence the name "Phœnician disease" given it by Hippocrates (Prorrhetics, II); this seems to be borne out by the fact that we find traces of it along the Ionian coasts about the eighth century b.c. (Hesiod, quoted by Eustathius in "Comment. on Odyss.", p. 1746), and in Persia towards the fifth century b.c. (Herodotus). The dispersion of the Jews after the Restoration (fifth century) and the campaigns of the Roman armies (Pliny, "Hist. Nat.", XXVI) are held responsible for the propagation of the disease in Western Europe: thus were the Roman colonies of Spain, Gaul, and Britain soon infected.

In Christian times the canons of the early councils (Ancyra, 314), the regulations of the popes (e. g., the famous letter of Gregory II to St. Boniface), the laws enacted by the Lombard King Rothar (seventh century), by Pepin and Charlemagne (eighth century), the erection of leper-houses at Verdun, Metz, Maestricht (seventh century), St. Gall (eighth century), and Canterbury (1096) bear witness to the existence of the disease in Western Europe during the Middle Ages. The invasions of the Arabs and, later on, the Crusades greatly aggravated the scourge, which spared no station in life and attacked even royal families. Lepers were then subjected to most stringent regulations. They were excluded from the church by a funeral Mass and a symbolic burial (Martène, "De Rit. ant.," III, x). In every important community asylums, mostly dedicated to St. Lazarus and attended by religious, were erected for the unfortunate victims. Matthew Paris (1197-1259) roughly estimated the number of these leper-houses in Europe at 19,000, France alone having about 2000, and England over a hundred. Such lepers as were not confined within these asylums had to wear a special garb, and carry "a wooden clapper to give warning of their approach. They were forbidden to enter inns, churches, mills, or bakehouses, to touch healthy persons or eat with them, to wash in the streams, or to walk in narrow footpaths" (Creighton). (See below: IV. Leprosy in the Middle Ages.) Owing to strict legislation, leprosy gradually disappeared, so that at the close of the seventeenth century it had become rare except in some few localities. At the same time it began to spread in the colonies of America and the islands of Oceanica. "It is endemic in Northern and Eastern Africa, Madagascar, Arabia, Persia, India, China and Japan, Russia, Norway and Sweden, Italy, Greece, France, Spain, in the islands of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is prevalent in central and South America, Mexico, in the West Indies, the Hawaiian and Philippine islands, Australia and New Zealand. It is also found in New Brunswick, Canada. In the United States, the majority of cases occur in Louisiana and California, while from many other States cases are occasionally reported, notably from New York, Ohio Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, the Carolinas and Texas. In Louisiana leprosy has been gaining foothold since 1758, when it was introduced by the Acadians" (Dyer). According to the statistics furnished by delegates to the second international conference on leprosy (at Bergen, Norway, Sept., 1909), there are approximately 200,000 cases of the disease throughout the world: India, it is stated, coming first with 97,340 cases; the United States contributing 146 cases, and the Panama Canal Zone the minimum of 7 cases.

II. PATHOLOGY

How leprosy originated is unknown: bad nutrition, bad hygiene, constitutional conditions (tuberculosis, alcoholism, probably heredity, etc.) seem to favour its production and propagation. The disease is immediately caused by the infection of the bacillus leprœ, a small rod bacillus from 003 mm. to .007 mm. in length and .0005 mm. in diameter, straight or slightly curved, with pointed, rounded, or club-shaped extremities, usually found in short chains or beads. This bacillus, discovered in 1868 by Hansen, has been described since 1880 by many specialists, particularly by Byron, who succeeded in cultivating it in agar-agar (Ceylon moss). It is present in all leprous tissues and the secretions (urine excepted; Köbner claims to have seen it in the blood), and has been repeatedly observed in the earth taken from the graves of lepers (Brit. Lepr. Commission of India). There is on record only one case — and this somewhat doubtful — of leprosy communicated by artificial inoculation. As to whether it is contagious from person to person, this was for years a much mooted question among specialists; although a scientific demonstration of contagiousness is so far impossible — the mode of contamination being as yet unascertained, as well as the period of incubation of the germ — still there are unimpeachable practical proofs of contagion, such as the effect of isolation on the spread of the disease, and cases of healthy persons contracting the disease when exposed (Fathers Damien and Boglioli, nurses, and attendants), even accidentally, as in the instance of a medical student who cut himself while making a post-mortem on a leper. In the international conference at Bergen, these evidences were deemed convincing enough to call for a declaration that the disease be considered contagious.

The period of incubation is "estimated at from a few weeks to twenty and even forty years" (Dyer). Like most infections, leprosy has a preliminary stage, uncertain in its character: there are loss of appetite, dyspepsia, and nausea, neuralgia, rheumatic and articular pains, fever, intermittent or irregular, unaccountable lassitude and anxiety. These premonitory symptoms, which may last for months, are followed by periodical eruptions. Blotches, first reddish, then brown with a white border, appear and disappear in various parts of the body; sooner or later small tumours, filled with a yellowish substance fast turning to a darker hue, rise sometimes on the joints, but oftener on the articulations of the fingers and toes. These tumours, however, are not yet specifically leprous; at the end they may leave permanent spots, pale or brown, or nodules. Then the disease, manifested by the apparition of specifically leprous formations, diverges into different varieties, according as it affects the skin and mucous membranes (cutaneous leprosy), or the nerves (anæsthetic), or both (mixed, or complete); each of these varieties, however, merges frequently into the others, and it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between cases.

Cutaneous leprosy is either macular or tubercular. The former variety is characterized by dark (L. maculosa nigra), or whitish (L. m. alba) spots, usually forming on the place of the old blotches; the eruption, at first only intermittent, turns finally into an obstinate ulcer with constant destruction of tissue; the ulceration usually begins at the joints of the fingers and toes, which drop off joint by joint, leaving a well-healed stump (L. mutilans); it is sometimes preceded by, and ordinarily attended with, anæsthesia, which, starting at the extremities, extends up the limbs, rendering them insensible to heat and cold, pain, and even touch. In the tubercular type, nodosities of leprous tissue, which may reach the size of a walnut, are formed out of the blotches. They may occur on any part of the body, but usually affect the face (forehead, eyelids, nose, lips, chin, cheeks, and ears), thickening all the features and giving them a leonine appearance (leontiasis, satyriasis). Tubercular leprosy develops rapidly, and, when attacking the extremities, its destructive process has the same effect of ulceration, mutilation, and deformity as has been mentioned above. Scarcely different from the preceding in the period of invasion is the course of anæsthetic leprosy, one of the characteristic symptoms of which is the anæsthesia of the little finger, which may occur even before any lesions appear. The ulcer, at first usually localized on one finger, attacks one by one the other fingers, then the other hand; in some cases the feet are affected at the same time, in others their ulceration follows that of the hands. Neuralgic pains accompany the invasion, and a thickening of certain nerves may be observed; motor-paralysis gradually invades the face, the hands, and the feet. Consequent upon this, the muscles of the face become contracted and distorted by atrophy; ectropion of the lower lids prevents the patient from shutting his eyes; the lips become flabby, and the lower one drops. The sense of touch and muscle-control being lost, the hands are unable to grasp, and the contraction affecting the muscles of the forearm produces the claw-hand. In the lower extremities analogous effects are produced, resulting first in a shuffling gait and finally in complete incapacity of motion. Then the skin shrinks, the hair, teeth, and nails fall, and the lopping-off process of necrosis may extend to the loss of the entire hand or foot. The mixed variety of leprosy is the combination and complete development of the two types just described. In all cases a peculiar offensive smell, recalling that of the dissecting-room mixed with the odour of goose feathers — the authors of the Middle Ages compared it to that of the male-goat — is emitted by the Leper, and renders him an object of repulsion to all who come near him. Add the torture of an unquenchable thirst in the last stages of the disease, and, as the patient usually preserves his mind unaffected to the end, the utter prostration resulting from his complete helplessness and the sight of the slow and unrelenting process of decomposition of his body, and it is easy to understand how truly, in the Book of Job (xviii, 13), leprosy is called "the firstborn of death".

The average course of leprosy is about eight years, the mixed type being more rapidly concluded. "Death is the ordinary conclusion of every case, which may come (in 38 per cent of cases) from the exhaustive effects of the disease, from an almost necessary septicæmia, or from some intercurrent disease, as nephritis (in 22.5 per cent); from pulmonary diseases including phthisis (in 17 per cent), diarrhœa (in 10 per cent), anæmia (in 5 per cent), remittent fever (in 5 per cent), peritonitis (in 2.5 per cent)" (Dyer).

So far leprosy has baffled all the efforts of medical science: almost every conceivable method of treatment has been attempted, yet with no appreciable success. Occasionally the treatment has been followed by such long periods of remission of the disease (fifteen or twenty years) as might lead one to believe the cure altogether complete; still, specialists continue to hold that in such instances the virulence of the bacillus is, through causes unknown, merely suspended, and may break forth again. It being admitted that the disease is both contagious and preventible, there seems to be no doubt that means of public protection should be provided. To answer this purpose, several countries (Norway and Sweden in particular) have by legislation ordered the isolation of lepers. In some other countries the Governments encourage, and, more or less generously, subsidize private establishments. Of all the states of the Union, Louisiana is the only one to have taken any definite steps: it partly supports the leper-home at Carville where some seventy patients are housed under the care of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (Emmitsburg). Some, not unwisely, think that if the federal authorities do not deem it right to interfere, individual states, especially those which, like California are exposed to a constant danger of infection, should take means of preventing the spread of the disease.

III. LEPROSY IN THE BIBLE

The foregoing sketch of the pathology of leprosy may serve to illustrate some of the many passages of the Bible where the disease is mentioned. From the epoch of the sojourn of the people of God in the desert down to the times of Christ, leprosy seems to have been prevalent in Palestine: not only was it in some particular cases (Num., xii, 10; IV Kings, v, 27; Is., liii, 4) looked upon as a Divine punishment, but at all times the Hebrews believed it to be contagious and hereditary (II Kings, iii, 29); hence it was considered as a cause of defilement, and involved exclusion from the community. From this idea proceeded the minute regulations of Lev., xiii, xiv, concerning the diagnosis of the disease and the restoration to social and religious life of those who were cleansed. All decisions in this matter pertained to the priest, before whom should appear personally both those who were suspected of leprosy and those who claimed to be healed. If, at the first examination, the signs — coloured nodule, blister, shining spot (xiii, 2), discoloration of the hair (3) — were manifest, isolation was pronounced at once; but if some of the signs were wanting, a seven-days quarantine was ordered, at the term of which a new inspection had to take place; should then the symptoms remain doubtful, another week's quarantine was imposed. The appearance of "the living flesh" in connexion with whitish blotches was deemed an evident sign of the infection (10). White formations covering the whole body are no sign of leprosy unless "live flesh" (ulceration) accompany them; in the latter case, the patient was isolated as suspect, and if the sores, which might be only temporary pustules, should heal up, he had to appear again before the priest, who would then declare him clean (12-17). A white or reddish nodule affecting the cicatrix of an ulcer or of a burn would be regarded a doubtful sign of leprosy, and condemned the patient to a seven-days quarantine, after which, according as clearer signs appeared or not, he would be declared clean or unclean (18-28). Another suspicious case, to be re-examined after a week's seclusion, is that of the leprosy of the scalp, in which, not leprosy proper, but ringworm should most likely be recognized. In all cases of acknowledged leprous infection, the patient was to "have his clothes hanging loose, his head bare, his mouth covered with a cloth" and he was commanded to cry out that he was defiled and unclean. As long as the disease lasted, he had to "dwell alone without the camp" (or the city). Like the presence of leprosy, so the recovery was the object of a sentence of the priest, and the reinstatement in the community was solemnly made according to an elaborate ritual given in Lev., xiv.

In connexion with leprosy proper, Leviticus speaks also of the "leprosy of the garments" (xiii, 47-59) and "leprosy of the house" (xiv, 34-53). These kinds of leprosy, probably due to fungous formations, have nothing to do with leprosy proper, which is a specifically human disease.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY.

IV. LEPROSY IN THE MIDDLE AGES

As a consequence of the dissemination of leprosy in Europe, legislation providing against the spread of the disease (which was considered to be contagious) and regulations concerning the marriage of leprous persons, as well as their segregation and detention in institutions — which were more charitable and philanthropic than medical, partaking of the character of asylums or almshouses — gradually came into operation. The historical researches of Virchow concerning leper-houses (leprosoria) have established the fact that such institutions existed in France as early as the seventh century at Verdun, Metz, Maestricht, etc., and that leprosy must even then have been widespread. In the eighth century St. Othmar in Germany and St. Nicholas of Corbis in France founded leper-houses, and many such existed in Italy. (See Virchow in "Archiv für pathologische Anatomie", XVIII-XX, Leipzig, 1860.) Legislative enactments against the marriage of lepers, and providing for their segregation, were made and enforced as early as the seventh century by Rothar, King of the Lombards, and by Pepin (757) and Charlemagne (789) for the Empire of the Franks. The earliest accounts of the founding of leper-houses in Germany is in the eighth and ninth century; in Ireland (Innisfallen), 869; England, 950; Spain, 1007 (Malaga) and 1008 (Valencia); Scotland, 1170 (Aldnestun); the Netherlands, 1147 (Ghent). The founding of these houses did not take place until the disease had spread considerably and had become a menace to the public health. It is said to have been most prevalent about the time of the Crusades, assuming epidemic proportions in some localities: in France alone, at the time of the death of Louis IX, it was computed that there were some two thousand such houses, and in all Christendom not less than nineteen thousand (Hirsch, "Handbook of Geographical and Historical Pathology", tr. Creighton, London, 1885, p. 7, note. Cf. Raymund) "Histoire de l'Eléphantiasis", Lausanne, 1767, p. 106). Mézeray (Hist. de France, II, 168) says: "Il y avait ni ville ni bourgade, que ne fust obligée de bâtir un hôpital pour les (lepreux) retirer". For Italy we have Muratori's statement (Antiq. Ital. Med. Ævi, III, 53), "Vix ulla civitas quæ non aliquem locum leprosis destinatum haberet."

There is, however, good reason to doubt the accuracy of the above figures (19,000) as estimated by our medieval informants. Besides, "it would be a mistake", writes Hirsch (op. cit., p. 7), "to infer from the multiplication of leper-houses, that there was a corresponding increase in the number of cases, or to take the number of the former as the measure of the extent to which leprosy was prevalent, or to conclude, as many have done, that the coincidence of the Crusades implies any intrinsic connexion between the two things; or that the rise in the number of cases was due to the importation of leprosy into Europe from the East. In judging of these matters we must not leave out of sight the fact that the notion of 'leprosy' was a very comprehensive one in the middle age, not only among the laity but also among physicians; that syphilis was frequently included therein, as well as a variety of chronic skin diseases, and that the diagnosis with a view to segregating lepers was not made by the practitioners of medicine but mostly by the laity."

Simpson, in his admirable essay on the leper-houses of Britain (Edin. Med. and Surg. Journal, 1841-42), writes: "I have already alluded to special Orders of Knighthood having been established at an early period for the care and superintendence of lepers. We know that the Knights of St. Lazarus separated from the general Order of the Knights Hospitallers about the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century (Index. Monast., p. 28). They were at first designated: Knights of St. Lazarus and St. Mary of Jerusalem. St. Louis brought twelve of the Knights of St. Lazarus to France and entrusted them with the superintendence of the 'Lazaries' (or leper hospitals) of the Kingdom. The first notice of their having obtained a footing in Great Britain is in the reign of Stephen (1135-54) at Burton Lazars (Leicestershire). I find that the hospitals of Tilton, of the Holy Innocents at Lincoln, of St. Giles (London), Closely in Norfolk, and various others are annexed to Burton Lazars as 'cells' containing 'fratres leprosos de Sancto Lazaro de Jerusalem'. Its [Burton's] privileges and possessions were confirmed by Henry II, King John and Henry VI. It was at last dissolved by Henry VIII." (See LAZARUS, ST., ORDER OF.)

As has already been stated, these institutions were intended principally as houses to seclude the infected, and not so much as hospices for the curative treatment of the disease, which was considered then, as now, an incurable disorder. They were founded and endowed as religious establishments, and as such they were generally placed under the control and management of some abbey or monastery by a papal Bull, which appointed every leper-house to be provided with its own churchyard, chapel, and ecclesiastics — "cum cimuterio ecclesiam construere et propriis gaudere presbyteris" (Semler, "Hist. Eccles. Select."). The English and Scotch houses were under the full control of a custos, dean, prior, and, in some cases — as in the hospital of St. Lawrence, Canterbury, which contained lepers of both sexes — a prioress. The ecclesiastical officers of the hospitals and the leper inmates were bound by the regulations laid down in the charters of the institution, which they had to observe strictly, especially as to offering up prayers for the repose of the souls of the founder and his family. The following extracts from the regulations of the leper-hospital at Illeford (Essex), in 1346, by Baldock, Bishop of London, illustrate this point: "We also command that the lepers omit not attendance at their church, to hear divine service unless prevented by previous bodily infirmity, and they are to preserve silence and hear matins and mass throughout if they are able; and whilst there to be intent on devotion and prayer as far as their infirmity permit them. We advise also and command that as it was ordained of old in the said hospital every leprous brother shall every day say for the morning duty, an Our Father and Hail Mary thirteen times and for the other hours of the day . . . respectively an Our Father and a Hail Mary seven times, etc. . . . If a leprous brother secretly [occulte] fails in the performance of these articles let him consult the priest of the said hospital in the tribunal of penance" (Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum", II, 390). There was generally a chaplain under the prior and in some instances a free chapel was attached with resident canons. The hospital at St. Giles (Norwich), for instance, had a prior and eight canons (acting chaplains), two clerks, seven choristers, and two sisters (Monast., Index, 55).

Matthew Paris has left us a copy of the vow taken by the brothers of the leper-hospitals of St. Julian and St. Alban before admission: "I, brother B., promise and, taking my bodily oath by touching the most sacred Gospel, affirm before God and all the Saints in this church which is constructed in honour of St. Julian (the Confessor), in the presence of Dominus R. the archdeacon, that all the days of my life I will be subservient and obedient to the commands of the Lord Abbot of St. Albans for the time being and to his archdeacon, resisting in nothing, unless such things should be commanded as could militate against the Divine pleasure: I will never commit theft, or bring a false accusation against any one of the brethren, nor infringe the vow of chastity nor fail in my duty by appropriating anything, or leaving anything by will to others, unless by a dispensation granted by the brothers. I will make it my study wholly to avoid all kinds of usury as a monstrous thing and hateful to God. I will not be aiding or abetting in word or thought, directly or indirectly in any plan by which any one shall be appointed Custos or Dean of the lepers of St. Julians, except the persons appointed by the Lord Abbot of St. Albans. I will be content, without strife or complaint, with the food and drink and other things given and allowed to me by the Master; according to the usage and custom of the house. I will not transgress the bounds prescribed to me, without the special license of my superiors, and with their consent and will; and if I prove an offender against any article named above, it is my wish that the Lord Abbot or his substitute may punish me according to the nature and amount of the offence, as shall seem best to him, and even to cast me forth an apostate from the congregation of the brethren without hope of remission, except through special grace of the Lord Abbot." It is interesting to compare with the passage on usury in this formula the statement of Mézeray (Hist. de France), that during the twelfth century two very cruel evils (deux maux très cruels) reigned in France, viz., leprosy and usury, one of which, he adds, infected the body while the other ruined families.

The Church, therefore, from a remote period has taken a most active part in promoting the wellbeing and care of the leper, both spiritual and temporal. The Order of St. Lazarus was the outcome of her practical sympathy for the poor sufferers during the long centuries when the pestilence was endemic in Europe. Even in our own day we find the same Apostolic spirit alive. The saintly Father Damien, the martyr of Molokai, whose life-sacrifice for the betterment of the lepers of the Sandwich Islands is still fresh in public recollection, and his co-labourers and followers in that field of missionary work have strikingly manifested in recent times the same apostolic spirit which actuated the followers of St. Lazarus in the twelfth and two succeeding centuries.

BENNETT, Diseases of the Bible (London, 1887); DYER, Leprosy (New York, 1897); HANSEN AND LOOFT, Leprosy in its Clinical and Pathological Aspects (London, 1895); Report of the Leprosy Commission to India (London, 1893); THIN, Leprosy (London, 1891); BARTHOLINUS, De morbis biblicis (Copenhagen 1671); PRUNER, Die Krankheiten des Orients (Erlangen, 1847); TRUSEN, Die Sitten, Gebräuche und Krankheiten der alten Hebräer (Breslau, 1833); LELOIR, Traité pratique et théorique de la lèpre (Paris, 1886); SAUTON, La Léprose (Paris, 1901). See the works of MÉZERAY, MURATORI, VIRCHOW, and SEMLER, and the essay of SIMPSON in Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journal (1841-42), all quoted in the body of this article.

J. F. DONOVAN.

Leptis Magna

Leptis Magna, a titular see of Tripolitana. Founded by the Sidonians in a fine and fertile country, it was the most important of the three towns which formed the Tripoli Confederation. The remains of the ancient Phœnician town are still visible, with the harbour, quays, walls, and inland defence, which make it look like Carthage. This Semitic city subsequently became the centre of a Greek city, Neapolis, of which most of the monuments are buried under sand. Notwithstanding Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, xxviii), who distinguishes Neapolis from Leptis, there is no doubt, according to Ptolemy, Strabo, and Scyllax, that they should be identified. Leptis allied itself with the Romans in the war against Jugurtha. Having obtained under Augustus the title of civitas it seems at that time to have been administered by Carthaginian magistrates; it may have been a municipium during the first century of the Christian Era and erected by Trajan into a colony bearing the name of Colonia Ulpia Trajana, found on many of its coins. The birthplace of Septimius Severus, who embellished it and enriched it with several fine monuments, it was taken and sacked in the fourth century by the Libyan tribe of Aurusiani (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVIII, vi) and has never since completely recovered. It was at that time the seat of the military government of Tripolitana.

When Justinian took it from the Vandals in the sixth century, Leptis Magna was largely in ruins and buried under sand. It was rebuilt, and its walls were raised, their extent being reduced in order more easily to protect the town against the attacks of the Berber tribes dwelling beyond its gates. The duke, or military governor, who again took up his residence there, built public baths and several magnificent buildings; the Septimius Severus palace was restored, and five churches were built (Procopius, "De ædif.", VI-IV). The massacre of all the Berber chiefs of the Levathes, treacherously ordered by Duke Sergius at Leptis Magna in 543, provoked a terrible insurrection, through which the Romans almost lost Africa. Taken in the seventh century by the Arabs, who allowed it to be invaded by the sands, Leptis Magna is now only a majestic ruin called Lebda, sixty-two miles east of Tripoli. Besides vague traces of several large buildings, the remains of a vast circus, 380 yards by sixty-six yards, are visible. Five bishops are recorded: Dioga in 255, Victorinus and Maximus in 393, Salvianus, a Donatist, in 411, Calipedes in 484. This town must not be confounded with Leptis Minor, to-day Lemta in Tunisia.

GAMS, Series episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873), 466, col. 3; TOULETTE, Géog. de l'Afrique chrét.: Byzacène et Tripolitaine (Montreuil, 1894), 252-255; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., s. v., which gives detailed sources.

S. VAILHÉ.

Le Puy

(Aniciensis).

Diocese comprising the whole Department of Haute Loire, and is a suffragan of Bourges. The territory of the ancient Diocese of Le Puy, suppressed by the Concordat of 1801, was united with the Diocese of Saint-Flour and became a diocese again in 1823. The district of Brioude, which had belonged to the diocese of Saint-Fluor under the old regime, was thenceforward included in the new Diocese of Le Puy.

The Martyrology of Ado and the first legend of St. Front of Périgueux (written perhaps in the middle of the tenth century, by Gauzbert, chorepiscopus of Limoges) speak of a certain priest named George who was brought to life by the touch of St. Peter's staff, and who accompanied St. Front, St. Peter's missionary and first Bishop of Périgueux. A legend of St. George, the origin of which, according to Duchesne is not earlier than the eleventh century, makes that saint one of the seventy-two disciples, and tells how he founded the Church of Civitas Vetula in the County of Le Velay, and how, at the request of St. Martial, he caused an altar to the Blessed Virgin to be erected on Mont Anis (Mons Anicius). After St. George, certain local traditions of very late origin point to Sts. Macarius, Marcellinus, Roricius, Eusebius, Paulianus, and Vosy (Evodius) as bishops of Le Puy. It must have been from St. Paulianus that the town of Ruessium, now St. Paulien, received its name; and it was probably St. Vosy who completed the church of Our Lady of Le Puy at Anicium and transferred the episcopal see from Ruessium to Anicium. St. Vosy was apprised in a vision that the angels themselves had dedicated the cathedral to the Blessed Virgin, whence the epithet Angelic given to the cathedral of Le Puy. It is impossible to say whether this St. Evodius is the same who signed the decrees of the Council of Valence in 374. Neither can it be affirmed that St. Benignus, who in the seventh century founded a hospital at the gates of the basilica, and St. Agrevius, the seventh-century martyr from whom the town of Saint-Agrève Chiniacum took its name, were really bishops. Duchesne thinks that the chronology of these early bishops rests on very little evidence and that very ill supported by documents; before the tenth century only six individuals appear of whom it can be said with certainty that they were bishops of Le Puy. The first of these, Scutarius, the legendary architect of the first cathedral, dates, if we may trust the inscription which bears his name, from the end of the fourth century.

Among the bishops of Le Puy are mentioned: Adhémar of Monteil (1087-1100), author of the ancient antiphon, "Salve Regina", whom Urban II, coming to Le Puy in 1095 to preach the Crusade, appointed his legate, and who died under the walls of Antioch; Bertrand of Chalencon (1200-13), who himself led the soldiers of his province against the Albigenses under the walls of Béziers; Guy III Foulques (1257-59), who became pope as Clement IV; the theologian Durandus of Saint-Pourçain (1318-26); Lefranc de Pompignan (1733-74), the great antagonist of the philosophes; De Bonald (1823-39), afterwards Archbishop of Lyons.

Legend traces the origin of the pilgrimage of Le Puy to an apparition of the Blessed Virgin to a sick widow whom St. Martial had converted. No French pilgrimage was more frequented in the Middle Ages. Charlemagne came twice, in 772 and 800; there is a legend that in 772 he established a foundation at the cathedral for ten poor canons (chanoines de paupérie), and he chose Le Puy, with Aachen and Saint-Gilles, as a centre for the collection of Peter's Pence. Charles the Bald visited Le Puy in 877, Eudes in 892, Robert in 1029, Philip Augustus in 1183. Louis IX met the King of Aragon there in 1245; and in 1254 passing through Le Puy on his return from the Holy Land, he gave to the cathedral an ebony image of the Blessed Virgin clothed in gold brocade. After him, Le Puy was visited by Philip the Bold in 1282, by Philip the Fair in 1285, by Charles VI in 1394, by Charles VII in 1420, and by the mother of Blessed Joan of Arc in 1429. Louis XI made the pilgrimage in 1436 and 1475, and in 1476 halted three leagues from the city and went to the cathedral barefooted. Charles VIII visited it in 1495, Francis I in 1533. Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans, brought to Our Lady of Le Puy, as an ex-voto for his deliverance, a magnificent Bible, the letters of which were made of plates of gold and silver, which he had himself put together, about 820, while in prison at Angers. St. Mayeul, St. Odilon, St. Robert, St. Hugh of Grenoble, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Dominic, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. John Francis Regis were pilgrims to Le Puy.

The Church of Le Puy received, on account of its great dignity and fame, innumerable temporal and spiritual favours. Concessions made in 919 by William the Young, Count of Auvergne and Le Velay, and in 923 by King Raoul, gave it sovereignty over the whole population of the town (bourg) of Anis, a population which soon amounted to 30,000 souls. In 999, Sylvester II consecrated his friend Théodard, a monk of Aurillac, Bishop of Le Puy, to replace Stephen of Gevaudan, whom his uncle Guy, Bishop of Le Puy, had in his lifetime, designated to be his successor, and whom a Roman council had excommunicated. Sylvester II exempted Théodard from all metropolitan jurisdiction, a privilege which Leo IX confirmed to the Bishops of Le Puy, also granting them the right, until then reserved to archbishops exclusively of wearing the pallium. "Nowhere", he said in his Bull, "does the Blessed Virgin receive a more special and more filial worship." It was from Le Puy that Urban II dated (15 August, 1095) the Letters Apostolic convoking the Council of Clermont, and it was a canon of Le Puy, Raymond d'Aiguilles, chaplan to the Count of Toulouse, who wrote the history of the crusade. Gelasius II, Callistus II, Innocent II and Alexander III visited Le Puy to pray, and with the visit of one of these popes must be connected the origin of the great jubilee which is granted to Our Lady of Le Puy whenever Good Friday falls on 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation. It is supposed that this jubilee was instituted by Callistus II, who passed through Le Puy, in April, 1119, or by Alexander III, who was there in August, 1162, and June, 1165, or by Clement IV, who had been Bishop of Le Puy. The first jubilee historically known took place in 1407, and in 1418 the chronicles mention a Bull of Martin V prolonging the duration of the jubilee It took place three times in the nineteenth century -- in 1842, 1853, and 1864 -- and will take place again in 1910. Lastly, during the Middle Ages, everyone who had made the pilgrimage to Le Puy had the privilege of making a will in extremis with only two witnesses instead of seven.

Honoured with such prerogatives as these, the Church of Le Puy assumed a sort of primacy in respect to most of the Churches of France, and even of Christendom. This primacy manifested itself practically in a right to beg, established with the authorization of the Holy See, in virtue of which the chapter of Le Puy levied a veritable tax upon almost all the Christian countries to support its hospital of Notre-Dame. In Catalonia this droit de quete, recognized by Spanish Crown, was so thoroughly established that the chapter had its collectors permanently installed in that country. A famous "fraternity" existed between the chapter of Le Puy and that of Gerona in Catalonia. The efforts of M. Rochet to establish his contention, that this "fraternity" dated from the time of Charlemagne, have been fruitless; M. Coulet has proved that the earliest document in which it is mentioned dates only from 1470, and he supposes that at this date the chapter of Gerona, in order to escape the financial thraldom which bound it, like so many other Catalonian Churches, to the chapter of Le Puy, alleged its "fraternity" involving its equality -- with the Church of Le Puy. In 1479 and in 1481 Pierre Bouvier, a canon of Le Puy, came to Gerona, when the canons invoked against him certain legends according to which Charlemagne had taken Gerona, rebuilt its cathedral, given it a canon of Le Puy for a bishop, and established a fraternity between chapters of Gerona and Le Puy. In support of these legends they appealed to the Office which they chanted for the feast of Charlemagne -- an Office, dating from 1345, but in which they had recently inserted these tales of the Church of LePuy. In 1484 Sixtus IV prohibited the use of this Office, whereupon there appeared at Gerona the "Tractatus de captione Gerunde", which reaffirmed the Gerona legends about the fraternity with Le Puy. Down to the last days of the old regime the two chapters frequently exchanged courtesies; canons of Le Puy passing through Gerona and canons of Gerona passing through Le Puy enjoyed special privileges. In 1883 the removal by the Bishop of Gerona of the statue of Charlemagne, which stood in that cathedral, marked the definitive collapse of the whole fabric of legends out of which the hermandad between Le Puy and Gerona had grown.

The statue of Our Lady of Le Puy and the other treasures escaped the pillage of the Middle Ages. The roving banditti were victoriously dispersed, in 1180, by the Confraternity of the Chaperons (Hooded Cloaks) founded at the suggestion of a canon of Le Puy. In 1562 and 1563 Le Puy was successfully defended against the Huguenots by priests and religious armed with cuirasses and arquebusses. But in 1793 the statue was torn from its shrine and burned in the public square. Père de Ravignan, in 1846, and the Abbé Combalot, in 1850, were inspired with the idea of a great monument to the Blessed Virgin on the Rocher Corneille. Napoleon III placed at the disposal of Bishop Morlhon 213 pieces of artillery taken by Pélissier at Sebastopol, and the colossal statue of "Notre-Dame de France" cast from the iron of these guns, amounting in weight to 150,000 kilogrammes, or more than 330,000 lbs. avoirdupois, was dedicated 12 September, 1860.

The saints specially venerated in the diocese are: St. Domninus, martyr, whose body is preserved in the cathedral; St. Julian of Brioude, martyr in 304, and his companion, St. Ferréol; St. Calminius (Carmery), Duke of Auvergne, who prompted the foundation of the Abbey of Le Monastier, and St. Eudes, first abbot (end of the sixth century); St. Theofredus (Chaffre), Abbot of Le Monastier and martyr under the Saracens (c. 735); St. Mayeul, Abbot of Cluny, who, in the second half of the tenth century, cured a blind man at the gates of Le Puy, and whose name was given, in the fourteenth century, to the university in which the clergy made their studies; St. Odilon, Abbot of Cluny (962-1049), who embraced the life of a regular canon in the monastery of St. Julien de Brioude; St. Robert d'Aurillac (d. 1067) who founded the monastery of Chaise Dieu in the Brioude district; St. Peter Chavanon (d. 1080), a canon regular, founder and first provost of the Abbey of Pébrac. At the age of eighteen M. Olier, afterwards the founder of Saint-Sulpice, was Abbot in commendam of Pébrac and, in 1626 was an "honorary count-canon of the chapter of St. Julien de Brioude". We may mention as natives of this diocese: the Benedictine, Hughes Lanthenas (1634-1701), who edited the works of St. Bernard and St. Anselm, and was the historian of the Abbey of Vendôme; the Benedictine, Jacques Boyer joint author of "Gallia Christiana"; Cardinal de Polignac (d. 1741), author of the "Antilucretius".

The cathedral of Le Puy, which forms the highest point of the city, rising from the foot of the Rocher Corneille, exhibits architecture of every period from the fifth century to the fifteenth. Formerly, the visitor passed through a porch standing well out from the building and, after descending beneath the pavement, emerged by a stairway in front of the high altar; the principal stairway is now covered by a bold vaulting which serves as base for one half of the church. The architectural effect is incredibly audacious and picturesque. The four galleries of the cloister were constructed during a period extending from the Carlovingian epoch to the twelfth century. The Benedictine monastery of the Chaise Dieu united in 1640 to the Congregation of St-Maur, still stands, with the fortifications which Abbot de Chanac caused to be built between 1378 and 1420, and the church, rebuilt in the fourteenth century by Clement VI, who had made his studies here, and by Gregory XI, his nephew. This church contains the tomb of Clement VI. The fine church of S. Julien de Brioude, in florid Byzantine style, dates from the eleventh or twelfth century. Besides the great pilgrimage of Le Puy, we may mention those of Notre-Dame de Pradelles, at Pradelles, a pilgrimage dating from 1512; of Notre-Dame d'Auteyrac, at Sorlhac, which was very popular before the Revolution; of Notre-Dame Trouvée, at Lavoute-Chilhac.

Before the passage of the Law of Associations (1901) there were at Le Puy, Jesuits, Franciscans, Religious of St. Mary of the Assumption, and, Little Brothers of Mary. Two important congregations of men originated and had their mother-house, in the diocese. Of these the Brothers of the Sacred Heart, founded in 1821 with the object of giving commercial instruction, have their mother-house at Paradis and important boarding-schools at Lyons, as well as in the United States (chiefly Baie Saint-Louis) and in Canada (chiefly at Athabaskaville). The Labourer Brothers, or Farmer Brothers, of St. John Francis Régis were founded in 1850 by Père de Bussy, a Jesuit, and possess seven model farms for the education of poor children. A certain number of congregations of women originated in the diocese. The Dominicans of Mère Agnès, who taught and served as sick nurses and housekeepers, were founded in 1221; the teaching Sisters of Notre-Dame, in 1618; the religious of St. Charles, teachers and nurses, in 1624, by Just de Serres, Bishop of Le Puy; the hospital and teaching Sisters of St. Joseph, in 1650, by Père Médaille, who were the first congregation placed under the patronage of St. Joseph; the contemplative religious of the Visitation of St. Mary were founded in 1659; those of the Instruction of the Infant Jesus, for teaching in 1667, by the celebrated Sulpician Tronson, parish priest of St. Georges, and his penitent, Mlle Martel; the Sisters of the Cross, for hospital service and teaching, in 1673.

At the end of the nineteenth century the religious congregations possessed in the Diocese of Le Puy: 69 infant schools (écoles maternelles), 2 schools for deaf mutes, 2 orphanages for boys, 6 orphanages for girls, 1 refuge for penitent women, 20 hospitals or hospices, 1 lunatic asylum, 3 old men's homes, 57 houses of religious women consecrated to the care of the sick at home. In 1905 (end of the Concordat period) the diocese had 314,058 inhabitants, 33 parishes, 243 auxiliary parishes (succursales), and 195 state-paid vicariates.

Gallia Christiana Nova (1720), II, 685-752; instrum.,221-62; Mandet, Histoire du Velay (6 vols., Le Puy, (1860);FRUGERE, Apostolicité de église du Velay (Le Puy (1869);DUCHENE, Fastes épiscopaux, II, 55-58; 134-35;ROCHER, Les rapports de l=92église du Puy avec la ville de Girone en Espagne et le comte de Bigorre (Le Puy, 1873);FITA, Los Reyes de Aragon y la Sede de Girona(Barcelona, 1872); COULET, Etude sur l'office de Girone en l'honneur de Saint Charlemagne (Montpellier, 1907); CHASSAING, Cartulaire des hospitaliers du Velay(Paris, 1888); IDEM, Cartulaire des Templiers du Puy en Velay (Paris, 1882);CHEVALIER, Cartulaire de l'abbaye de S. Chaffre du Monastier, suivi de la chronique de S. Pierre du Puy(Le Puy, 1882);LASCOMBE, Réportoiree général des hommages de l'évéché du Pay,1154-1741(Le Puy, 1882); SURREL DE SAINT-JULIEN, Les évéques du Puy et la collation des bénéfices de ce diocèse in Annales de S. Louis des Francais (1897); ARNAUD Histoire des Protestants du Vivarais et du Velay(2 vols., Paris, 1888); PAYRARD, Méémoire sur le jubilé de N.D. du Puy (Le Puy, 1875); CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibl., s. v. Puy-en-Velay; PEYRON, Histoire du jubilé de Notre Dame du Puy(Le Puy, 1910.)

GEORGES GOYAU

Michel Le Quien

French historian and theologian, b. at Boulogne-sur-Mer, department of Pas-de-Calais, 8 Oct., 1661; d. at Paris, 12 March, 1733. He studied at Plessis College, Paris, and at twenty entered the Dominican convent of St-Germain, where he made his profession in 1682. Excepting occasional short absences he never left Paris. At the time of his death he was librarian of the convent in Rue St-Honoré, a position which he had filled almost all his life, lending kindly assistance to the learned men who sought information on theology and ecclesiastical antiquity. Under the supervision of the celebrated Père Marsollier he mastered the classical languages, Arab, and Hebrew, to the detriment, it seems, of his mother-tongue.

His chief works, in chronological order, are: (1) "Défense du texte hebreu et de la version vulgate" (Paris, 1690), reprinted in Migne, "Scripturae Sacrae Cursus", III (Paris 1861), 1525-84. It is an answer to "L'antiquité des temps rétablie" by the Cistercian Pezron, who took the text of the Septuagint as sole basis for his chronology. Pezron replied, and was again answered by Le Quien. (2) "Johannis Damasceni opera omnia" Greek text with Latin translation (2 vols. fol., Paris, 1712) in Migne "Patrologia Graeca", XCIV-VI. To this fundamental edition he added excellent dissertations; a third volume, which was to have contained other works of the great Damascene and various studies on him, was never completed. (3) "Panoplia contra schisma Graecorum", under the pseudonym of Stephanus de Altimura Ponticencis (Paris, 1718), a refutation of the Peri arches tou Papa of Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem, Le Quien maintained, with historical proofs derived chiefly from the Orient, the pimacy of the pope. (4) "La nullité des ordinations anglicanes" (2 vols., Paris, 1725), and "La nullité des ordinationes anglicanes démontrée de nouveau" (2 vols., Paris, 1730), against Le Courayer's apology for Anglican Orders. (5) Various articles on archaeology and ecclesiastical history, published by Desmolets (Paris, 1726-31). (6) "Oriens christianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus, in quo exhibentur Ecclesiae patriarchae caeterique praesules totius Orientis", published posthumously (3 vols., Paris, 1740). Le Quien contemplated issuing this work as early as 1722, and had made a contract with the printer Simart (Revue de l'Orient latin, 1894, II, 190). In editing it, he used the notes of the Benedictine Sainte-Marthes, who had projected an "Orbis Christianus", and had obligingly handed him over their notes on the Orient and Africa. The "Oriens Christianus", as projected by Le Quien, was to comprise not only the hierarchy of the four Greek and Latin patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and that of the Jacobite, Melchite, Nostorian, Maronite, and Armeman patriarchates, but also the Greek and Latin texts of the various "Notitiae episcopatuum" a catalogue of the Eastern and African monasteries, and also the hierarchy of the African Church. The last three parts of this gigantic project were set aside by Le Quien's literary heirs. As to the "Notitiae episcopatuum", the loss is unimportant; the learned Dominican had not a very clear concept of the work called for by the editing of this text. His notes on Christian Africa and its monasteries have never been used at least in their entirety. (7) "Abrege de l'histoire de Boulogne-sur-Mer et ses comtes" in Desmolets, "Memoires de littérature", X (Paris, 1749), 36-112.

QUETIF AND ECHARD, Script. ord. Praed., II, SOS; Journal des Savants, ci; MICHAUD, Biogr. universelle, XXIV, 241; HURTER, Nomenclator, II, 1064-6; STREBER in Kirchenlex, s. v.; ZOCKLER in Realencykl. fur prot. Theol., s. v.

S. VAILHÉ

LÈrida

(ILERDENSIS)

Diocese; suffragan of Tarragona. La Canal says it was erected in 600, but others maintain it goes back to the third century, and there is mention of a St. Lycerius, or Glycerius, as Bishop of LÈrida in A.D. 269. The signatures of other bishops of LÈrida are attached to various councils up to the year 716, when the Moors took possession of the town, and the see was removed to Roda; in 1101 it was transferred to Barbastro. An unbroken list of bishops of LÈrida goes back to the year 887. LÈrida, the Roman Ilerda, or Herda, the second city in Catalonia, is built on the right bank of the River Segra, about 100 miles from Barcelona. During the Punic wars it sided with the Carthaginians; near it Hanno was defeated by Scipio in 216 B.C., and Julius Cæsar defeated Pompey's forces in 49 B. c. The Moors took possession of it in 716, and in 1149 Berenger of Catalonia drove them out, and it became the residence of the kin a French of Aragon. During the Peninsular War the French held it (1810), and in 1823 Spain once more obtained possession of it. Owing to its natural position its strategic value has always been very great, and it is now strongly fortified. The town is oriental in appearance, and its streets are narrow and crooked. The population in 1900 was 23,683. The old Byzantine-Gothic Cathedral, of which the ruins are to be seen on the citadel, dates from 1203. During the Middle Ages the University of LÈrida was famous; in 1717 it was suppressed, and united with Cervara.

In 514 or 524 a council attended by eight bishops passed decrees forbidding the taking up of arms or the shedding of blood by clerics. A council in 546 regulated ecclesiastical discipline. Another in 1173 was presided over by Cardinal Giacinto Bobone, who afterwards became Celestine III. A council in 1246 absolved James I of Aragon from the sacrilege of cutting out the tongue of the Bishop of Gerona. The cathedral chapter prior to the concordat consisted of 6 dignities, 24 canons, 22 benefices, but after the concordat the number was reduced to 16 canons and 12 beneficed clerics. The seminary, founded in 1722, accommodates 500 students. The Catholic population of the diocese is 185,000 souls scattered over 395 parishes and ministered to by 598 priests. Besides 395 churches for public worship, there are in the diocese five religious communities of men, six of women, and several hospitals in charge of nuns. Former bishops of LÈrida include Cardinal de Rom, Cardinal Cerdan, and Inquisitor General Martinez de Villatoriel. The present bishop, Mgr J.A. Ruano y Martín, was born at Gijude del Barro, in the Diocese of Salamanca, 3 Nov., 1848, appointed titular bishop of Claudiopolis, and Administrator of Barbastro, 3 Nov., 1898 and transferred to LÈrida, 14 Dec., 1905, when he succeeded Mgr JosÈ Meseguer y Costa.

PERUJO in Diccionario de Ciencias Eclesiásticas, s. v.; FLÓREZ, España Sagrada (Madrid, 1754); BELLOSO, Anuario Eclesiástico de España (Madrid, 1904).

J.C. GREY

Abbey of Lérins

Situated on an island of the same name, now known as that of Saint-Honorat, about a league from the coast of Provence, in the Department of the Maritime Alps, now included in the Diocese of Nice, formerly in that of Grasse or of Antibes. It was founded at the beginning of the fifth century by St. Honoratus. This saint lived there at first the life of a hermit, but followers soon gathered around him. They came from all parts of Roman Gaul and even from Brittany. During the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, the influence exerted by the abbey was considerable. The presence of the Saracens in Provence made the monastic life impossible or precarious for two centuries. The abbey was restored in the eleventh century, and a new era of prosperity began. It was given many estates and churches in the neighbouring Dioceses of Antibes, Aix, Arles, Frejus, Digne, Senez, Vence, Nice, Ventimiglia, etc. The popes, the counts of Provence, and the kings of France bestowed on it many privileges. The monks were obliged during the Middle Ages to take an active part in defending the coasts against incursions of the Moors of Algeria. A monumental tower, built as a place of refuge, is still standing. The abbey was an important strategic position in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries during the Franco-Spanish wars. The commendam was introduced at Lérins in 1464. There was a crying need for reform. The monks were placed under the Italian Congregation of St. Justina of Padua (1515), which brought about for the monastery a long era of prosperity, both spiritual and material. The subsequent union with the French Congregation of St. Maur (1637) was of brief duration. A century later the monks were obliged to leave the Italian congregation to become a part of Cluny. The decline had already commenced; it steadily increased until the time of suppression (1791). The religious had followed the Benedictine Rule from the seventh century onwards.

During the first period of its history, Lérins gave to the Church celebrated bishops and writers. Through them the abbey played an important role. Such were St. Honoratus, his successor St. Hilary, and St. Caesarius, Archbishops of Arles; St. Maximus and Faustus, Bishops of Riez, St. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons; St. Lupus, Bishop of Troyes; St. Valerianus, Bishop of Cimiez; St. Salvianus, Bishop of Geneva, St. Veranus, Bishop of Vence; and the celebrated Vincent de Lérins. The presence of so many writers in one monastery has given rise to the belief that it was a theological school, which, however, it was not. Lerins had a reputation for learning, but it had no organized teaching body. The part given to the monks of Lerins in the editing of certain legends by M. Dufourcq is strongly contested. We find no writer of note from the seventh to the thirteenth century; after that came the troubadour Raymond Féraud; then Giovanni Andrea Gregorio Cortese, who died in 1548; Dionysius Faucher, who died in 1562; the historian of the abbey, Vincent Barralis, who died at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Besides these writers and bishops, Lérins had also many monks of great sanctity; we must mention St. Antonius; the holy abbot and martyr Aigulf, who introduced the Benedictine Rule about 661; Abbot Porcharius II, who was massacred with his monks by the Saracens about 732. St. Patrick, the apostle of Ireland, lived some time in the monastery, as well as St. Cassian, founder of the monastery of St. Victor at Marseilles.

The abbey was restored by the Congregation of Sénanque in 1868. They preserved whatever remained of the ancient monastic buildings, that is to say the cloister, the refectory, and the chapter hall, which they enclosed in the new abbey. The fortress, of which the construction was begun in 1073 as a place of refuge in case of sudden attack, is fairly well preserved. The records, as well as the manuscripts of the old library, are in the archives of the Maritime Alps at Nice. Few monasteries have a history to which so much attention has been devoted as that of Lerins.

J.M. BESSE

Leros

Titular see of the Cyclades, suffragan of Rhodes. According to Strabo (XIV, i, 6), this island must have been a colony of Miletus; it next became independent before falling under the Roman domination. According to the poet Phocylides, the inhabitants of Leros had, without exception, an evil reputation (Strabo, X, v, 12). It was here that Aristagoras, the leader of the Tonian revolt against the Persians (499 B.C.), was advised to hide from the vengeance of Darius. The island possessed a famous sanctuary of Artemis the Virgin, on the site of which the present convent of Parthenia and the adjoining church are supposed to be built. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, I, 945) mentions four of its bishops: John, in 553; Sergius, in 787; Joseph, in 869; Callistus, in the sixteenth century. The list could be completed, for Leros has never ceased to be an episcopal see, and there is still a metropolitan, of Leros and the neighbouring island Calymnos, dependent upon the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. Eubel ("Hierarchia catholica medii ævi", Münster, I, 315) also mentions two Latin bishops of the fourteenth century. A possession of the Knights of Rhodes, the island sustained a siege in 1505, and was taken by the Turks in 1523; it was recovered by the Venetians, who razed its fortifications, in 1648; and it once more fell into the possession of the Osmanli. Leros now forms a caza of the sanjak of Chio, in the vilayet of Rhodes. The island is about nine and a quarter miles long by seven and a half wide. It is barren, mountainous, and rich only in marble quarries; and has about eight thousand inhabitants, all Greeks. The Catholic inhabitants are under the jurisdiction of the Prefecture Apostolic of Rhodes.

DAPPER, DÈscription des îles de l'Archipel (Amsterdam,1703), 183 ROSS, Reisen auf den griech. Inseln, II, 119; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., It, 164; LACROIX, Iles de la, Grèce (Paris, 1853), 208; CUINET, La Turguie d'Asie (Paris,1892), I, 429-432.

S. VAILHÉ

Alain-René Le Sage

Writer, b. at Sarzeau (Morbihan), 1668; d. at Boulogne-sur-Mer, 1747. The son of a notary who died early in the youth's career, he left the Jesuit college of Vannes after the completion of his studies, and found himself penniless, his guardian having squandered his fortune. He married at the age of twenty-six and at first practised law, but he relinquished a profession which did not provide him with sufficient means for his needs, and devoted himself to literature. The AbbÈ de Lyonne settled a small pension upon him and encouraged him to study Spanish literature. Le Sage translated a number of plays from that language, without finding favour in the public eye. But a short original farce in prose, "Crispin rival de son maître", won marked success (1707). Its merits have kept it on the stage. Le Sage was both a dramatist and a novelist, and was a prolific writer of plays and romances. The enmity of the actors forced him, like Piron, to go to the minor theatre of the Foire, for which he collaborated in writing about a hundred plays. Amidst the sorrows and infirmities of age, he still wrote, hurriedly and incessantly, in order to make a living. He resided at the time with one of his sons, a canon at Boulogne-sur-Mer, at which place he died, aged eighty.

Besides the short farce of "Crispin", three works of Le Sage are worthy of special mention: "Turcaret", "Le Diable Boiteux", and "Gil Blas". "Turcaret ou le Financier" (1709) is a comedy in prose in which the principal character is a financier. This upstart, who has risen by theft and usury, is surrounded by people equally unscrupulous. It is an assemblage of rogues. A coquette shares her favours between Turcaret, who loves her and pays her, and a fashionable cavalier whom she loves. Frontin, the cavalier's valet, sums up the play fairly well when he says to his master: "We pluck a coquette; the coquette ruins a financier; the financier swindles others, which makes the most amusing ricochet of knavish tricks imaginable." The dialogue is spirited, the descriptions are true to life, and the action is full of animation. Perhaps no other play approaches so closely to Molière's great comedies. "Le Diable Boiteux"(1707) is based on a story from the Spanish writer Guevara (1641):The demon Asmodeus removes the roofs of the houses of Madrid, to show to a Castilian student the foibles and vices within the buildings. Aside from this Le Sage finds his inspiration in the Parisian himself; he describes Parisian society with truth and picturesqueness in a series of detached adventures and scenes. The success of the work was great. Le Sage's greatest work, however, was "Histoire de Gil Blas de Santillane" (4 vols., 1715-35). The Spaniard Gil Blas, hero of the romance, is in turn lackey, physician, major-domo of the great lord, secretary to an archbishop, favourite of the prime minister. He is finally given a title and an estate; he marries and peacefully writes his memoirs. The moral of the book is that one must constantly guard against the wiles of hypocrites and impostors. The writer correctly paints, with artful satire, French society as it was in the eighteenth century, and in fact, society in general. In spite of assertion, "Gil Blas" is not plagiarized from a Spanish novel. It is an original work, and in France is considered one of the masterpieces of romance.

WALTER SCOTT, Miscellaneous Prose Works, III; TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature, I; LINTILHAC, Lesage (Paris, 1893); LE BRETON, Le Roman au XVIII siècle (Paris, 1898).

GEORGES BERTRIN

Lesbi

A titular see in Mauretania Sitifensis, suffragan of Sitifis, or Sétif, in Algeria. It is not, as is sometimes stated, the Island of Lesbos, which never was a titular bishopric, and which, moreover, possesses, two titular archbishoprics: Mytilene and Methymna. Of Lesbi we only know, from the "Itinerarium Antonini", that it was situated twenty-five miles from Tupusuctu or Tiklat, and eighteen miles from Horrea Aninici, now Ain-Roua, south of Bougie. The town, therefore, was on the Sava, i.e. the Oued-Bou-Sellam, but there are no remains to be seen. Two of its bishops are recorded: Romanus, a Donatist, present at the convention of Carthage, 411; Vadius, a Catholic exiled by King Huneric, 484.

TOULETTE, Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne: Mauretanies (Montreuil, 1894), 212.

S. VAILHÉ

Marc Lescarbot

French lawyer, writer, and historian, b. at Vervins, between 1565 and 1570; d. about 1629. curiosity to see the New World and devotion to the public weal prompted him to follow Poutrincourt to Port-Royal, in Acadia, in 1606. His proficiency in Christian doctrine enabled him to instruct the Indians of the neighbourhood of Port-Royal. His rnaterial aid to the settlers was not less efficient: he built a grist-mill for their wheat, a still to produce tar, and ovens for making charcoal. After his return to France (1607), he published (1609), under the title of "Histoire de la Nouvelle-France", a narrative of his voyage which has made his name famous. Lescarbot gives in this work a summary of all the attempts at colonizing made by the French in America, notably in Florida, Brazil, and Acadia, where he himself played an important part. He was long considered an excellent authority, and is still often quoted as an exact, alert, and faithful witness. This work underwent six editions in the beginning of the seventeenth century from 1609 to 1618, and a seventh in 1866. It was first translated into English in 1609, and a translation, by L. W. Grant, was published in 1907. Lescarbot also wrote "Adieux à la France" (1606), "Les Muses de la Nouvelle-France" (1609); "La defaite des sauvages amouchiquois par le Sagamo Membertou" (1609). After a journey in Switzerland, he published (1613), in verse, "Tableau des treize Cantons".

Dictionnaire de Jal; MARCEL, Une lettre inedite de Lescarbot (Paris. 1885); GRANT, The History of New France (Toronto, 1907) (a tr. of Lescarbot's work).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Pierre Lescot

One of the greatest architects of France in the pure Renaissance style, b. at Paris about 1510; d. there, 1571. The very improbable report that he was never in Italy has been sufficiently refuted. Moreover, he was descended from the Italian family of Alessi. Francis I took him into his service, and by this king and his successors, Lescot was rewarded with many honours and with a benefice. At his death he was a commendatory abbot as well as Lord (sieur) of Clagny. With the active support of Francis I, the early Renaissance entered on a period of glorious prosperity, and in the later years of his reign displayed a distinctive character. From that time it rivalled the Italian Renaissance in its zenith, although, by meeting the demands of French taste, it became somewhat more ostentatious. Lescot proved its most brilliant exponent. For the decorations of his buildings he associated himself with the sculptor, Trebatti, a pupil of Michelangelo, and especially with the ablest plastic artist of the pure style, Jean Goujon. The perfection of their achievement depended to a great extent upon the harmonious combination of their mutual efforts. It has been thought that, even in architectural matters, Lescot was very dependent upon his friend though the latter named him with Philibert de L'Orme as the most eminent architects of France, and the accounts for the building of the Louvre designate Lescot as the architect and Goujon as the sculptor. Francis I appointed him architect of the Louvre in 1546, and with this building his fame will always be connected. For remodelling the old bastions of the fortress into a residence, the celebrated Italian, Serlio, drew up a plan which he himself afterwards put aside in favour of Lescot's design. Three sides of a square court were to be enclosed by living apartments of royal splendour while the fourth or east side was probably destined to open with an arcade. Corner pavilions, remarkable for commanding height and adorned by pillars and statues, replaced the medieval towers.

The master was destined to finish only the west side and part of the south side. The building was two stories high with a richly ornamented attic crowned by a tasteful roof. In the ground story the windows were rounded; the small round windows over the portals (oeils de boeuf) afterwards become very popular. In the second story the windows are square and finished off with plain Renaissance pediments. Slightly projecting members and slabs of coloured marble give fife to the massive masonry. A peculiar effect was obtained by the sparing use of rough-hewn stone in the corner decorations. Goujon's noble sculptures and the architectural ornaments, although numerous and splendid, were cleverly subordinated to the construction. The style corresponded to the "latest manner" of Bramante if as it was imitated in Italy by Sangallo, Peruzzi, Giulio Romano, etc.; it was now by Lescot, Goujon, de L'Orme, and some others, successfully adapted to French taste. The building of the Louvre was carried on with greater or less ability by several masters, and was finally completed under Napoleon I. The oldest parts of the palace are considered one of the greatest architectural achievements in France. "If among all the works of the French Renaissance we were to seek for the works of the creations which possess in the highest degree qualities which were, so to say, the aim of the Renaissance, i.e. perfect proportion of members and details, we would always be attracted finally to Lescot's court in the Louvre" (Geymüller). The rest of Lescot's works are few in number; he appears not to have sought much for opportunities to build. Although, according to a poem of Ronsard, he busied himself zealously in early youth vital drawing and painting, and, after his twentieth year, with mathematics and architecture, his wealth and the duties of his offices appear subsequently to have interfered with his artistic activity. His first achievements (1540-45) were the rood-screen in St-Germain-l'Auxerrois and the Hôtel de Ligneris (now Carnavalet) in Paris. Here and in the design of the Fountain of Nymphs or Innocents (1547-9), he again owes a great part of his moderate success to Goujon's assistance. The classical simplicity of this work had the misfortune to be undervalued during the barocco and rococo period, and received proper recognition only from a later age.

BERTY, Les grands architects (Paris, 1860); PALUSTRE, Architecture de la Renaissance (Paris, 1892); GEYMULLER in Handbuch der Architektur von Durm etc., II (Stuttgart, 1898), vi, 1.

G. GIETMANN

Lesina

(PHARIA: HVAR; PHARENSIS, BRACHIENSIS, ET ISSENSIS)

Diocese in Dalmatia; includes the three islands of Hvar (Lesina), the ancient Pharia colonized by the Greeks in 385 B.C.; Brac, formerly Brattia or Brachia, also colonized by the Greeks; and Lissa, formerly Issa. The residence is at Lesina, a small town on the island of that name, said to have been first evangelized by St. Doimus (Domnius), a disciple of St. Peter. The diocese was probably founded about 1145 by Lucius II; its first bishop was Martinus Manzavini, elected in 1147. Its present bishop, the fifty-first, is Jordanus Zaninovic, O.P., consecrated 19 April, 1903, by Leo XIII. The diocese includes 6 deaneries, 2 vice-deaneries, 2S parishes, 14 chaplaincies, and 62,290 faithful. There are several religious orders: Dominicans, Franciscans, Beneclictine nuns, Sisters of Charity, and Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis. The cathedral (Lombard façade) was built in 1637, and contains a painting by the famous Giacomo Palma. In 1899 the head of St. Stephen, protomartyr, was given by Pius X, then Patriarch of Venice, to the Franciscan Fulgentius Carey Bishop of Lesina and Archbishop of Uskup. Two bishops of this diocese were created cardinals: Giovanni Battista Pallavicini in 1524; and Zaccarias II e gente Delphina in 1553. During the episcopate of Pietro Cedulini (1581-1634) two diocesan synods were held.

FARLATI-COLETI, Illyricum sacrum (Venice, 1751 -18 17); PETERMANN, Guide en Dalmatie (Paris, 1900); Status personalis et localis dioecesis Pharensis, Brachiensis et Issensis (Split, 1902, 1909); BOGLIC, Studi storici sull' isola de Lesina, I (Zadar, 1873).

ANTHONY LAWRENCE GANEVI

John Leslie

Bishop of Ross, Scotland, born 29 September, 1527, died at Guirtenburg, near Brussels 30 May, 1596. He was of the ancient House of Leslie of Balquhain, but apparently illegitimate, as in July, 1538, a dispensation was granted to him to take orders, notwithstanding this defect. He was educated first at Aberdeen University, and afterwards in France, studying at Poitiers, Toulouse, and Paris, and graduating as doctor of laws. Returning home, he became professor of canon law at Aberdeen, was ordained in 1558, presented to the parsonage of Oyne, and appointed official of the diocese. We find him in 1560 named by the Lords of the Congregation to discuss points of faith at Edinburgh against Knox and Willock. In the following year he went to France to bring to Scotland the young Queen Mary, with whom he was associated during the years which followed. In 1565 she made him a member of her privy council, and in the same year, on the death of Henry Sinclair, he was nominated Bishop of Ross. He also held the office of judge or lord of session, and was co-editor of the "Actis and Constitutiounis of the Realme of Scotland from the Reigne of James I", the work of a commission appointed by the queen, at his suggestion, to revise and publish the laws of the kingdom. On Mary's escape from Lochleven in 1568, she was joined by Leslie, who never wavered in his fidelity to her cause; and he was her principal commissioner at the abortive conference with Queen Elizabeth's commissioners at York.

For favouring the project of Mary's marriage with the Duke of Norfolk, he was imprisoned by Elizabeth, first at Ely, and then in the Tower of London. During his absence from Scotland he was deprived of the revenues of his bishopric and was reduced to great poverty. Theiner prints an interesting letter addressed by him to the pope in 1580 showing the efforts he made, though absent from his diocese, to confirm those wavering in the faith, and recover those who had fallen away. Liberated in 1573, but banished from the country, he visited various European courts to plead the cause of his queen, and finally went to Rome. The Archbishop of Rouen appointed him his vicar-general in 1579. James VI restored the bishop, his mother's lifelong friend and champion, to his former dignities, but he never returned to Scotland.

In letters he is principally remembered as the author of a Latin amount of the history of Scotland "De origine, moribus, ac rebus gestis Scotiae libri decem" (Rome, 1578), a Scottish version by Dom E.B. Cody, O.S.B. It comes down to 1571, and in its latter part presents a Catholic account of contemporary events.

LESLIE, Historical Records of Family of Leslie, III (Edinburgh, 1869), 402-407; KEITH, Hist. Catalogue of Scottish Bishops (Edinburgh, 1824), 194-200 (with extracts from original writs); TYLER, History of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1864), III, 140, and passim; CODY in Intro. to Leslie's History of Scotland (Scot. Text Soc., Edinburgh, 1899), with a full account of Leslie's historical writings. See also complete bibliography at end of article Leslie in Dict., Nat. Biog. XXXIII, 93-99. The article itself (by HENDERSON) is written with prejudice, and does much less than justice to an able, pious, and patriotic prelate.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Leonard Lessius

(LEYS)

A Flemish Jesuit and a theologian of high reputation, born at Brecht, in the province of Antwerp, 1 October, 1554; died at Louvain, 15 January, 1623. His parents, honest people of the farming class, died when he was but six years old. In 1568 he entered the college of Arras in the University of Louvain, and there studied classics and philosophy. His brilliant talents enabled him to become doctor in philosophy at the age of seventeen years; and although he did not learn Greek till later, he mastered it so well that he could mentally translate into that language the reading he heard in the refectory, and sometimes wrote his private notes in Greek. Professors vied with one another in seeking to have him as their pupil. In 1572, and not, as the date is sometimes given, in 1573, he entered the Society of Jesus, and after two years' noviceship was sent to Douai to teach philosophy in the Jesuit College there till 1581. He studied theology in Rome, where he had Francis Suarez as his professor for two years. In 1585 he was back again at Louvain as professor of theology in the Jesuit College and held this chair for fifteen years. When he had given up teaching, he was urged by his superiors and companions to publish the lectures on theology which he had delivered with such great success; this he did, yielding at last to their wishes. He was twice sent to Rome by the members of the Gallo-Belgian province to the general congregations of his order in 1608 and 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine and other dignitaries of the Church endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to retain him in Rome and to attach him to the Sacred Penitentiary. He was consulted from all quarters, and corresponded on theological matters with the most learned doctors of the day, such as Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, etc. But he longed to have done with studying and writing books, that he might turn to prayer and contemplation towards the end of his career. His remains are in the choir of the Jesuit church in Louvain. Leonard Lessius was a man of great virtue and of great science; his modesty and humility were equal to his learning, nor did he ever hesitate to give up his own opinion when good arguments against it were presented to him; his charity, meekness, patience, and mortification were remarkable throughout his long life, in spite of the trying disease he contracted when fleeing from Douai to escape the Calvinists. Pope Urban VIII, who had known him personally, paid a special tribute to his sanctity; St. Francis of Sales also esteemed him highly for his virtue and his science. After his death, authentic information was taken about his life and virtues; he is now ranked among the venerable, and the process of his beatification has been introduced.

The literary activity of Lessius was not confined to dogmatic and moral matters; he wrote also on asceticism and controversy. We give here the most important of his works; the whole list may be seen in Sommervogel. The first printed lines which came from the pen of Lessius, i. e. "Theses theologicæ" (Louvain, 1586), provoked a fiery debate with the doctors of the University of Louvain; the theses of Lessius and Hamelius, both professors at the Jesuit College, were attacked as containing dangerous opinions on predestination, grace, inspiration in Holy Scripture, etc. As to the last point, Lessius had merely suggested an hypothesis on subsequent inspiration, i. e. that a book written without the help of the Holy Ghost might become Holy Scripture, if the Holy Ghost apparently declared that the said book did not contain anything false. The condemnations issued by the Vatican Council did not touch this view of Lessius. The doctrine of Lessius on grace and predestination, which was accused of Semipelagianism, taught predestination "post prævisa merita", the co-operation of free will with grace in such a way as to reject the "gratia per se efficax"; in fact, this doctrine was by no means peculiar to Lessius. Apologies, antitheses, anti-apologies, succeeded on both sides; the Universities of Louvain and Douai censured the theses; the faculties of theology of Ingolstadt, Mainz, and Trier approved them; the general of the Jesuits and at last the pope was appealed to. Finally Sixtus V, who in a letter called the incriminated articles "articuli sanæ doctrinæ", charged his nuncio at Cologne, Octavio Frangipani, to bring the discussions to an end till the pope should have decided the question; Frangipani (1588) forbade both sides, under threat of excommunication, to discuss the matter or to charge each other with heresy.

The great work of Lessius is "De justitia et jure", which was published in 1605 and was dedicated to the Archduke Albert. Many editions followed at Antwerp, Louvain, Lyons, Paris, and Venice. This work, composed with great accuracy, shows best the soundness of judgment, the common sense, and the clearness of mind which distinguishes Lessius. The chapters on interest and other commercial subjects are epoch-making in the treatment of those difficult questions; Lessius was especially consulted by the merchants of Antwerp on matters of justice. Archduke Albert had the book constantly on his desk and referred to it as a guide. A good compendium of the work was published at Douai in 1634. Four years later a work of quite a different nature was written by Lessius under the title, "Quæ fides et religio sit capessenda" (Antwerp, 1609). It is a short book of some 150 pages, on controversy and apologetics, which brought about a great many conversions, among them that of John of Nassau. The book was often reprinted and was translated into Flemish, German, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, and French. The work "De gratia efficaci", on grace, liberty, predestination, etc., appeared in 1610; with the "De justitia" it secures Lessius a place among the best theologians of the day in dogmatic as well as in moral questions. Some writings of a controversial character were published between 1611 and 1619; "De Antichristo et ejus præcursoribus"; "Defensio potestatis summi pontificis", against the theories put forward by James I, King of England, Barclay, Blackwell, etc. A work on Providence and the immortality of the soul was printed in 1613 "De Providentia Numinis", and translated into different languages, even into Chinese. His "Hygiasticon" or plea for sobriety, a treatise on how to preserve strength and to live long, was published in 1613, often reprinted and translated into nearly all the languages of Europe; it is a translation of a similar work by Cornaro (Luigi Cornaro, an Italian hygienist, 1467-1566), accompanied with the personal reflections of Lessius. Even now it is not without interest.

Among his ascetical works, which are noted for the science and piety they contain, must be mentioned his "De summo bono" (Antwerp, 1616); "De perfectionibus moribusque divinis libri XIV" (Antwerp, 1620); and especially his posthumous work, on the Divine names, "Quinquaginta nomina Dei" (Brussels, 1640), very often reprinted and translated. After his death was published his theological treatise on the sacraments, the Incarnation, etc. (De beatitudine, de actibus humanis, de incarnatione Verbi, de sacramentis et censuris, etc., Louvain, 1645). Not a few of his unprinted works are preserved at Brussels and elsewhere; they are made up especially of theological treatises, notes on morals, some letters and documents on the discussion mentioned above, answers to various consultations, etc. No complete edition of Lessius's works has ever appeared. The books "De perfectionibus divinis", "De gratia efficaci", "De summo bono", etc. were published in Paris (1878-81); "De divinis nominibus" and "De summo bono" at Freiburg (1862 and 1869); Bouix made a new French translation of the "De divinis nominibus" (Paris, 1882).

DE RAM, Vie et Ecrits de L. Lessius in Revue Catholique, XIX (1861), 189; DE BLOCK, Le Père Lessius in Précis Historiques, XII (1863), 133, 188, 210; HURTER, Nomenclator; SCHOOFS, De Vita et Moribus L. Lessii (Brussels, 1640); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la Comp. de Jésus, IV (Brussels, 1893), 1726. Bibliographie Nationale, XII, 79; IV, 774; WERNER, Der hl. Thomas von Aquino, III (Ratisbon, 1859), 382.

J. DE GHELLINCK.

Lessons in the Liturgy

(Exclusive of Gospel).

I. HISTORY

The reading of lessons from the Bible, Acts of Martyrs, or approved Fathers of the Church, forms an important element of Christian services in all rites since the beginning. The Jews had divided the Law into portions for reading in the synagogue. The first part of the Christian synaxis was an imitation or continuation of the service of the synagogue. Like its predecessor it consisted of lessons from the Sacred Books, psalm-singing, homilies, and prayers. The Christians, however, naturally read not only the Old Testament but their own Scriptures too. Among these Christian Scriptures the most important were the histories of Our Lord's life, that we call Gospels, and the letters of the Apostles to various Churches. So we find St. Paul demanding that his letter to the Thessalonians "be read to all the holy brethren" (I Thess., v, 27). Such a public reading could only take place at the synaxis. Again, at the end of the Epistle to the Colossians he tells the people to send the letter to Laodicea to be read there, and to demand and read his letter to the Laodiceans (Col., iv, 16). Here too he seems to imply a public reading ("when this epistle shall have been read with you"). That the public reading of lessons from the Holy Books was a wellknown incident of Christian services in the first centuries appears also from the common idea that the "Gospel" to which St. Paul alludes as being "through all the churches" (II Cor., viii, 18) was the written Gospel of St. Luke read in the assemblies (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, iv, 8; Jerome, "De viris illustr.", vii). The famous text of St. Justin Martyr (I Apol., lxvii, quoted in GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY) shows that Biblical texts were read at the Sunday assemblies. So also Tertullian (died about 240) says of the Roman Church, that she "combines the Law and the Prophets with the Gospels and Apostolic letters" in her public reading (De præscript. hær., 36). There is evidence that at first, not only the canonical Scriptures, but Acts of Martyrs, letters, homilies of prominent bishops, and other edifying documents were read publicly in the assemblies. St. Cyprian (died 258) demands that his letters be read publicly in church (e. g., Ep. ix, in P. L., IV, 253, etc.). The first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was used for public reading; it is included (with II Clem. ad. Cor.) in the Codex Alexandrinus. The Epistle of Barnabas and the "Shepherd" of Hermas are in the Codex Sinaiticus. These manuscripts represent collections made for public reading. So also in the East, Acts of Martyrs were read on their anniversaries. Even as late as his time St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) seems to imply that letters from various Churches were still read in the Liturgy (Hom. 30 on II Cor., in P. G., LXI, 605). From the third and fourth centuries, however, the principle obtained that in the liturgy only the canonical Scriptures should be read. The Muratorian Canon (third century) expressly forbids the "Shepherd" to be read publicly. The ideas of public reading and canonicity become synonymous, so that the fact that a book is read at the Liturgy in any local Church is understood to be evidence that that Church accepts it as canonical. Readings during the Office (Matins, etc.) outside the Liturgy have always been more free in this regard.

Originally, as we see from Justin Martyr's account, the amount read was quite indeterminate; the reader went on "as long as time allowed". The presiding bishop would then stop him with some sign or formula, of which our clause, "Tu autem Domine, miserere nobis", at the end of lessons (once undoubtedly said by the celebrant) is still a remnant. The gradual fixing of the whole liturgical function into set forms naturally involved the fixing of the portions of the Bible read. There was an obvious convenience in arranging beforehand more or less equal sections to be read in turn. These sections were called "pericopes" (perikope), a fragment cut off, almost exactly the German Abschnitt); they were marked in the text of the Bible, as may be seen in most early manuscripts. An index (called Synaxarion in Greek, capitularium in Latin), giving the first and last words of the pericopes for each Sunday and feast, made it easier to find them. There are many remnants of the practice of naming a pericope after its first words, as in the capitularium. The Fathers preach on Gospels which they so call, as if it were a proper name (so St. Bernard's "Homilies on the Missus est" is on Luke, i, 26-38, etc.). Eventually, for greater convenience the lessons are written out in their liturgical order in a lectionarium, and later still they are inserted in their place with the text of the whole service, in Breviaries and Missals (see GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY, I).

Meanwhile the number of lessons, at first undetermined, became fixed and reduced. The reading of the Gospel, as being the most important, the crown and fulfilment of the prophecies in the Old Law, was put in the place of honour, last. Every allusion to the lessons read in churches implies that the Gospel comes last. A further reason for this arrangement was that in some Churches the catechumens were not allowed to hear the Gospel, so it was read after their dismissal (see GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY, I). We are concerned here with the other lessons that preceded it. For a time their number was still vague. The liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions refers to "the reading of the Law and the Prophets and of our Epistles and Acts and Gospels" (VIII, v, 11). The Syriac, Coptic, and Abyssinian Rites have several lessons before the Gospel (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", Oxford, 1896, pp. 76-8, 152-4, 212-5). In the Roman Rite we still have Masses with a number of lessons before the Gospel. Then gradually the custom obtains of reading two only, one from the Old Testament and one from the New. From the fact that the text read from the Old Testament is looked upon as a promise or type of what followed in Our Lord's life (very commonly taken from a Prophet) it is called the "prophecy". The lesson of the New Testament (exclusive of the Gospel) would naturally in most cases be part of an Epistle of St. Paul or another Apostle. So we have three lessons in the Liturgy -- prophetia, epistola (or apostolus), evangelium. This was the older arrangement of the liturgies that now have only two. The Armenian Rite, derived at an early date (in the sixth century) from that of Constantinople, has these three lessons (Brightman, op. cit., 425-426). St. John Chrysostom also alludes to three lessons in the Byzantine Rite of his time (Hom. 29 on Acts, P. G., LX, 218; cf. Brightman, op. cit., 470). In the West, Germanus of Paris (died 576), describing the Gallican Rite, mentions them: "The prophetic lesson of the Old Testament has its place. . . . The same God speaks in the prophecy who teaches in the Apostle and is glorious in the light of the Gospels", etc. (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 185). This Gallican use is still preserved in the Mozarabic Liturgy, which has three lessons in the Mass. The Ambrosian Rite has a prophetic lesson on certain days only.

The Roman Rite also certainly once had these three lessons at every Mass. Besides the now exceptional cases in which there are two or more lessons before the Gospel, we have a trace of them in the arrangement of the Gradual which still shows the place where the other lesson has dropped out (see GRADUAL). The church of St. Clement at Rome (restored in the ninth century but still keeping the disposition of a much older basilica) has a third ambo for the prophetic lesson. A further modification reduced the lessons to two, one from any book of the Bible other than the Gospel, the second from the Gospel. In the Byzantine Rite this change took place between the time of St. John Chrysostom (died 407) and the final development of the liturgy. The Barberini manuscript (ninth century, reproduced in Brightman, op. cit., 309-344) still supposes more than one lesson before the Gospel (ibid., 314). The Greek Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark also have only one lesson before the Gospel (ibid., 36, 118). This is one of the many examples of the influence of Constantinople, which from the seventh century gradually byzantinized the older Rites of Antioch and Alexandria, till it replaced them in about the thirteenth century. In St. Augustine's sermons we see that he refers sometimes to two lessons before the Gospel (e. g., Sermo xl), sometimes to only one (Sermo clxxvi, clxxx). At Rome, too, the lessons were reduced to two since the sixth century ("Liber Pontificalis", ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1884, I, 230), except on certain rare occasions. These two lessons, then, are our Epistle and Gospel.

II. THE EPISTLE

In no rite is the first of these two lessons invariably taken from an Epistle. Nevertheless the preponderance of pericopes from one of the Epistles in the New Testament is so great that the first lesson, whatever it may be, is commonly called the "Epistle" (Epistola). An older name meaning the same thing is "Apostle" (Apostolus). The Gregorian Sacramentary calls this lesson Apostolus; e. g., P. L., LXXVIII, 25; "deinde sequitur Apostolus"; it was also often called simply Lectio (so the Saint-Amand Ordo, Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 442). The Eastern rites (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople) in Greek still call the first lesson ho Apostolos. Originally it was read by a lector. The privileges of the deacon to sing the Gospel and (in the West) of the subdeacon to read the Epistle are a later development (see GOSPELS IN THE LITURGY). It seems that in the West lectors read the Epistle as well as the other lessons down to about the fifth century (Reuter, "Das Subdiakonat", Augsburg, 1890, pp. 177, 185). Gradually, then, the feeling grew that the Epistle belongs to the subdeacon. This is apparently an imitation of the deacon's right to the Gospel. When the custom had obtained of celebrating High Mass with two ministers only -- a deacon and a subdeacon -- in place of the number of concelebrating priests, regionary deacons, and assistant subdeacons whom we see around the celebrating bishop in the first centuries at Rome, when further the liturgical lessons were reduced to two, and one of them was sung by the deacon, it seemed natural that the subdeacon should read the other. The first Roman Ordo (sixth-eighth century) describes the Epistle as read by a subdeacon (I, 10). But not till the fourteenth century was the subdeacon's peculiar office of reading the Epistle expressed and acknowledged by his symbolic reception of the book of Epistles at his ordination. Even now the Roman Pontifical keeps unchanged the old form of the admonition in the ordination of subdeacons (Adepturi, filii dilectissimi, officium subdiaconatus . . . etc.), which, although it describes their duties at length, says nothing about reading the Epistle. In the corresponding admonition to deacons, on the other hand, there is a clear reference to their duty of singing the Gospel. In the time of Durandus (thirteenth century) the question was still not clear to every one. He insists that "no one may read the Epistle solemnly in church unless he be a subdeacon, or, if no subdeacon be present, it must be said by a deacon" (Rationale Div. Offic., iv. 16); but when he treats of the duties of a subdeacon he finds it still necessary to answer the question: "Why the subdeacon reads the lessons at Mass, since this does not seem to belong to him either from his name or the office given to him" (ii, 8). We have even now a relic of the older use in the rubric of the Missal which prescribes that in a sung Mass, where there are no deacon and subdeacon, a lector in a surplice should read the Epistle (Ritus cel. Missam, vi, 8); in case of necessity at high Mass, too, a clerk, not ordained subdeacon, may wear the tunicle (not the maniple) and perform nearly all the subdeacon's duties, including the reading of the Epistle (S. R. C., 15 July, 1698). In the Eastern rites there is no provision for a subdeacon in the liturgy, except in the one case of the Maronites, who here, too, have romanized their rite. In all the others the Epistle is still chanted by a reader (anagnostes).

The Epistle is the last lesson before the Gospel, the first when there are only two lessons. In this case its place is immediately after the Collects. Originally it came between the two chants that we now call the Gradual (see GRADUAL). It was read from an ambo, the reader or subdeacon turning towards the people. Where there were two or more ambos, one was used only for the Gospel. The common arrangement was that of an ambo on either side of the church, between the choir and the nave, as may still be seen in many old basilicas (e. g., S. Maria in Cosmedin at Rome, etc.). In this case the ambo on the north side was reserved for the Gospel, from which the deacon faced the south, where the men stood (GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY). The north is also the right, and therefore the more honourable, side of the altar. The ambo on the south was used for the Epistle, and for other lessons if there were only two. In the case of three ambos, two were on the south, one for all other lessons, one for the Epistles. This arrangement still subsists, inasmuch as the Epistle is always read on the south side (supposing the church to be orientated). Where there was only one ambo it had two platforms, a lower one for the Epistle and other lessons, a higher one for the Gospel (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, 16). The ambo for the Epistle should still be used in the Roman Rite where the church has one; it is used regularly at Milan. In the Byzantine Rite the Apostle may be read from an ambo; if there is none the reader stands at the "high place", the solea, that is, the raised platform in front of the iconostasis. Ambos were still built in Western churches down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (see "Ambon" in Cabrol's "Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne"). Since then they have disappeared, except in some old churches. From that time the subdeacon as a rule stands in the choir on the south side of the altar (towards what the rubrics of the Missal call the cornu epistolœ), facing the altar, as he reads the Epistle. The Byzantine reader, however, faces the people. The Epistle has always been chanted to a simpler tone than the Gospel; generally it is simply read on one note. The answer "Deo gratias" after the Epistle is the common one after the reading of any lesson (e. g., in the Office too). It was originally a sign from the celebrant or presiding bishop that enough had been read. The medieval commentators (e. g., Durandus, IV, 17) note that the subdeacon, having finished his reading, goes to make a reverence to the celebrant and kisses his hand. During the Epistle in every rite the hearers sit. The First Roman Ordo notes this (10); they also cover their heads. This is the natural attitude for hearing a lesson read (so also at Matins, etc.); to stand at the Gospel is a special mark of reverence for its special dignity.

III. TEXT OF THE VARIOUS EPISTLES

The reason of the present order of Epistles in the Roman Rite throughout the year is even more difficult to find than the parallel case of the Gospels (see GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY, II). In the first period the question does not so much concern what we now call the Epistle as rather the whole group of Biblical lessons preceding the Gospel. We may deduce with some certainty that there was at first the principle of reading successive books of the Bible continuously. The second book of the Apostolic Constitutions (third century) says that "the reader standing on a height in the middle shall read the Books of Moses and Jesus son of Nave, and of the Judges and Kings, and of Paralipomenon and the Return [Esdras and Nehemias], after these those of Job and Solomon and the sixteen Prophets [these are the first lessons]. The lessons having been read by two [readers], another one shall sing the hymns of David and the people answer back the verses [this is the psalm between the lessons, our Gradual]. After this our Acts [the Apostles are supposed to be speaking] shall be read and the letters of Paul, our fellow-worker, which he sent to the Churches". ("Const. Apost.", II, lvii, ed. Funk, Paderborn, 1905, p. 161.) This then implies continuous readings in that order. For the rest the homilies of the Fathers that explain continuous books (and often explicitly refer to the fact that the passage explained has just been read) show us certain books read at certain seasons. Thus, for instance, in Lent Genesis was read in East and West. So St. John Chrysostom (died 407), preaching in Lent, says: "To-day I will explain the passage you have heard read" and proceeds to reach on Genesis, i, 1 (Hom. vii, de statuis, 1). His homilies on Genesis were held during Lent (Hom. i, in Gen., i). It is also probable that St. Basil's sermons on the Hexaemeron were held in Lent. In the Roman Office still Genesis begins at Septuagesima (in Matins) and is read in part of Lent. The reason of this is apparently that the ecclesiastical year was counted as beginning then in the spring. Other books read in Lent were Job (e. g., St. Ambrose, "ad Marcell.", Ep. xx, 14; P. L., XVI, 998), as an example of patient suffering, and Jonas (ibid., 25; col. 1001), as a preparation for the Resurrection. During Eastertide the Acts of the Apostles were read (St. Augustine, Tract. vi in Joh. xviii, P. L., XXXV, 1433). For special feasts and on special occasions suitable lessons were chosen, thus breaking the continuous readings. In the Middle Ages it was believed that St. Jerome (died 420), in obedience to an order of Pope Damasus, had arranged the lessons of the Roman Liturgy; a spurious letter of his to the Emperor Constantius was quoted as the first comes, or list of lessons, for each day. Dom G. Morin thinks that Victor, Bishop of Capua (541-554), was the author (Revue Bénédictine, 1890, p.416 seq.). The letter is quoted in Beissel, "Entstehung der Perikopen des Römischen Messbuches" (Freiburg, 1907), 54-5.

From the fifth century various lists of lessons were drawn up. Gennadius of Marseilles (fifth century) says of one Muscus, priest of Marseilles: "Exhorted by the holy Bishop Venerius he selected lessons from Holy Scripture suitable for the feast days of all the year" (De viris illustr., lxxix). The "Lectionarium Gallicanum" published by Mabillon (in P. L., LXXII), written in Burgundy in the seventh century, is another scheme of the same kind. A codex at Fulda contains the Epistles for Sundays and feast days arranged by Victor of Capua in the sixth century. Probst ("Die ältesten römischen Sacramentarien und Ordines", Münster, 1892, p. 33) thinks that they are those read at Rome. All are taken from St. Paul (see the list loc. cit., and in Beissel, "Entstehung der Perikopen, 57-8). From this time there are a number of comites arranged for use in different Churches. Of these one of the most famous is the comes arranged by Albinus (i. e.1 Alcuin) by command of the Emperor Charles. This contains only the Epistles; it is part of the Roman Rite introduced by Charles the Great in the Frankish Kingdom (published in "Thomasii Opera", ed. Vezzosi, V, 418, cf. Ranke: "Das kirchliche Perikopensystem", 1850, supplem. III; Beissel, op. cit., 141). The "Liber comicus" edited by Dom G. Morin ("Anecdota Maredsol.", 1,1893, cf. "Revue Bénéd.", 1892, 442) contains the full lessons of the old Mozarabic use. Paul the Deacon composed a collection of homilies between 786 and 797, from which one may deduce the lessons read on Sundays under Charles the Great (P. L., XCV, 1159 sq., cf. Wiegand, "Das Homilarium Karls des Grossen", Leipzig, 1897, and "Rev. Bénéd.", 1898, 400 seq.). Beissel (op. cit.) has collected a great number of such comites, lectionaries, and references in the early Middle Ages, from which the set of lessons in the present Roman Missal gradually emerges.

Of the arrangement one can only say that the special suitableness of certain Epistles for the various feasts and seasons soon quite disturbed the principle of continuous reading. Of continuous readings there is now hardly a trace in the Missal. On the other hand, Epistles obviously suitable for each occasion may be traced back through a long list of comites. Thus our Epistles from Romans at the beginning of Advent recur in many lists: they are chosen obviously because of their appropriateness to that season. In some cases a connexion of ideas with the Gospel seems to be the reason for the choice of the Epistle. In the Missal as reformed by Pius V in 1570 about two-thirds of the Epistles are taken from St. Paul; the others are from other Epistles, the Acts, Apocalypse, and various books of the Old Testament. A principle observed fairly regularly is that on fast days the Epistle is a lesson from the Old Testament. This applies to all week-days in Lent except Maundy Thursday, which has, of course, a festal Mass. The Mass on Holy Saturday is the first Easter Mass and has an Easter Epistle (Cob., iii, 1-4). So also on most of the emberdays (which still have several lessons); but on the Whitsun ember Wednesday the sense of Pentecost predominates, so that it has two lessons from the New Testament (Acts, ii and v). It may be a remnant of the old system of reading Acts in Eastertide that, except Friday and Saturday, all the Masses of Easter Week have lessons from Acts, though, on the other hand, they are all in themselves appropriate. Practically all feasts and special occasions have Epistles chosen for their suitableness, as far as such could be found.

Occasionally, as on St. Stephen's feast and, to some extent, Ascension Day and Whitsunday, it is the Epistle rather than the Gospel that tells the story of the feast. The three Epistles for Christmas Day are sufficiently obvious: St. Stephen has of course the story of his martyrdom from Acts, vi and vii, Holy Innocents the lesson from Apocalypse, xiv, about the Immaculate first-fruits of the saints. The Epiphany has a magnificent lesson about the Gentiles seeing the glory of the Lord in Jerusalem and the people who bring gold and incense, from Isaias, lx. Palm Sunday in its Epistle tells of the obedience of Our Lord to the death of the Cross and of His exaltation (Phil., ii), in the tone of the "Vexilla Regis". The Easter Epistle could be no other than the one appointed (I Cor., v): Ascension Day and Whitsunday have their stories from the Acts. The feast of the Holy Trinity has the passage in Romans, xi, about the inscrutable mystery of God. Corpus Christi brings, of course, St. Paul's account of the Holy Eucharist (I Cor., xi). St. John Baptist has a lesson from Isaias, xlix, about vocation and sanctification in the mother's womb. St. Peter and St. Paul have the story of St. Peter's imprisonment in Acts, xii. For All Saints we have the lesson about the saints signed by God and the great crowd around his throne in Apoc., vii. Most of Our Lady's feasts have lessons from the Song of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus applied mystically to her, as in her Office. The commons of saints have fairly obvious Epistles too. It will be seen, then, that a great proportion of our pericopes are chosen because of their appropriateness to the occasion. With regard to the others, in the Proprium de tempore, notably those for the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost, it is not possible to find any definite scheme for their selection. We can only conjecture some underlying idea of reading the most important passages of St. Paul's Epistles. The fact that every Sunday except Whitsunday has a pericope from an Epistle, that in nearly all cases it is from St. Paul (the Sundays after Easter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th after Pentecost have Epistles of other Apostles) still shows that this is the normal text for the lesson before the Gospel; other lessons are exceptions admitted because of their special appropriateness. Of the old principle of continuous readings it is not now possible to find a trace. Our pericopes represent a combination of various comites and lectionaries, between which that principle has become completely overlaid.

The epistle is announced as lectio, "Lectio epistolæ beati Pauli ad Romanos", "Lectio libri Esther", and so on. No further reference is given; when there are several Epistles (e. g., those of St. Peter, St. John) the title read out does not say which it is: "Lectio epistolæ beati Petri apostoli". It should also be noted that all the five books attributed to Solomon and known as the "Libri Sapientiales"(namely, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Wis., Ecclus.) are announced as: "Lectio libri Sapientiæ".

The Epistles read in Eastern Churches are arranged in a way in which there is also no longer any trace of a system. Here, too, the present arrangement is the result of a long series of Lectionaries between which various compromises have been made. The Byzantine Church reads from the Epistles, Acts, and Apocalypse for the first lesson, called the Apostle (ho apostolos). These lessons are contained with their Prokeimena in a book also called Apostolos or Praxapostolos. The last part of this book contains a selection of lessons from the Old Testament for use on special occasions (see the exact description in Leo Allatius, "De libris ecclesiasticis Græcorum", Paris, 1645, I, xv, 4). We have noted that the Armenians still have the older arrangement of three lessons in every liturgy, a Prophecy from the Old Testament, an Epistle, and a Gospel. The Copts have no Prophecy, but four New Testament lessons, one of St. Paul read from the "Apostle", one from an Epistle by another Apostle, read from another book called the "Katholikon", then one from the Acts and finally the Gospel (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 152-6); the Abyssinian Church follows the use of Egypt in this as in most liturgical matters (ibid., 212-219). The Syrian Jacobites read first several lessons from the Old Testament, then one from the Acts, an Epistle, and a Gospel (ibid., 77-80). The Nestorians have an Old-Testament lesson, one from the Acts, an Epistle and a Gospel (ibid., 256-60). Between the lessons in all these rites are various fragments of psalms, corresponding to our Gradual. The reading of the Apostle or other lessons before the Gospel is a very simple affair in the East. A reader, who is generally any layman, simply takes the book, stands in the middle of the choir, and sings the text in his usual nasal chant with a few enharmonic cadences which are handed down by tradition and, as a matter of fact, very considerably modified according to the taste and skill of the singer. Meanwhile the celebrant turns towards him and listens. He does not also read the text himself in any Eastern Rite. The Byzantine reader first chants the Prokeimenon (Prokeimenon tou apostolou -- "placed before", understand distichon) facing the altar. This is a short verse of a psalm corresponding to our Gradual (which once preceded the Epistle: see GRADUAL). He then turns to the people and chants the Apostolos. Meanwhile the deacon is incensing the altar (Fortescue, "Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom", London, 1908, p. 75).

IV. RITUAL OF THE EPISTLE IN THE ROMAN RITE

We have noted that for many centuries the reading of the Epistle is a privilege of the subdeacon. While the celebrant chants the last Collect, the master of ceremonies brings the book containing the Epistle (a lectionarium containing the Epistles and Gospels, very often simply another Missal) from the credence table to the subdeacon at his place behind the deacon. The subdeacon turns towards him and receives it, both making a slight inclination. He then goes to the middle and genuflects (even if the Blessed Sacrament is not on the altar) and comes back to a place in plano at some distance behind the celebrant. Standing there, facing the altar, and holding the book with both hands, he chants the title "Lectio . . .", etc., and goes on at once with the text, to the end. He bows at the Holy Name and genuflects, if the rubric directs it, at his place towards the altar in front. The normal tone for the Epistle is entirely on one note (do) without any inflection, except that where a question occurs it sinks half a tone (to si) four or five syllables before, and for the last three syllables has the inflection la, si and a podatus si-do. The revised Vatican Missal gives a rather more elaborate chant for use ad libitum in the appendix (no. III). While the Epistle is read the members of the choir sit with covered heads. Meanwhile the celebrant reads it (and the Gradual) in a low voice from the Missal at the altar; the deacon stands at his side, turns over the page, if necessary, and answers, "Deo gratias", when the celebrant has ended the Epistle. To the Epistle chanted by the subdeacon there is no answer. The last three or four syllables of the Epistle are chanted more slowly, ritardando at the end. The subdeacon, having finished, shuts the book, goes to the middle and genuflects; then, still holding the closed book in both hands, he goes round to where the celebrant stands; here he kneels facing sideways (north) on the step. The celebrant turns to him and rests the right hand on the book. The subdeacon kisses the hand and waits with bowed head while the celebrant makes the sign of the cross over him in silence. He hands the book back to the master of ceremonies and then carries the Missal round to the other side for the celebrant's Gospel.

At a sung Mass we have seen that the Epistle may be chanted by a lector in a surplice (Ritus celebr., vi, 8; the text even says that this should be done: "Epistolam cantet in loco consueto aliquis lector superpelliceo indutus"). In this case he does not go to kiss the celebrant's hand afterwards (ibid.). Generally, however, the celebrant chants the Epistle himself at the corner of the altar, using the same tone as would a subdeacon. "Deo gratias" should not be answered in this case either. At low Mass the Epistle is read by the celebrant in its place after the last Collect. The server answers, "Deo gratias".

V. OTHER LESSONS AT MASS

There are a good many occasions in the year on which one or more lessons still precede the Epistle, according to the older custom. They are all days of a penitential nature, conspicuously the ember-days. The lessons are always separated by Graduals or Tracts, generally by Collects too. On the Advent ember Wednesday, after the first Collect a lesson from Isaias, ii, is read, then comes a Gradual, the Collect of the day followed by the other two that are said in Advent (or by commemorations), and a second lesson (the Epistle) from Is., vii, and lastly a second Gradual before the Gospel. The Advent ember Saturday has four lessons from Isaias, each preceded by a Collect and followed by a Gradual, then a lesson from Dan., iii (with its Collect before it), which introduces the canticle "Benedictus es, Domine"; this is sung as a kind of Tract. Then come the usual Collects for the day and the Epistle. The Lent ember Wednesday has two, the Saturday five lessons before the Gospel. The Whitsun ember Wednesday has two lessons from Acts, Saturday five prophecies and an Epistle. The ember-days in September have on Wednesday two lessons, on Saturday four lessons and an Epistle before the Gospel. Wednesday in Holy Week also has two lessons from Isaias. In all these cases the arrangement is the same: a collect, the lesson, a gradual or tract. The lessons other than the last (technically the Epistle) are chanted by the celebrant to the Epistle tone; the deacon and subdeacon answer, "Deo gratias", except in the case of the lesson from Daniel that introduces the canticle (de Herdt, "S. liturgiæ praxis", I, 435). Palm Sunday, in the missa sicca in which the palms are blessed, has a lesson from Exodus, xv and xiv, sung by the subdeacon as if it were an Epistle, as well as a Gospel. On Maundy Thursday the Gospel of the Mass is sung again at the Maundy (washing of feet). The Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, as part of its archaic character, begins with three lessons. The first is the "Prophecy" from Osee, vi. This is sung by a lector -- the only occasion on which such a person is mentioned in the text of the Missal (apart from the preface). A tract and collect follow. Then comes the Epistle (in this case, according to the rule for week-days in Lent, a lesson from the Old Testament, Ex., xii) chanted by the subdeacon in the usual way, another tract, and the Gospel (the Passion from St. John).

Holy Saturday and Whitsun eve keep a relic of very early times in the long series of lessons (called here too "Prophecies") before the Mass. It is often said that they represent the last instruction of the catechumens before baptism. Mgr Batiffol ("Histoire du Bréviaire Romain", Paris, 1895, pp. 114-115) and Father Thurston ("Lent and Holy Week", London, 1904) see in them rather a remnant of the old vigil-office of the type of the fourth-century vigil, but now despoiled of the psalms that once alternated with the lessons. The number of the Prophecies on Holy Saturday varied in different churches. Durandus, who explains them in the usual medieval way as instructions for the catechumens, says: "In some churches four lessons are read, in some six, in some twelve, and in some fourteen", and proceeds to give mystic reasons for these numbers (Rationale, vi, 81). The number at Rome seems to have been always, as it is now, twelve. A tradition ascribes the arrangement of these twelve to St. Gregory I. They were once chanted first in Latin and then in Greek., As they stand in the Missal they represent very well a general survey of the Old Testament as a preparation for Christ; the Collects which follow each emphasize this idea. The eighth and ninth only are followed by Tracts. They are chanted by readers (now practically anyone from the choir) before the altar, while the celebrant reads them in a low voice at the epistle side. They begin without any title. The celebrant, of course, sings the Collect that follows each. Their tone is given in the appendix of the Vatican Missal (no. 11). It agrees with that for lessons at Matins; namely, they are chanted on one note (do) with a fall of a perfect fifth (to fa) on the last syllable before each full stop, a fall of half a tone (si) before a colon, and the same cadence for questions as in the Epistle (see above). Only the last cadence is different, being formed of the four notes re, do, si, si, on the last four syllables. The lessons on Whitsun eve are (like the whole service) an imitation of Holy Saturday. It is supposed that the rites of the Easter vigil, including the baptisms, were transferred to Whitsun eve in the North because of the cold climate. They then reacted so as to produce a duplication, such as is not uncommon in the Roman Rite. The whole rite follows that of Easter eve exactly; but there are only six prophecies, being the 3rd, 4th, 11th, 8th, 6th, and 7th of the Easter series.

VI. LESSONS IN THE OFFICE

Lessons of various kinds also form a very important part of the canonical hours in all rites. The essential and original elements of the Divine Office in East and West are the singing of psalms, the reading of lessons, and saying of prayers. The Canons of Hippolytus (second century) ordain that clerks are to come together at cockcrow and "occupy themselves with psalms and the reading of Scripture and with prayers" (can. xxi). The history of these lessons is bound up closely with that of the Office itself (see Bäumer, "Geschichte des Breviers", Freiburg, 1895, ch. ii, etc.; Batiffol, "Histoire du Bréviaire Romain", Paris, 1895, ch. i, etc.). We may note here that in the Office, as in the Liturgy, we see at first the principle of continuous readings from the Bible; to these are added the reading of Acts of Martyrs and then of homilies of approved Fathers. In the West this idea has been preserved more exactly in the Office than in the Mass. In the Roman and indeed in all Western Rites the most important lessons belong to the night Office, the nocturns that we now call Matins. The Rule of St. Benedict (died 543) gives us exactly the arrangement still observed in the monastic rite (chap. xi). The development of the Roman Rite is described by Batiffol, op. cit. (chaps. ii and iii especially). Till the seventh century the ferial Nocturn had no lessons, that of Sunday had after the twelve psalms three lessons from Scripture; the lessons followed from the text of the Bible so that it was read through (except the Gospels and Psalms) in a year. The distribution of the books was much the same as now (Batiffol, op. cit., p. 93). In the seventh century lessons began to be read in the ferial Office too. The presiding priest or bishop gave a sign when enough had been read; the reader ended, as now, with the ejaculation, "Tu autem Domine miserere nobis"; and the choir answered, "Deo gratias".

A further development of the Sunday Office mentioned by St. Gregory I (died 604) was that a second and third nocturn were added to the first. Each of these had three psalms and three lessons taken, not from the Bible, but from the works of the Fathers (Batiffol, p. 96). For these lessons a library of their works was required, till the homilies and treatises to be read began to be collected in books called homiliaria. Paul the Deacon made a famous collection of this kind. It was published by authority of Charles the Great, who himself wrote a preface to it; it was used throughout his kingdom. It became the chief source of our present Roman series of lessons from the Fathers (in P. L., XCV). Eventually then the arrangement of lessons in the Roman Rite has become this: The lessons from Scripture are arranged throughout the year in the proprium temporis. They form what is called the scriptura occurrens. The chief books of the Bible (except the Gospels and Psalms) are begun and read for a time. The shortening of the lessons, overlapping of seasons, and especially the number of feasts that have special lessons have produced the result that no book is ever finished. But the principle of at least beginning each book is maintained, so that if for any reason the scriptura occurrens of a day on which a book is begun falls out, the lessons of that day are read instead of the normal ones on the next free day.

Although the ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, the course of the scriptura occurrens is begun at Septuagesima with Genesis. This is a relic of an older calculation that began the year in the spring (see above, II). The course of the continuous reading is continually interrupted for special reasons. So the first Sunday of Lent has lessons from II Cor., vi and vii ("Now is the acceptable time"). The week-days in Lent have no scriptura occurrens but a Gospel and a homily, according to the rule for the feriæ that were liturgical from the beginning and have a special Mass. Genesis goes on, on the second and third Sundays of Lent; on the fourth comes a pericope from Exodus. Passion and Palm Sunday have lessons from Jeremias (beginning on Passion Sunday) for a special reason (the connexion of the Prophet of the destruction of the temple with Our Lord's Passion). Easter Day and its octave have only one nocturn, so no scriptura occurrens. Low Sunday has special lessons (Col., iii) about the Resurrection. The Acts of the Apostles begin on the day after Low Sunday and are read for a fortnight -- according to the old tradition that connects them with Eastertide. The Apocalypse begins on the third Sunday after Easter and lasts for a week. On the fourth Sunday St. James's Epistle begins, on the fifth St. Peter's First Epistle. Ascension Day naturally has its own story from Acts, i; but on the next day II Peter begins. The Sunday following brings the First Epistle of St. John; the next Wednesday, II John; the Friday, III John; Saturday, the Epistle of St. Jude. Pentecost and its octave, like Easter, have no scriptura occurrens.

It will be noticed that, just as Lent has on its feriæ only lessons from the Old Testament, even in the Epistles at Mass, so Paschal time has only the New Testament, even in the Office. The feast of the Holy Trinity has special lessons (Is., vi -- the Seraphim who cry: Holy, holy, holy); the next day we come back to the normal course and begin the First Book of Kings. II Kings begins on the fifth Sunday after Pentecost, III Kings on the seventh, IV Kings on the ninth. On the first Sunday of August (from which day till Advent we count by the months except for the Mass and the lessons of the third nocturn) the Books of Wisdom begin with Proverbs; Ecclesiastes comes on the second Sunday of August, Wisdom on the third, Ecclesiasticus on the fourth. Job comes on the first Sunday of September, Tobias on the third, Judith on the fourth, Esther on the fifth. October brings on its first Sunday I Machabees, on its fourth II Machabees. The Prophets begin in November: Ezekiel on the first Sunday, Daniel on the third, Osee on the fourth, and then the other minor Prophets in very short fragments, obviously in a hurry, till Advent. Advent has Isaias throughout. The first Sunday after Christmas begins St. Paul's Epistles with Romans; they continue to Septuagesima. I Corinthians comes on the first Sunday after Epiphany, II Corinthians on the second Sunday, Galatians on the third, Ephesians the following Wednesday, Philippians on the fourth Sunday, Colossians on the next Tuesday, I Thessalonians on Thursday, II Thessalonians on Saturday, I Timothy on the fifth Sunday, II Timothy on Tuesday, Titus on Thursday, Philemon on Saturday, Hebrews on the sixth Sunday. We have here again the same crowded changes as at the end of the season after Pentecost. The arrangement then is one of continuous readings from each book, though the books do not follow in order, but are distributed with regard to appropriateness. If we count the Pentateuch as one book (that seems to be the idea), we see that all the books of the Bible are read, in part at least, except Josue, Judges, Ruth, Paralipomenon, and the Canticle of Canticles. Cardinal Quiñones in his famous reformed Breviary (issued by Paul III in 1535, withdrawn by Paul IV in 1558) changed all this and arranged the reading of the whole Bible in a year (see Batiffol, op. cit., 222-231). His proposal, however, came to nothing and we still use the traditional Office, with the developments time has brought.

The arrangement of Matins is this: On feriæ and simple feasts there is only one nocturn with its three lessons. On feriæ all three are from the scriptura occurrens: on simples the third lesson is an account of the saint instead of the Scriptural one. The exception is when a feria has its own Mass. Such are the days that were originally liturgical days -- week-days in Lent, ember-days, and vigils. In this case the lessons consist of the fragment of the Gospel with a homily as in the third nocturn of semi-doubles. On semi-doubles and all higher feasts (Sundays are semi-doubles) there are three nocturns, each with three lessons. Such days are the festa novem lectionum. The first nocturn has always Scriptural lessons -- those of the scriptura occurrens, or on special feasts, a text chosen for its suitability. The second nocturn has lessons from a Father of the Church, here called sermo, a life of the saint on his feast, or a description of the event of the day. Thus, for instance, St. Peter's Chains (1 August) tells the story of their finding and how they came to Rome; S. Maria tit. Auxilium Christianorum (24 May) in the sixth lesson tells "ex publicis monumentis" the story of the battle of Lepanto. Sometimes papal Bulls are read in the second nocturn, as the Bull of Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus) during the Octave of the Immaculate Conception (8 December). The second nocturn continually receives new lessons, written by various people and approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Many of the older ones are taken from the "Liber Pontificalis". The third nocturn has for its lessons first a fragment (the first clause) of the Gospel read at Mass followed by the words, et reliqua, then a sermon (cabled Homilia) of a Father explaining it through the three lessons (the 7th, 8th, and 9th). In cases of concurrence of feasts, the feast commemorated (or the feria, if it be a liturgical day) has its own lesson (the life of the saint, or Gospel-fragment, and homily) read as the ninth lesson.

The monastic Office differs only in that it has four lessons in each nocturn (twelve altogether) and the whole Gospel of the day read after the Te Deum. This practice of reading the Gospel at the end of Matins was common in many medieval rites. Thus at Christmas in England the genealogy of Our Lord from St. Matthew was read at Christmas, and the one in St. Luke at the Epiphany at this place. So in the Byzantine Rite the Gospel of the day is read at the Orthros.

The other canonical hours have short lessons called capitula, originally lectiunculœ, sometimes capitella. The Ambrosian Breviary calls them epistolellœ and collectiones. These are very short passages from the Bible, generally continuous throughout the hours, connected with the feast or occasion. Very often they are from the same source as the Epistle. At Lauds and Vespers the capitulum is chanted by the officiating priest after the fifth psalm, before the hymn. At Terce, Sext, None he chants it after the psalm. Prime and Compline (originally private prayers of monks) are in many ways different from the other hours. They have always the same capitula. Prime has I Tim., i, 17 (omitting the word autem) chanted in the same place. Compline has Jer., xiv, 9 ^b (adding the word sanctum after nomen and the final clause, Domine, Deus noster). This is sung after the hymn by the celebrant. At Prime the officiating priest chants a second lesson (called lectio brevis) at the end, after the blessing that follows the preces and the prayer "Dirigere et sanctificare". For the proprium temporis this is given in the Breviary (in the psalterium); on feasts it is the capitulum of None, with the addition of "Tu autem Domine miserere nobis". Compline begins after the blessing with a lectio brevis from I Peter, v, 8, 9 ^a (with the additional word Fratres at the beginning and the clause, Tu autem, etc., at the end). All these short lessons are answered by the words Deo gratias, but the capitula do not have the clause "Tu autem", etc. The Roman Ritual has a few isolated lessons for special occasions. The Office of the "Visitation and care of the sick" has four Gospels from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (all about healing the sick), and the beginning of John. The "Order of commending a soul" has two Gospels -- the high-priestly prayer in John, xvii, and the Passion according to St. John. The exorcism has three Gospels (about driving out devils). In the Pontifical, a Gospel (Luke, ix) is appointed to be read at the opening of synods, before the Veni Creator, and another one (Luke, x) is given for the end of the blessing of bells. In some countries (Germany and Austria) it is the custom to sing the beginning of each Gospel during the Corpus Christi procession at the altars of repose, before the benediction.

All the Eastern rites in the same way have lessons of various kinds as part of the canonical hours. They constantly use psalms as lessons; that is to say the whole text of a psalm is read straight through by a reader, as we read our lessons. The choral part of the Office consists chiefly of verses, responses, and exclamations of various kinds (the Byzantine Stichera, Troparia, Kontakia, etc., etc.,) that are not taken from the Bible, but are composed by various hymn-writers. In the Byzantine Office three lessons, generally from the Old Testament (called paroimiai), are read by a lector towards the end of the hesperinos, soon after the singing of the phos hilaron. In the Orthros the priest reads the Gospel of the day shortly before the Canon is sung. In the Canon at the end of the sixth ode a lesson called synaxarion, describing the life of the saint, or containing reflections on the feast or occasion, is read. If several feasts concur the various synaxaria follow each other (see Fortescue, "Canon dans le rite byzantin", in Cabrol, "Dictionnaire d'archéologie"). The day-hours have no lessons, except that many troparia throughout the Office describe the mystery that is celebrated and give information to the hearers in a way that makes them often very like what we should call short lessons. Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels are read at many special services; thus the "Blessing of the Waters" on the Epiphany has three lessons from Isaias, an Epistle (I Cor., x, 1-4), and a Gospel (Mark, i, 9-11). The Byzantine synaxaria and menologia are described by Leo Allatius (De libris eccl. Græc., I, xv).

DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1898); GIHR, Das heilige Messopfer, II (Freiburg, 1897), §40, pp. 400-08; BEISSEL, Entstehung der Perikopen des römischen Messbuches (Freiburg, 1907); BÄUMER, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BATIFFOL, Histoire du Bréviaire Romain (Paris, 1895); DANIEL, Codex Liturgicus, I (Leipzig, 1847); PROBST, Liturgie des IV. Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1893); IDEM, Die ältesten römischen Sakramentarien und Ordines (Münster, 1892); MALTZEW, Die Nachtwache, oder Abend und Morgengottesdienst der Orth. Kath. Kirche des Morgenlandes (Berlin, 1892).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

Louis-Henri de Lestrange

(In religion, DOM AUGUSTINE)

Born in 1754, in the Château de Colombier-le-Vieux, Ardèche, France; died at Lyons, 16 July, 1827. He was the fourteenth child of Louis-César de Lestrange, officer in the household of King Louis XV, and Jeanne-Perrette de Lalor, daughter of an Irish gentleman who had followed James II, King of England, to France in 1688. He was ordained priest in 1778, and was attached to the parish of Saint-Sulpice. In 1780, Mgr de Pompignan, Archbishop of Vienne, in Dauphiné, chose him for his vicar-general, with the ulterior determination of having him as his coadjutor with the right of future succession. This prospect of being made bishop alarmed the Abbé de Lestrange, and in the same year he severed all the ties that bound him to the world, and entered the celebrated monastery of La Trappe. He was master of the novices in that monastery, when a decree of the National Assembly, dated 4 December, 1790, suppressed the religious orders in France. Dom Augustine with twenty-four religious left for Switzerland, where the Senate of Fribourg authorized them to take up their residence in Val-Sainte, an ancient Carthusian monastery about fifteen miles from the city of Fribourg. From Val-Sainte, Dom Augustine established foundations at Santa Susana in Aragon, Spain, at Mont Brac in Piedmont, Italy, at Westmalle, Belgium, and at Lulworth, England. In 1798 the French troops invaded Switzerland, and the Trappists were obliged to leave the country. Some of them settled at Kenty, near Cracow; others at Zydichin, in the Diocese of Lusko, and in Podolia. In 1802 Switzerland recalled them, and Dom Augustine took possession once more of Val-Sainte, and in the following year he sent a colony to America under Dom Urbain Guillet.

In 1804 Dom Augustine founded the monastery of Cervara in the Republic of Genoa, and Napoleon not only authorized the establishment, but granted it a revenue of 10,000 francs. Moreover he desired that a similar institution be founded on the Alps, at Mont-Genèvre, to serve as a refuge for the soldiers who were to pass to and fro between Italy and France. To secure the success of this establishment he granted it an allowance of 24,000 francs. This protection was not, however, of long duration. The Republic of Genoa was united to the empire, and there, as in all the other states under the sway of Napoleon, an oath of fidelity to the empire was exacted from ecclesiastics and religious. The religious of Cervara, acting on the advice of some eminent personages, and of some influential members of the clergy who assured them that the pope had allowed the oath, took the oath of fidelity. Dom Augustine, who had received from Pius VII, then prisoner at Savona, knowledge of the Bull of excommunication issued against the spoliator of the States of the Holy See, commanded the Prior of Cervara to make immediate retractation. The emperor became furious. He caused Dom Augustine to be arrested at Bordeaux and thrown into prison. At the same time, by a sweeping decree of 28 July, he suppressed all the Trappist monasteries throughout the empire. The prefect of Bordeaux, upon the entreaties of several of Dom Augustine's friends, gave him the limits of the city for his prison. The abbot availed himself of the liberty thus accorded him to hasten the departure of his religious for America; he himself obtained from the police permission to go to Val-Sainte and Mont-Genèvre, where his presence was required. Pursued again by the emperor, he crossed Germany and arrived at Riga, whence he left for England and America.

Dom Augustine arrived in New York in December, 1813. The Jesuits had just abandoned a building which they had in that city, and which they had used for a classical school. The edifice occupied the place where now stands St. Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue. Dom Augustine purchased the site for the sum of $10,000, and in 1814, on the downfall of Napoleon, Dom Augustine returned to France and took possession once more of his former monastery of La Trappe. But his trials were not ended. He was accused of imposing extraordinary hardships on his religious; he was reproached with his frequent voyages and long absences. The Bishop of Séez, in whose diocese is the monastery of La Trappe, deceived by unjust insinuations, took the part of the detractors, and claimed over the monastery the authority of "direct superior". Dom Augustine, to put an end to these disputes with his bishop, abandoned La Trappe, and sought refuge at Bellefontaine, in the Diocese of Angers. The complaints were carried to Rome and submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Dom Augustine was summoned to Rome. He returned justified, and loaded with favours by the pope. Posterity has given Dom Augustine de Lestrange the title of "Saviour of La Trappe". His remains repose in the monastery of La Trappe in the Diocese of Séez alongside those of Abbot de Rancé.

Règlements de La Trappe et Usages de la Val-Sainte (2 vols., Fribourg, 1794); Odyssée Monastigue, Dom Augustin de Lestrange et les Trappistes pendant la Révolution (La Grande-Trappe, 1898); VÉRITÉ, Cîteaux, La Trappe et Bellefontaine (Paris, 1883); GALLARDIN, Les Trappistes et l'Ordre de Cîteaux au XIX ^e siècle (2 vols., Paris, 1844); Vie du R. P. Dom Urbain Guillet (Chapelle-Montligeon, 1899).

F. M. GILDAS.

François Eustache Lesueur

François Eustache Lesueur, Jesuit missionary and philologist, of the Abnaki mission in Canada; born (according to notes given by Thwaites, apparently from official sources) near Coutances, Normandy, 22 July, 1685 or 1686, though Maurault gives his birthplace as Lunel, in Languedoc; died at Montreal, 28 or 26 April, 1760, or (according to Maurault) at Quebec, in 1755. Although the principal facts of his work and writings are well known, there is remarkable uncertainty as to dates, places, and even his proper name. This uncertainty is probably largely due to the burning of the St. Francis mission, with all its records, by the English in 1759. He entered the Jesuit novitiate in 1704 or 1705, arrived in Canada in 1715 or 1716, studied the language for some months at the Abnaki mission of Sillery, and then began work at St. Francis, the principal Abnaki mission, remaining there until 1727 or later. He was at Montreal in 1730 and during 1749-54. According to Maurault, he arrived in Canada in June, 1715, and after a short stay at Sillery was sent to Bécancour, another Abnaki mission, on the St. Lawrence, where, with the exception of occasional parochial service, he remained until 1753, when he retired to Quebec. The name is variously given as François Eustache (Maurault), Jacques François (Thwaites), and Jacques (Calumet Dance Manuscript). In connexion with his study of Indian things, he wrote, besides prayers, sermons, etc., in the Abnaki language, a valuable account of the celebrated Calumet Dance, which gave so much trouble to the early missionaries. The original French manuscript is preserved at St. Francis mission, Pierreville, Canada, and was published in the "Soirées Canadiennes" of 1864. Manuscript copies are in St. Mary's College, Montreal, and with the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison. According to Maurault, he compiled also a Dictionary of Abnaki, of 900 pages, still in existence, but we are not told where the manuscript is preserved.

THWAITES (ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, LXIX (Cleveland, 1900); MAURAULT, Histoire des Abenakis (Sorel, 1866); PILLING, Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages (Washington, 1891).

JAMES MOONEY.

Lete

A titular see of Macedonia, known by its coins and inscriptions, mentioned in Ptolemy (III, xiii), the younger Pliny (IV, x, 17), Harpocration, Stephanus Byzantius, and Suidas, and in the Middle Ages in Nicephorus Bryennius (IV, xix). The spelling "Lite" is incorrect and comes from iotacism. Lete appears in some "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of a late period as suffragan of Thessalonica, later united to the See of Rentina. Lete and Rentina even had Greek bishops until the eighteenth century. Lete is today the small village of Aïvati (1000 inhabitants) situated a little north of Salonica.

DUCHESNE in Revue archéologique (1875); IDEM, Archives des Missions scientifiques, 3rd series, III, 276, sq.; DEMITSAS, Archaia geographia tes Makedonias (Athens, 1870), 250-52; IDEM, He Makedonia, I (Athens, 1896), 566-74.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Charles-Maurice Le Tellier

Archbishop of Reims, b. at Turin, 1642; d. at Reims, 1710. The son of Michel Le Tellier and brother of Louvois (both ministers of Louis XIV), he studied for the Church, won the doctorate of theology at the Sorbonne, and was ordained priest in 1666. Provided, even before his ordination, with several royal abbeys, he rapidly rose to the coadjutorship of Langres, then to that of Reims, and became titular of that see at the age of twenty-nine. His administration was marked by zeal and success along the lines of popular education, training of clerics, parochial organization, restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, extirpation of Protestantism from the Sedan district, etc. The importance of his see together with the royal favour brought him to the front in the affairs of the Church in France. As secretary of the Petite Assemblée of 1681, he reported for the king and against the pope on all disputed points: the extension of the royal claim called régale, the forcible placing of a Cistercian abbess over the Augustinian nuns of Charonne, and the expulsion of the canonically elected vicars capitular of Pamiers. The famous Gallican Assembly of 1682 was convened at his suggestion. Elected president with Harlay, he caused the bishops to endorse the royal policy of encroachment upon church affairs, and even memorialized the pope with a view to make him accept the régale. His comparative moderation in the matter of the four Gallican propositions was due to Bossuet, who remarked that "the glory of the régale would only be obscured by those odious propositions." As president of the Assembly (1700) which undertook to deal with Jansenism and Laxism already judged by the pope, Le Tellier was unduly lenient with the Jansenists and severe with theologians of repute. The same holds true of the various controversies in which he took part: the "Version of Mons," the theory of philosophical sin, Molinism, etc. In spite of grave errors due less to lack of loyalty to the Holy See than to early education, royal fascination, and dislike for the Jesuits, Le Tellier is remembered as a successful administrator, an orator of some merit, a promoter of letters, a protector of Saint John Baptist de la Salle, Mabillon, Ruinart, etc., and a bosom friend of Bossuet, whom he consecrated, and visited on his deathbed, and whom he induced to write the "Oraison funèbre de Michel Le Tellier." His manuscripts, in sixty volumes, are at the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, and his library of 50,000 volumes at the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève.

Gillet, Charles-Maurice Le Tellier, with an exhaustive bibliography (Paris, 1881), p. xii and passim; Ste-Beuve, Port-Royal (ed. 1900), index.

J.F. SOLLIER

Michel Le Tellier

Born 16 October, 1643, of a peasant family, not at Vire as has so often been said, but at Vast near Cherbourg; died at La Flèche, 2 September, 1719. He was educated at the Jesuit College in Caen, and at 18 entered the order, and became professor, then rector of the College of Louis le Grand. He was one of the founders of the "Journal de Trévoux", and opposed Jansenism in three works: "Observations sur la nouvelle édition de la version françoise du Nouveau Testament" (1672); "Histoire des cinq Propositions de Jansenius" (1699); "Le père Quesnel séditieux et hérétique" (1705). In 1687 he took part in the discussion then going on about Chinese ceremonies, publishing a book entitled: "Défense des nouveaux chrétiens et des missionaires de la Chine, du Japon, et des Indes". The tone of this work was displeasing to Rome, but the General of the Jesuits defended it before the Congregation of the Holy Office. Greatly esteemed by the Jesuits, no matter what Saint-Simon may say about him, Le Tellier, after the death of Father Pétau, was entrusted with the task of finishing his work, "De theologicis dogmatibus". From August 1709 he belonged to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. Le Tellier was provincial of his order in Paris when Father La Chaise, the confessor of Louis XIV, died, 20 January, 1709. Godet des Marais, Bishop of Chartres, and La Chétardie, rector of Saint-Sulpice, had a determining part in Louis's choice of Le Tellier as his new confessor. Saint-Simon, giving credence to a story told by a surgeon, Maréchal, attributed this choice to the king's fear of displeasing the Jesuits. For two centuries the greater number of historians have followed Saint-Simon's estimate of Le Tellier and denounced that "dark, false, and dread-inspiring countenance, which would have struck terror if met in a lonely forest", that "coarse, insolent, impudent confessor, knowing neither the world nor moderation, neither rank nor considerations, making no allowance for anything, covering up his purposes by a thousand windings". Scientific history is revising this judgment. Saint-Simon makes Le Tellier responsible for the destruction of Port-Royal. Father Bliard points out that since 1695 Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, and Louis XIV had contemplated its destruction; that the seizure in 1703 of Quesnel's papers had drawn the king's attention to the political dangers of Jansenism; that as early as 25 March, 1708, Clement XI at the request of King Louis had united Port-Royal des Champs with Port-Royal de Paris and suppressed the title of the "Abbaye des Champs"; and that Cardinal de Noailles, who for a year past had interdicted the members of Port-Royal des Champs from receiving the sacraments, was preparing to use the power given him by the pope to send the nuns to other convents.

Saint-Simon claims that Le Tellier in advising episcopal nominations, relentlessly pursued all ecclesiastics suspected of Jansenism, recommending only "barefooted friars and men ready for anything". Such slurs indicate the attitude of the great nobleman against priests who lacked birth; but a letter from Fénelon to which Father Bliard draws attention proves that in reality it was Fénelon who, at the beginning of Le Tellier's influence, found him too lenient towards certain priests with Jansenist tendencies, and pointed out to him the danger he would incur by allowing the Jansenist faction to predominate in the episcopacy. Saint-Simon, following Maréchal's stories, accuses Le Tellier of having brought to Louis XIV an opinion of the doctors of the Sorbonne in order to prove that he could levy tithes upon his subjects with a clear conscience. Even admitting the accuracy of Maréchal's assertions, it must be borne in mind that the necessity of defending the kingdom was so urgent that Fénelon wrote on 4 August, 1710, "Money must be taken wherever it can be found", and Duclos in his "Mémoires secrets", declares that "the imposition of the tithes was perhaps the salvation of the State."

Le Tellier is accused by Saint-Simon of having in 1713 laboured jointly with Madame de Maintenon and Bissy, Bishop of Meaux, against Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, and used his influence with Clement XI, through the Jesuit Daubenton and Cardinal Fabroni, to obtain the condemnation of Quesnel. And again after the publication of the Bull "Unigenitus" he wished to have Cardinal de Noailles imprisoned, and he increased the number of "lettres de cachet", in order to fill the prisons with Jansenists. Father Bliard shows the capricious and exaggerated nature of these stories, and establishes from Jansenist sources that during the six years of Le Tellier's influence, only twenty-eight Jansenists were punished more or less severely. By the testimony of the Jansenist Roslet and Daubenton's report to Fénelon, he shows that the Bull "Unigenitus" was the outcome of three long years of doctrinal study, and that the alleged letters from Le Tellier to Chauvelin proving a plot for abducting Cardinal de Noailles were admitted to be apocryphal by Duclos, though he was hostile to the Jesuits. Finally, certain investigations made by Father Brucker lead to the conclusion, that a certain letter recommending the destruction of the Oratory is certainly not the work of Le Tellier, who has been frequently blamed for it, and that such an accusation may have originated in an intrigue of Abbé de Margon against the Jesuits. Louis XIV in a codicil to his will had selected Le Tellier as the confessor of the little Louis XV, then seven years of age; but a few days after the king's death the regent, under the influence of Saint-Simon and the Jansenists, informed the provincial of the Jesuits that Le Tellier must leave Paris. He was sent by his superiors to Amiens, and then to La Flèche, where he died. The menology of the Society of Jesus under the date of 2 September, repeats the following remarks addressed by Louis XIV to the Duc d'Harcourt about Le Tellier: "Do you see that man? His greatest happiness would be to shed his blood for the Church, and I do not believe there is a single soul in my entire kingdom who is more fearless and more saintly."

SAINT-SIMON, Mémoires; DUCLOS, Mémoires secrets sur le règne de Louis XIV (Paris, 1791); D'ORSANNE, Journal (Rome, 1753, 6 vols.); BLIARD, Les mémoires de Saint-Simon et le père Le Tellier (Paris, 1891); BRUCKER, Un "Document assassin" faussement attribué au père Le Tellier in Etudes, LXXXVIII (Paris, 1901); BROU, Les Jésuites de la légende (Paris, 1907).

GEORGES GOYAU.

Nicolas Letourneux

A well-known French preacher and ascetical writer of Jansenistic tendencies, born at Rouen, 30 April, 1640; died at Paris, 28 November, 1686. His parents were poor, but the conspicuous talents and the gift of eloquence he displayed even at an early age attracted the attention of some wealthy benefactors, whose assistance enabled him to study the humanities at the Jesuit College in Paris, and later philosophy at the Collège des Grassins. To Dr. Hersant, his teacher at the latter institution, may be traced the Jansenistic views which mar his writings. Ordained priest at Rouen in 1662, he served for some years as curate there. About 1670 he removed to Paris, became closely associated with the Port-Royalists, and began to cultivate Jansenistic asceticism. He exchanged his soutane for a coarse grey robe and abstained from celebrating Mass, to expiate in this manner what he esteemed his guilt in having accepted ordination at so early an age (22). His intercourse with Lemaître restored him to more normal views; returning to pastoral duties, he acted as chaplain at the Collège des Grassins. His sermons at various Paris churches quickly placed him in the front rank of the preachers of his day, and in 1675 his work on the text "Martha, Martha, thou art careful" (Luke, x, 41) won the Balzac prize for eloquence awarded by the French Academy. In such esteem was he held by his spiritual superiors that Archbishop de Harlay appointed him, in 1679, temporary confessor of the nuns of Port-Royal, and also a member of the archiepiscopal commission for the emendation of the Breviary. His relations with the leading Jansenists, however, soon awakened distrust, and he found it necessary to retire, in 1682, to the Priory of Villiers-sur-Fère, a benefice granted him by his patron, Cardinal Colbert of Rouen.

In this retirement he devoted the remainder of his life to his ascetical compositions. His principal writings are: "Histoire de la vie de Jesus-Christ" (about 1673); "Le catéchisme de la pénitence" (1676); "L'Année chrétienne, ou les Messes des Dimanches, Féries et Fêtes de toute l'année, en latin et en français, avec l'explication des Epîtres et des Evangiles et un abrégé de la Vie des Saints, dont on fait l'Office". Of this last work Letourneux wrote nine volumes, and two were added by the Belgian Jansenist, Ruth d'Ans. Six volumes were published before 1686, when they were condemned for their Jansenistic views. The work was placed on the Index on 7 Sept., 1695. Among the other works of Letourneux may be mentioned: "Principes et règles de la vie chrétienne" (Paris, 1688); "Explication littéraire et morale de l'épître de S. Paul aux Romains" (Paris, 1695); "Bréviaire Romain en latin et français" (4 vols., Paris, 1687), condemned by the archiepiscopal authorities because it was an innovation contrary to the spirit and practice of the Church, and because it contained much that was heretical and much that was conducive to heresy and error. Although the episcopal ban was subsequently removed, and the work was never placed on the Roman Index, the Jansenistic leanings of Letourneux stand conspicuous to-day in this as in the remainder of his writings.

Dict. des livres Jansénist., I, 63; II, 305; III, 307; STEBEUVE, Port-Royal, V. vi, 2; CHAUDON ET DELANDINE, Dict. univ. Hist., Crit. et Bibliogr.; MORÉRI, Grand Dict. Histor.; JUNGMANN in Kirchenlex., s. v.

THOMAS KENNEDY.

Ecclesiastical Letters

(LITTERÆ ECCLESIASTICÆ)

Ecclesiastical letters are publications or announcements of the organs of ecclesiastical authority, e.g. the synods, more particularly, however, of popes and bishops, addressed to the faithful in the form of letters.

I. Letters of the Popes in the Period of the Early Church

The popes began early, by virtue of the primacy, to issue laws as well for the entire Church as for individuals. This was done in the form of letters. Such letters were sent by the popes either of their own will or when application was made to them by synods, bishops, or individual Christians. Apart from the Epistles of the Apostle Peter the first example of this is the Letter of Pope Clement I (90-99?) to the Corinthians, in whose community there was grave dissension. Only a few papal letters of the first three Christian centuries have been preserved in whole or part, or are known from the works of ecclesiastical writers. As soon, however, as the Church was recognized by the State and could freely spread in all directions, the papal primacy of necessity began to develop, and from this time on the number of papal letters increased. No part of the Church and no question of faith or morals failed to attract the papal attention. The popes called these letters; with reference to their legal character, decreta: statuta: decretalia constituta, even when the letters, as was often the case, were hortatory in form. Thus Siricius, in his letter of the year 385 to Himerius of Tarragona [Jaffé, "Regesta Pontificum Romanorum" (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885-88), I, no. 255]. Or the letters were called sententiœ, i. e. opinions (Syn. Tur., II, an. 567, c. ii); prœcepta (Syn. Bracar., I, an. 561, præf.); auctoritates [Zosimus, an. 417; Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, no. 349]. On the other hand more general letters, especially those of dogmatic importance, were also called at times tomi; indiculi; commonitoria; epistolœ tractoriœ, or tractatoriœ. If the matter were important, the popes issued the letters not by their sole authority, but with the advice of the Roman presbytery or of a synod. Consequently such letters were also called epistolœ synodicœ (Syn. Tolet., III, an. 589, c. i). By epistola synodica, however, is also understood in Christian antiquity that letter of the newly elected bishop or pope by which he notified the other bishops of his elevation and of his agreement with them in the Faith. Thus an epistola of this kind had a certain relationship to the litterœ formatœ by which a bishop certified, for presentation to another bishop, to the orthodoxy and unblemished moral character of an ecclesiastic of his diocese. Closely related to the litterœ formatœ are the litterœ dimissoriœ (dimissorials) by which a bishop sends a candidate for ordination to another bishop to be ordained. While these names indicate sufficiently the legal character of the papal letters, it is to be noted that the popes repeatedly demanded in explicit terms the observance of their decrees; thus Siricius, in his letter of the year 385 to Himerius (Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, no. 255), and Innocent I in his letter of the year 416 addressed to Decentius of Gubbio (Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, no. 311). In the same manner they repeatedly required from the persons to whom they wrote that these should bring the letter in question to the notice of others. Thus again Siricius, in his letter to Himerius (Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, no. 255); and Pope Zosimus, in the year 418 to Hesychius of Sabona (Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, no. 339). In order to secure such knowledge of the papal laws several copies of the papal letters were occasionally made and dispatched at the same time. In this way arose the letters a pari: a paribus uniformes, ta isa (Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, nos. 331, 334, 373). Following the example of the Roman emperors the popes soon established archives (scrinium) in which copies of their letters were placed as memorials for further use, and as proofs of authenticity. The first mention of papal archives is found in the Acts of a synod held about 370 under Pope Damasus I (Coustant, "Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum", Paris, 1721, 500). Pope Zosimus also makes mention in 419 of the archives (Jaffé, "Regesta", 2nd ed., I, no. 350). Nevertheless, forged papal letters appeared even earlier than this. By far the greater number of the papal letters of the first millennium, however, have been lost. Only the letters of Leo I, edited by the brothers Bablerini, the "Registrum Epistolarum" of Gregory I, edited by Ewald and Hartmann, and the "Registrum Epistolarum" of Gregory VII, edited by Jaffé, have been more or less completely preserved. As befitted their legal importance, the papal letters were also soon incorporated in the collections of canon law (Maassen, "Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des kanonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters", Graz, 1870, 231 sqq.). The first to collect the epistles of the popes in a systematic and comprehensive manner was the monk Dionysius Exiguus, at the beginning of the sixth century (Maassen, "Geschichte der Quellen", 422 sqq.). In this way the papal letters took rank with the canons of the synods as of equal value and of equal obligation. The example of Dionysius was followed afterwards by almost all compilers of the canons, Pseudo-Isidore and the Gregorian canonists, e.g. Anselm of Lucca, Deusdedit, etc.

II. Letters of the Popes in the Medieval Period

With the development of the primacy in the Middle Ages the papal letters grew enormously in number. The popes, following the earlier custom, insisted that their rescripts, issued for individual cases, should be observed in all analogous ones. According to the teaching of the canonists, above all of Gratian, every papal letter of general character was authoritative for the entire Church without further notification. The names of the letters of general authority were very varied: constitutio (c. vi, X, De elect., I, vi); edictum (c. unic., in VIto, De postul., I, v); statutum (c. xv, X, De sent. excomm., V, xxxix); decretum (c. i, in VIto, De præb., III, iv); decretalis (c. xxix, in VIto, De elect., I, vi); sanctio (c. unic., in VIto, De cler. ægrot., III, v). Decrees (decreta) was the name given especially to general ordinances issued with the advice of the cardinals (Schulte, "Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des kanonischen Rechtes", Stuttgart, 1876, I, 252 sq.). On the other hand ordinances issued for individual cases were called: rescripta, responsa, mandata. Thus a constitution was always understood to be a papal ordinance which regulated ecclesiastical conditions of a general character judicially, in a durable manner and form, for all time; but by a rescript was understood a papal ordinance issued at the petition of an individual that decided a lawsuit or granted a favour. Compare the Bulls of promulgation prefixed to the "Decretals" of Gregory IX, the "Liber Sextus" of Boniface VIII, and the "Clementinæ"; also the titles, "De constitutionibus" and "De rescriptis" in the "Corpus Juris Canonici". Notwithstanding all this, usage remained uncertain (c. xiv, in VIto, De præb., III, iv). The above-mentioned distinctions between papal documents were based on the extent of their authority. Other names again had their origin in the form of the papal documents. It is true they all had more or less evidently the form of letters. But essential differences appeared, especially in regard to the literary form (stylus) of the document and the method of sealing, these depending in each case on the importance of the contents of the respective document. It was merely the difference in the manner of sealing that led to the distinction between Bulls and Briefs. For Bulls, legal instruments almost entirely for important matters, the seal was stamped in wax or lead, seldom in gold, enclosed in a case, and fastened to the document by a cord. For Briefs, instruments used, as a rule, in matters of less importance, the seal was stamped upon the document in wax. Curial letters (litterœ curiales or de curia) denoted particularly letters of the popes in political affairs. During the Middle Ages, just as in the early Church, the letters of the popes were deposited in the papal archives either in the original or by copy. They are still in existence, and almost complete in number, from the time of Innocent III (1198-1216). Many papal letters were also incorporated, as their legal nature required, in the "Corpus Juris Canonici". Others are to be found in the formularies, many of which appeared unofficially in the Middle Ages, similar in kind to the ancient official "Liber Diurnus" of the papal chancery in use as late as the time of Gregory VII. The papal letters were forwarded by the papal officials, above all by the chancery, for whose use the chancery rules, regulœ cancellariœ Apostolicœ, were drawn up; these rules had regard to the execution and dispatch of the papal letters, and date back to the twelfth century. Nevertheless, the forging of papal letters was even more frequent in the Middle Ages than in the early Church. Innocent III (in c. v, X, De crimine falsi, V, xx) refers to no less than nine methods of falsification. From the thirteenth century on to a few years ago it sufficed, in order to give a papal document legal force, to post it up at Rome on the doors of St. Peter's, of the Lateran, the Apostolic Chancery, and in the Piazza del Campo di Fiori. Since 1 January, 1909, they acquire force by publication in the "Acta Apostolicæ Sedis".

III. Letters of the Popes in Modern Times

In the modern period also, papal letters have been and still are constantly issued. Now, however, they proceed from the popes themselves less frequently than in the Middle Ages and Christian antiquity; most of them are issued by the papal officials, of whom there is a greater number than in the Middle Ages, and to whom have been granted large delegated powers, which include the issuing of letters. Following the example of Paul III, Pius IV, and Pius V, Sixtus V by the Bull "Immensa æterni" of 22 January, 1587, added to the already existing bodies of papal officials a number of congregations of cardinals with clearly defined powers of administration and jurisdiction. Succeeding popes added other congregations. Pius X, however, in the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of 29 June, 1908, reorganized the papal Curia. Papal writings are yet divided into Constitutions, Rescripts, Bulls, Briefs, and Apostolic Letters (Litterœ Apostolicœ). The Litterœ Apostolicœ are further divided into Litterœ Apostolicœ simplices or Brevetti, Chirographa, Encyclicœ (Encyclicals), and Motus Proprii. By Litterœ Apostolicœ simplices are understood all documents drawn up by virtue of papal authorization, and signed with the pope's name but not by the pope personally. Documents signed by the pope personally are called Chirographa. Encyclicals are letters of a more hortatory nature, addressed to all or to a majority of the higher officials of the Church. A Motu Proprio is a document prepared at the personal initiative of the pope, without previous petition to him, and issued with a partial avoidance of the otherwise customary forms of the chancery. By Constitution is understood, as in the Middle Ages, a papal document of general authority; by Rescript, a similar document applicable to an individual case. Bulls and Briefs are distinguished from each other by characteristics of form which have always remained essentially the same. The papal documents are still deposited in the Roman archives. There are no official collections of them corresponding to the medieval "Corpus Juris Canonici". The last official collection is that of the Constitutions of Benedict XIV (1740-1758). From the sixteenth century, on the other hand, private collections have appeared, some of which are called bullaria, from the more important part of their contents. Many papal betters are also found in the collections of the Acts of the Councils. The documents issued by the officials of the Curia and the Congregations of Cardinals contain either resolutions (decisions) for individual cases, or declarations (extensivœ or comprehensivœ) interpreting laws, or decrees, which are entirely new laws. Some congregations of cardinals have issued official collections of their decisions.

IV. Collections of the Letters of the Popes and of the Roman Officials

Coustant, "Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum et quæ ad eos scriptæ sunt a S. Clemente I usque ad Innocentium III" (Paris, 1721), goes to only 440; Schönemann, "Pontificum Romanorum a Clemente I usque ad Leonem M. genuinæ . . . epistolæ" (Göttingen, 1796); Thiel, "Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum genuinæ . . . a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II" (Brunsberg, 1868). From 1881 the Ecole Française of Rome has published, with particular reference to France, the "Registra" of Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Urban IV, Clement IV, Gregory X, John XXI, Nicholas III, Martin IV, Honorius IV, Nicholas IV, Boniface VIII, and Benedict XI. The "Registra" of the Avignon popes are also in course of publication. Cf. "Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire", XXV, 443 sqq.; Hergenröther, "Leonis X Pontificis Maximi Regesta" (Freiburg, 1884-); "Regesta Clementis Papæ V cura et studio monachorum ordinis S. Benedicti" (Rome, 1885-); Pressuti, "Registrum Honorii III" (Rome, 1888-). There are innumerable collections of papal letters issued from a partisan point of view. All known papal letters up to 1198 are enumerated by Jaffé in the "Regesta Rom. Pont." The papal letters of 1198-1304 are found in Potthast, "Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab anno 1198 ad annum 1304" (Berlin, 1874). Professor Paul Kehr is preparing a critical edition of all papal letters up to Innocent III. See the "Nachrichten", of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences, 1896, 72 sqq.; "Pii IX acta" (Rome, 1854-); "Leonis XIII acta" (Rome, 1881); "Pii X acta" (Rome, 1907). For the Bullaria, see Tomasetti, "Bullarum, diplomatum et privilegiorum s. Romanorum Pontificum Taurinensis editio locupletissima" (Turin, 1857-); for collections of the Acts of the Councils, Mansi, "Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio" (Florence and Venice, 1759), goes to 1439. It is continued by "Collectio conciliorum recentioris ecclesiæ universæ", ed. Martin and Petit (Paris, 1905); "Decreta authentica S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum edita jussu et auctoritate Leonis XIII" (Ratisbon, 1883); "Jus Pontificium de Propaganda Fide Leonis XIII jussu recognitum" (Rome, 1888); "Decreta authentica Congregationis S. Rituum . . . promulgata sub auspiciis Leonis XIII" (Rome, 1898).

V. Letters of Bishops

Just as the popes rule the Church largely by means of letters, so also the bishops make use of letters for the administration of their dioceses. The documents issued by a bishop are divided according to their form into pastoral letters, synodal and diocesan statutes, mandates, or ordinances, or decrees, the classification depending upon whether they have been drawn up more as letters, or have been issued by a synod or the chancery. The pastoral letters are addressed either to all the members of the diocese (litterœ pastorales) or only to the clergy, in this case generally in Latin (litterœ encyclicœ). The mandates, decrees, or ordinances are issued either by the bishop himself or by one of his officials. The synodal statutes are ordinances issued by the bishop at the diocesan synod, with the advice, but in no way with the legislative co-operation, of the diocesan clergy. The diocesan statutes, regularly speaking, are those episcopal ordinances which, because they refer to more weighty matters, are prepared with the obligatory or facultative co-operation of the cathedral chapter. In order to have legal force the episcopal documents must be published in a suitable manner and according to usage. Civil laws by which episcopal and also papal documents have to receive the approval of the State before they can be published are irrational and out of date (Vatican Council, Sess. III, De eccl., c. iii). (See EXEQUATUR.)

For the extensive literature on papal letters see works on papal diplomatics; GRISAR in Kirchenlex., s.v. Bullen und Breven (to 1884); PITRA, Analecta novissima Spicilegii Solesmensis. Aitera continuatio. Tom. I: De epistolis et registris Romanorum Pontificum (Paris, 1885); BRESSLAU, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre für Deutschland and Italien (Leipzig, 1889), 65 sqq.; GIRY, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1894), 661 sQq.; SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG, Die Lehre von den Papsturkunden in Meister, Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1906-), I, pt. I, 172 sqq.; cf. also, PFLUGK-HARTTUNG, Die Bullen der Päpste bis zum Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts (Gotha, 1901); STEINACKER, Mittelungen des Instituts für osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, XXIII, 1 sqq.; KEHR, Ergänzungsband d. Mitteilungen, VI, 70 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, I (2nd ed., Rome, 1905-), 159 sqq., 311 sqq., 350 sqq., 379 sqq.; LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), no. 11 sqq., 23 sqq., 28 sqq.; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1909), 85 sqq., 129 sqq., 153 sqq., 164 sqq.

JOHANNES BAPTIST SAGMÜLLER.

Leubus

A celebrated ancient Cistercian abbey, situated on the Oder, northwest of Breslau, in the Prussian Province of Silesia. The year of foundation is not quite certain, the deed of foundation of 1175, formerly considered genuine, having been proved a forgery, but the statement of the old Cistercian chronicles and Polish annalists, that Leubus was founded 16 August, 1163, by Duke Boleslaus the Tall, is the most probable one. Formerly the Benedictines were there. The Cistercians of Leubus have done a great deal for the cultivation and Germanization of Silesia, which was formerly wilderness, primeval forest, morass and moorland, although their activity has been overrated. The mother-house of Leubus was Pforta. From Leubus itself there sprang the houses of Mogila and Klara Tumba at Cracow, Heinrichau at Münsterberg, and Kamenz at Glatz. Leubus had extensive possessions. In the Hussite wars the monastery with all the buildings was burned to the ground (1432). When it had recovered from these misfortunes, it was severely oppressed by the Dukes of Sagan and Münsterberg, and was in their possession for seven years (1492-98), the inmates of the convent having fled. The abbot Andreas Hoffmann (1498-1534) infused new life into the monastery. During the Thirty Years' War it was occupied by the Swedes in 1632 and pillaged. All the treasures of the church fell into their hands. A few years later they returned once more and carried off the valuable library, which had taken centuries to collect, to Stettin, where it was afterwards destroyed by lightning. As long as the war lasted, Leubus was practically a ruin, but after the peace Abbot Arnold (1636-72) restored it in a comparatively short time and embellished the church and buildings. He called in the skilful painter Michael Willmann, who was employed forty years at Leubus (until his death 1706). Under Arnold and Johann IX (1672-91) theological and philosophical studies also flourished. The monastery reached its zenith under Ludwig Bauch (1696-1729), under whose rule the enormous and imposing building was erected, which is considered the largest building in Germany and one of the largest in Europe. The principal facade is 225 metres bong, the wings are 118 metres long. Under Constantine (1733-47) the interior was decorated, the hall of princes and the library being adorned with extravagant magnificence. In the first Silesian War, and in the Seven Years' War (1740-42 and 1756-63), Leubus was terribly impoverished by the Prussians and Austrians, so that it had a debt of 200,000 Reichsthaler. On 21 Nov., 1810, it was suppressed by the Prussian Government and confiscated with its 59 villages and 10 domains. Part of the buildings are now used as a lunatic asylum, in connexion with which the large and beautiful church is utilized for Catholic worship.

BUSCHING, Die Urkunden des Klosters Leubus (Breslau, 1821); WATTENBACH, Monumenta Lubensia (Breslau, 1861); THOMA, Die Kolonisatorische Tätigkeit des Klosters Leubus (Leipzig, 1894); SCHULTE, Die Anfänge der deutschen Kolonisation in Schlesien in Silesiaca (Breslau, 1898;) WINTERA, Leubus in Studien and Mitteilungen aus dem Benedictiner- und Zisterzienserorden (1904), XXV, 502-514; 676-697; WELS, Kloster Leubus in Schlesien (Breslau, 1908).

KLEMENS LÖFFLER.

Leuce

A titular see of Thrace, not mentioned by any ancient historian or geographer. However, its bishop, Symeon, attended the Council of Constantinople (Lequien, Oriens Christ., I, 1167). The "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of the tenth to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries mention Leuce among the suffragans of Philippopolis. It is probably the modern village of Copolovo, south of Philippopolis, or Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Michael Levadoux

One of the first band of Sulpicians who, owing to the distressed state of religion in France, went to the United States and founded St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore; born at Clermont-Ferrand, in Auvergne, France, 1 April, 1746; died at Le-Puy-en-Velay, 13 Jan., 1815. He entered the Sulpician Seminary at Clermont, 30 Oct., 1769, where he studied theology, then went to the "Solitude", or Sulpician novitiate, for one year. He was appointed, in 1774, director of the seminary at Limoges, where he remained till 1791. In consequence of the threatening aspect of affairs in France, Rev. J. A. Emery, Superior-General of the Sulpicians, deemed it prudent to found a house of their institute in some foreign country, and at the suggestion of Cardinal Dugnani, nuncio at Paris, the United States was chosen. Negotiations were opened with Bishop Carroll, but lately consecrated, and after some delay Rev. Francis C. Nagot, S.S., was named first director of the projected seminary at Baltimore. With him were associated MM. Levadoux, Tessier, Gamier, and Montdésir, together with several seminarians. Rev. M. Delavau, Canon of St. Martin of Tours, and Chateaubriand joined the party, which sailed from St. Malo, 8 April, 1791, and after a tempestuous and roundabout voyage reached Baltimore 10 July. For one year M. Levadoux, as treasurer, assisted M. Nagot in organizing the Seminary of St. Mary's, and was then sent by the latter to the Illinois mission, for which M. Emery had at first destined M. Chicosneau, deeming M. Levadoux a better administrator of temporal affairs. Empowered as vicar-general by Bishop Carroll, he took his departure for the West on 15 Jan., 1792.

His missionary labours centred around Cahokia and Kaskaskia. The registers of the latter place bear his signature from Dec., 1792, and he seems to have spent most of his time from 1793 to 1796 at Cahokia, though after M. Flaget left Vincennes in 1795 he visited that post also. Meanwhile as the health of M. Nagot, superior of the Sulpicians in the United States, was failing fast, he was desirous of having M. Levadoux near him at Baltimore, that he might be ready to succeed him in office; but Bishop Carroll was no less anxious to secure the services of the zealous missionary for Detroit. The bishop's wishes prevailed, and M. Levadoux became parish priest of St. Anne's in 1796. It was he who performed the obsequies of Rev. F. X. Dufaux, S.S., missionary to the Hurons at the parish of the Assumption opposite Detroit, who died at his post 10 September, 1796. After the demise of the latter, M. Levadoux had frequent occasion to minister to the spiritual wants of the Indians and of other scattered Catholics from Sandusky and Mackinaw to Fort Wayne. In 1801 M. Nagot recalled M. Levadoux to Baltimore, and in 1803 he received orders from M. Emery to return to France, where he was soon appointed superior of the Seminary of St. Flour in Auvergne, and remained there until the dispersion of the Sulpicians by Napoleon I, in 1811. When their institute was revived, in 1814, the Rev. M. Duclaux, successor of M. Emery, placed M. Levadoux at the head of the Seminary of Le-Puy-en-Velay. For years he had been suffering from the stone, which disease was the cause of his death in the following year. He bore the intense pains of his last illness with exemplary fortitude and resignation.

SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in the U. S., II, 379, 407, 483, 485, 489-490, 606; PHÉPIN DE RIVIÈRE, Vie de M. Richard, S.S., Manuscript in St. Mary's Seminary Archives, Baltimore, 369, note; DILHET, Etat de l'église Catholique ou du diocèse des Etats Unis; Manuscript registers of the Immaculate Conception Church, Kaskaskia, and of Mackinaw.

A. E. JONES.

Louis Levau

(LE VAU)

A contemporary of Jacques Lemercier and the two Mansarts, and the chief architect of the first decade of Louis XIV's independent reign, born 1612; died at Paris, 10 Oct., 1670. Although posterity has refused to consider him a genius, he developed a distinctive style which aimed at classic simplicity of construction and elegance in decoration. It is true, however, that he more often depended on Mansart's or Lenôtre's plans. Of his life, we have few particulars except as regards his works. He had two sons who shared his labours; of these Louis died in 1661, and of Francis we know nothing except that in 1656, in the capacity of royal architect, he received a salary of 600 livres. In 1653 the father became first royal inspector of buildings, and in 1656 received a salary of 3000 livres. In his death certificate, he is called "king's councillor, general inspector, and director of the royal building enterprises, His Majesty's secretary, and the pride of France." Levau won renown by the erection of many handsome buildings in Paris and elsewhere. The oldest are the Hôtel Lambert and the château of Vaux-le-Vicomte. After 1654 he completed the south and north wings of the Louvre as successor to Lescot and Lemercier, and then built the east wing, thereby concluding the square up to the colonnade on the east side. His design for the latter was rejected as being not sufficiently ornate, and that of Claude Perrault substituted. In this work Levau had a faithful assistant in his son-in-law, Dorbay. He next directed some changes in the Tuileries. Another considerable achievement was the Collège des Quatres Nations (now Palais de l'Institut), especially the old church. The latter consisted of a domical structure: a cupola carried out without massive effect over a cylinder which was not perfectly round, and four surrounding spaces, in one of which was the monument of the founder, Mazarin. During the entire course of the next century, Levau's influence was felt in palace-building on account of his work on the extension of Versailles. Begun in 1624 by Lemercier (q. v.), it was finished by Hardouin-Mansart and later architects. But the first rough sketch and the substantial form are due to Levau. Versailles became a standard, not only because of the imposing splendour of the interior and the exterior simplicity, but above all through the fact that the court, instead of being enclosed, lay in front of the façade. Levau extended the so-called marble court of the old palace by the addition of side wings, and, by pushing these back laterally, he gave to the court a greater breadth. He proceeded in the same way with the widely extended wings, which were also pushed back sideways and enclose the present so-called King's Court. Louis XIV caused the long side wings to be extended still further, thereby giving an immense width to the front. Levau seems to be responsible for the monotonous garden façade, while the chapel, among other things, constitutes Mansart's claim to renown. The epoch-making church of St-Sulpice, a counterpart of St-Eustache, was begun on Gamard's design in 1646, but it was really carried on by Levau in his own style until 1660, when Gittard took his place. The church is planned on a large scale, but the effect does not correspond to the vast design.

LANCE, Dict. des architectes (Paris, 1873); GURLITT, Gesch. des Barockstils (Stuttgart, 1887); GEYMÜLLER in Handbuch der Architektur von Durm, etc., II (Stuttgart, 1898), vi, 1. For further particulars consult Archives de l'art français and Nouvelles archives de l'art français.

G. GIETMANN.

Urbain-Jean-Joseph Le Verrier

An astronomer and director of the observatory at Paris, born at Saint Lô, the ancient Briodurum later called Saint-Laudifanum, in north-western France, 11 May, 1811; died at Paris, 25 September, 1877. From 1831 the talented youth studied at the Ecole Polytechnique with such success that at the end of his course he was appointed an instructor there. While connected with the school he showed a strong predilection for mathematical studies, above all for such problems as Laplace had so skilfully treated in the "Mécanique céleste". Le Verrier soon received an appointment in the government administration of tobaccos; later he became a professor at the Collège Stanislas at Paris, and finally, in 1646, he was appointed professor of celestial mechanics in the faculty of sciences at the University of Paris. As early as 1839 he published a calculation of the variations of the planetary orbits for the period of time from the year 100,000 b.c. to the year 100,000 a.d., in which he proved by figures the stability of the solar system, which Laplace had only indicated. His calculation of the transit of Mercury of 1845 and of the orbit of Faye's comet demonstrated his ability in that province in which he was soon to gain an almost undreamed-of triumph from the discovery, by means of theoretical calculations, of the planet Neptune. The variations observed in Uranus, up to then the most distant planet known, led him to look for the cause of the disturbance outside of its orbit. His calculations enabled him to specify the very spot in the heavens where the body causing the perturbations in question was to be sought, so that the astronomer Galle of Berlin was able by the aid of his specifications to find the new planet at once upon looking for it, 23 September, 1846. In this way Le Verrier gave the most striking confirmation of the theory of gravitation propounded by Newton. He now became a member of the Academy of Sciences, in 1852 was made a senator, and after Arago's death (1853) was appointed director of the Paris Observatory, a position he held with a short interruption (1870-73) until his death. Under his skilful and prudent administration the observatory made important progress both as to equipment in instruments and, more particularly, as regards preeminent scientific achievements of which Le Verrier was the inspiration. He was the founder of the International Meteorological Institute and of the Association Scientifique de France, being the permanent president of the latter. He also gave careful attention to the geodetic work which was intended to give the most complete presentation possible of the configuration of the earth. The instruments of precision with which, in order to attain this end, he equipped the observers were remarkably complete.

His most important work, however, was the construction of tables representing the movements of the sun, moon, and planets: "Tables du Soleil" (1858); "Tables de Mercure" (1859); "Tables de Vénus" (1861); "Tables de Mars" (1861); "Tables de Jupiter" (1876); "Tables de Saturne" (1876); "Théorie d'Uranus" (1876); "Théorie de Neptune" (1876); "Tables d'Uranus" (1877). All these publications were preceded by theoretical investigations: "Théorie du mouvement apparent du Soleil" (1858); "Théorie de Mercure" (1859); "Théorie de Vénus" (1861); "Théorie de Mars" (1861), etc. Considerations similar to those which led to the discovery of the planet Neptune caused Le Verrier to infer the existence of a planet between Mercury and the sun. But far greater difficulties both were and are here connected with actual discovery than was the case with Neptune. However, Le Verrier on this occasion also showed his masterly skill in handling the various problems of the reciprocal perturbations of the planets and other heavenly bodies, as is shown in his writings on the subject: "Formules propres à simplifier le calcul des perturbations" (1876); "Variations séculaires des orbites" (1876), etc.

With all his erudition Le Verrier was a zealous adherent and true son of the Catholic Church; even as deputy of the Assembly he openly acknowledged and defended his Catholic faith before all the world. He was also a ready speaker, one in no way discomposed by the attacks of opponents, for he knew how by profound and logical statements to convince his hearers quickly. When dying he said in the words of the aged Simeon: "Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine, in pace". Those who spoke at the funeral of this remarkable man could truthfully assert that the study of the star-worlds stimulated in him the living belief of the Christian to new fervour. Even in the sessions of the Academy he made no concealment of his faith nor of his childlike dependence on the Catholic Church. When, on 5 June, 1876, he presented to the Academy his completed tables for Jupiter, the result of thirty-five years of toil, he emphasized particularly the fact that only the thought of the great Creator of the universe had kept him from flagging, and had maintained his enthusiasm for his task. He also on this occasion spoke strongly, like his colleague Dumas, against the materialistic and sceptical tendencies of so many scholars. To Le Verrier is due the organization of the meteorological service for France, especially the weather warnings for seaports, by which to-day the weather for the following twenty-four hours can be announced with much probability, a matter of especial importance for agriculture and shipping. The "Annales de l'Observatoire de Paris", published during the administration of Le Verrier, consist of thirteen volumes of theoretical treatises and forty-seven volumes of observations (1800-1876). At the time of his death he was making plans for equipping the observatory with a large new telescope, and it may be that the stimulating influence exerted in this direction contributed not a little to the result that everywhere, particularly in North America, generous-minded patrons appeared who, each in his own land, gave the money necessary to obtain larger instruments. On 27 June, 1889, a statue of the distinguished savant which cost nearly 32,000 francs ($6400), was erected by subscription in front of the observatory where he had laboured for so many years.

FIGUIER, L'année scientifique et industrielle, XXI (Paris, 1877); DENZA, Commemorazione di alcuni uomini illustri nella scienza (Turin, 1877); HEUZEAU, Vade-mecum de l'astronomie (Brussels, 1882); Annuaire (for 1890) published by the Bureau des Longitudes; KNELLER, Das Christentum und die Vertreter der Naturwissenschaft (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1904).

ADOLPH MÜLLER.

Levites

(From Levi, name of the ancestral patriarch, generally interpreted "joined" or "attached to"--see Gen., xxix, 34, also Num., xviii, 2, 4, Hebrew text).

The subordinate ministers appointed in the Mosaic Law for the service of the Tabernacle and of the Temple.

Levi was the third son borne to Jacob by Lia, and full brother of Ruben, Simeon, and Juda. Together with Simeon he avenged the humiliation of their sister Dina by the slaughter of Sichem and his people (Gen., xxxiv), for which deed of violence the two brothers were reproved both in Gen., xxxiv, 30, and in the prophecy attributed to the patriarch in Gen., xlix, 5-7.

Waiving all critical discussion connected with this incident as also with the other events connected with the history of the tribe, the next point to be noticed is the connexion of Levi with the priesthood. According to the received Biblical account, all the male descendants of the patriarch were set apart by Moses, acting under Divine command, for the service of the sanctuary, a distinction which may have been due to the religious zeal manifested by the tribe on the occasion of the idolatrous worship of the golden calf (Ex., xxxii, 25-29). As it was also the tribe to which Moses himself belonged, it could probably be relied upon more than the others to sustain the legislator in the establishment and promotion of his religious institutions among the people. The sacred calling of the Levites is mentioned in various passages of the Pentateuch. For instance, the author of the first chapters of Numbers (P), after recalling (iii; cf. Ex., xxviii, xxix; Lev., viii, ix) the names and sacred functions of the sons of Aaron, adds the designation of the entire tribe of Levi who were to "stand in the sight of Aaron the priest to minister to him. And let them watch, and observe whatsoever appertaineth to the service of the multitude before the tabernacle of the testimony, and let them keep the vessels of the tabernacle, serving in the ministry thereof." Though in Num., xviii, 23, the special mission of the tribe is described broadly as a mediation between the Lord and his people, and though the Levite mentioned in the interesting and very ancient passage of Judges (xvii, xviii) is represented as exercising without qualification the functions of the priesthood, it is held by many commentators that at an early date a distinction was made between the priests of the family of Aaron and the simple Levites--a distinction which became very pronounced in the later religious history of the Chosen People. The ceremonies with which the simple Levites were consecrated to the service of the Lord are described in Num., viii, 5-22. Besides their general function of assisting the priests, the Levites were assigned to carry the Tabernacle and its utensils, to keep watch about the sanctuary, etc. As most of their duties required a man's full strength, the Levites did not enter upon their functions before the age of thirty.

In the distribution of the Land of Chanaan after the conquest, Josue, acting according to instructions received from Moses, excluded the tribe of Levi from sharing like the others in the territory. "But to the tribe of Levi he gave no possession: because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their possession" (Jos., xiii, 33.) It way be noted that a very different reason for this exception is mentioned in Gen., xlix, 5-7. In lieu of a specified territory, the members of the tribe of Levi received permission to dwell scattered among the other tribes, special provision being made for their maintenance. Besides the tithes of the produce of land and cattle, and other sacerdotal dues already granted by Moses, the Levites now received from each of the other tribes four cities with suburban pasture lands, or forty-eight in all (Jos., xxi). Among these were included the six cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jordan, which were set aside to check the barbarous custom of blood revenge, still existing among the Arab tribes, and in virtue of which the kinsmen of a man put to death consider it a duty to avenge him by the killing of his intentional or even unintentional slayer. It is probable, however, that these administrative dispositions concerning the Levites were not fully carried out until some time after the conquest, for, during the long period of transition between the wandering life of the desert and the fully organized civilization of later times, the priests and Levites seem to have had a rather precarious mode of existence. Taking the story of Michas (Judges, xvii) as illustrative of the condition of the Levitical order during that early period, it would appear that the priestly functionaries were inadequately provided for and had to wander about to secure a livelihood.

The elaborate and highly differentiated organization of the priestly or Levitical system, described with such abundance of detail in the priestly writings of the Old Testament, was doubtless the result of a long process of religious and ritualistic development which attained its fullness in the post-Exilic period. As elsewhere in the history of ancient religions, there appears in the beginnings of Hebrew history a period when no priestly class existed. The functions of the priesthood were performed generally by the head of the family or clan without need of a special sanctuary, and there is abundant evidence to show that for a long time after the death of Moses the priestly office was exercised, not only occasionally, but even permanently, by men of non-Levitical descent. The Deuteronomic legislation insists on the unity of sanctuary, and recognizes the descendents of Levi as the sole legitimate members of the priesthood, but it ignores the sharply defined distinction between priests and simple Levites which appears in the later writings and legislation, for the whole class is constantly referred to as the "levite priests". This category excludes the purely lay priest who is no longer tolerated, but if any Levite be willing to leave his residence in any part of the land and come to Jerusalem, "He shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, that shall stand at that time before the Lord. He shall receive the same portion of food that the rest do; besides that which is due him in his own city, by succession from his fathers" (Deut., xviii, 6-8). In the post-Exilic writings the detailed organization and workings of the levitical system then in its full vigour are adequately described, and a certain number of the regulations pertaining thereto are ascribed to King David. Thus, it is to the period of his reign that I Par. refers the introduction of the system of courses whereby the whole sacerdotal body was divided into classes, named after their respective chiefs and presided over by them. They carried out their various functions week by week, their particular duties being determined by lot (cf. Luke, i, 5-9). We read also that during the reign of David the rest of the Levites, to the number of thirty-eight thousand, ranging from the age of thirty years and upwards receive a special organization (I Par., xxiii-xxvi). Levites are mentioned only three times in the New Testament (Luke, x, 32; John, i, 19; Acts, iv, 36), and these references throw no light on their status in the time of Christ.

LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Lèvi, Tribu de (III); BAUDISSIN in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Priests and Levites; GIGOT, Outlines of Jewish History, viii, § 2, etc.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Leviticus

The third book of the Pentateuch, so called because it treats of the offices, ministries, rites, and ceremonies of the priests and Levites.

Lex

(LAW)

The etymology of the Latin word lex is a subject of controversy. Some authorities derive it from the Old Norse lög, neuter plural of lag, which would be the root of the English law, signifying "to put in order", "put in place". Others derive it from the Latin legere, "to read", thus giving it an exclusively Latin origin (Bréal, "Sur l'origine des mots désignant le droit et la loi en latin" in "Nouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger", VII, Paris, 1883, 610-11). We shall not examine here the divers meanings of the word law, but merely treat of certain expressions beginning with the word lex or leges.

(1) Roman Use

The word lex followed by a personal name in the feminine gender (Lex Julia, Lex Papia Poppæa) signified, in Roman Law, a lex rogata, i. e. a legislative enactment that was the outcome of an interrogation (from rogare) by the magistrate of the Roman people: the magistrate proposed the law to the citizens, and they declared their acceptance. The law was called by the family name of the author or authors of the proposal.

(2) Leges Romance of Teutonic Peoples

While official or private collections of Roman Law made under the Empire are called codices, e. g. "Codex Theodosianus", probably because they were written on parchment sheets bound together in book form, the title lex was given to collections of Roman Law made by order of the barbarian kings for such of their subjects as followed that legislation. When the Teutonic tribes occupied territories that had once belonged to the empire, the natives of these territories continued to follow the Roman Law. It was for them that Alaric II, King of the Visigoths, published, probably in 506, the "Lex Romana Wisigothorum" (Roman Law of the Visigoths); according to the most probable opinion, he wished to reduce the number of sources that the lawyers of those days had to consult for the Roman Law, and which were too numerous for them to understand thoroughly. This code was only one year in force in Gaul, but it lasted in Spain till the middle of the seventh century. So long as it continued to be applied as the personal law of Romans under the Gothic regime, it was the accepted form of Roman Law in the West. It is also called "Breviarium Alarici" (Résumé of Alaric), or "Breviarium Aniani", from the name of the referendary by whom the copies of the "Lex Romana Wisigothorum" were signed; even the name "Lex Romana" was sometimes given to it. The "Lex Romana Burgundionum" is due to the initiative of Gundobad, King of the Burgundians (died 516). It was enacted for the Gallo-Roman subjects of his kingdom, and was not, like the preceding collection, a résumé of the Roman Law, but rather a kind of official instruction drawn up for the use of judges, calling their attention to the more important points of Roman legislation. This collection is known also as "Papianus", or "Liber Papiani". The "Lex Romana Rætica Curiensis" is of a later date (middle of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century), and differs very much in character from the preceding "leges"; it is a collection containing extracts from the "Lex Romana Wisigothorum" and enactments from German law, drawn up for Rhætia and the Grisons. With these might be mentioned the "Lex Dei quam precepit Dominus ad Moysen" (Law which God gave to Moses), now commonly known as "Collatio legum Mosaicaruni et Romanarum", a comparison of Mosaic and Roman laws made by a Christian between 390 and 438, to show the extent to which they agreed. The "Lex Romana canonice compta" (i. e. concepta or composita) is a collection of Roman laws made in Italy in the ninth century (after 825). It comprises those enactments of the Roman Law, and especially of the Justinian Code, which were of special import to the Church.

(3) Leges Barbarorum

This title denotes the collections of laws drawn up by the barbarian kings for their Teutonic subjects. It is difficult to assign a precise date to each of these collections; several of them were reissued at a later period, and the earliest form has not always been preserved. The most ancient of these compilations is the "Lex Salica", the earliest redaction of which does not indicate clearly a Christian or a pagan origin; it is believed to date from the reign of Clovis, between the years 486 and 496. The most important new redaction is the "Lex Salica emendata" (a Carolo magno emendata), a product of the Carlovingian age, though apparently it cannot be attributed to Charlemagne. In the fourteenth century the Salic Law was invoked to exclude women from the succession to the French throne. The "Lex Ribuaria" or "Ripuaria", reproduces in part the Salic Law, but it is manifestly influenced by Christianity and the Roman Law. It was drawn up by the authority of a Frankish king, and in its primitive form dates apparently from the sixth century. The "Lex Barbara Burgundionum" belongs to the fifth century and is attributed to King Gundobad, who promulgated the "Lex Romana Burgundionum"; under the Carlovingians it was ordinarily called the "Lex Gundeboda", law of Gondebaud, whence its French name, "Loi Gombette". It is a collection of the ordinances of that prince and his predecessors. The first redaction of the "Lex Barbara Wisigothorum" belongs to the reign of King Euric (466-84), but it was revised by several of his successors. In the complete form in which it has reached us, it cannot be older than the end of the seventh century. It was modified by the Justinian Code and especially by the influence of Christianity. The "Lex Allamanorum" (Law of the Allamani) was drawn up in its definitive form probably between the years 717 and 719 by Duke Lanfridus; the "Lex Bajuwariorum" (Law of the Bavarians) about 748-52; the "Lex Frisionum" (Law of the Frisians) dates back to the second half of the eighth century. Authorities attribute to the Synod of Aachen (802 or 803) the "Lex Saxonum" (Law of the Saxons), and the "Lex Angliorum et Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum" promulgated for the inhabitants of north-eastern Thuringia. The "Lex Chamavorum" (Law of the Chamavi, identified with the inhabitants of the Lower Rhine and the Yssel and the Netherlands territory of Drenthe) was composed about the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century (about 802?). The first version of the "Edictus", or" Lex Longobardorum", enacted for the Lombards of Italy, belongs to the year 643. It was revised by King Grimoald in 668 and by King Liutprand between 713 and 735, while additions to it were made by King Ratchis in 745-46 and King Aistulf in 755. A critical edition of the "Leges Barbarorum" and of certain "Leges Romanorum" is published in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Leges", III-V (Hanover, 1863-89), and "Legum Sectio I", I-II (Hanover, 1902).

(4) In the Middle Ages

In this period lex was employed to denote a body of rights. The name lex metropolitana signified all the rights of a metropolitan over the suffragan bishops of his province (c. xi, "De officio judicis ordinarii", X, I, xxxi); by the name lex diœcesana (c. ix, "De majoritate et obedientia", X, I, xxxiii), or lex diœcesanœ jurisdictionis (c. ix, "De hæreticis", X, V, vii), was meant all the rights of a bishop in his diocese. However, a distinction was drawn later both by law and by the doctors between the lex diœcesana and the lex jurisdictionis (c. xviii, "De officio judicis ordinarii", X, I, xxxi), the former dealing with the profitable rights of the bishop to certain fixed incomes like the procuratio, the cathedraticum, etc., and the latter treating of the other rights of the bishop, e. g. the exercise of jurisdiction in contentious matters, the ministry of souls, the power and right of ordaining. This distinction was made in view of the exemptions which the religious orders enjoyed in their relations with the bishops. The definition given of these two leges by Benedict XIV does not seem accurate; according to that learned canonist (De synodo diœcesana, I, iv, n. 3), the lex jurisdictionis is the complexus of rights which a bishop has over exempted regulars; the lex diœcesana, the complexus of episcopal rights from which the regular orders are exempt (Scherer, "Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes", I, Graz, 1886, 560). This distinction is no longer of any practical importance.

MOMMSEN, Manuel des antiquités romaines, French tr. GIRARD, VI (Paris, 1888), i, 351 sqq.; KRUGER, Histoire des sources du droit romain, French tr. BRISSAUD (Paris, 1894); ESMEIN, Cours élementaire d'histoire du droit français (4th ed., Paris, 1908); VIOLLET, Histoire du droit civil français (Paris, 1893); BRUNNER, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1887).

A. VAN HOVE.

Juan Bautista de Lezana

Juan Bautista de Lezana, theologian, born at Madrid, 23 Nov., 1586; died in Rome, 29 March, 1659. He took the habit at Alberca, in Old Castile, 18 Oct., 1600, and made his profession at the house of the Carmelites of the Old Observance, at Madrid, in 1602; studied philosophy at Toledo, theology at Salamanca, partly at the college of the order, partly at the university under Juan Marquez, and finally at Alcalá under Luis de Montesion. For some years he was employed as lecturer at Toledo and Alcalá, but having been sent to the general chapter of 1625 as delegate of his province, he remained in Rome as professor of theology. At the following chapter (1645), at which he assisted in the quality of titular provincial of the Holy Land, he obtained some votes for the generalship, but remaining in the minority he was nominated assistant general; for some years he also filled the office of procurator general. In addition to these dignities within the order, he filled for sixteen years the chair of metaphysics at the Sapienza and became consultor to the Congregation of the Index under Urban VIII, and to that of Rites under Innocent X. Appointed to a bishopric, he requested a saintly nun to recommend an important matter (the nature of which be did not disclose) to Our Lord in prayer, and received through her the answer, which he acted upon, that it would be more perfect for him to refuse the dignity.

Lezana was a great authority on Canon law, dogmatic theology, and philosophy, and his writings on these subjects still carry weight. His historical works, however, are not of the same high standard. A notice on his "Annals of the Carmelite Order" (four folio vols. were published between 1645 and 1656, and there remains another vol. in Manuscript) will be found in the bibliography accompanying the article CARMELITE ORDER. The following are the principal products of his indefatigable pen:

• (1) "Liber apologeticus pro Immaculata Conceptione" (Madrid, 1616).
• (2) "De regularium reformatione" (Rome, 1627), four times reprinted and translated into French, although it is doubtful whether the translation appeared in print.
• (3) "Summa quæstionum regularium", five vols., the first of which appeared in Rome (1637), the last in 1647, most of them were repeatedly reprinted.
• (4) and (5) Two works, "Columna immobilis", and "Turris Davidica", on the Blessed Virgin del Pilar, at Saragossa (1655 and 1656).
• (6) "Maria patrona" (Rome, 1648).
• (7) Life of St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi, in Spanish (Rome, 1648).
• (8) "Summa theologiæ sacræ" (3 vols., Rome, 1651 sqq.).
• (9) "Consulta varia theologica" (Venice, 1656).

Also some less important works.

B. ZIMMERMAN.

Michael de L'Hospital

Born at Aigueperse, about 1504; d. at Courdimanche, 13 March, 1573. While very young he went to Italy to join his father, who had been a follower of the traitor, the Constable of Bourbon, in the camp of Charles V. He acquired his juridical training first as a student at Padua and then as auditor of the Rota at Rome, and in 1537 became a councillor of the Parliament of Paris. In 1547 he was charged by Henry II with a mission to the oecumenical council, which had been transferred from Trent to Bologna, returning after sixteen months to take his seat in the Parliament. He was next appointed chancellor of Berry by Marguerite of France, the daughter of Francis I, in 1554 became the first president of the court of exchequer (chambre des comptes), and, upon the accession of Francis II (1559), entered the privy council through the patronage of the Guises. Catharine de' Medici appointed him chancellor in 1560. On the one hand, L'Hospital had written a eulogy in Latin verse on the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine; on the other hand, he was the husband of a Protestant wife, and had had his children brought up Protestants. At the opening of his career as chancellor his complex personality is thus described by Brantôme: "He was held to be a Huguenot, though he went to Mass; but at court they said, 'God save us from L'Hospital's Mass!'" Théodore de Bèze had had a portrait of L'Hospital made, in which he was represented with a lighted torch behind his back, a way of indicating that the chancellor had known the "light" of the Reformation, but would not look at it. As a matter of fact, the policy of tolerance, of which he was the apostle in France, was, perhaps, inspired by a certain scepticism; the differences of religious belief seemed to him less serious and less profound than they really were; he would have readily classed in the same category the Council of Trent and certain Calvinistic manifestations, as equally embarrassing to the State; and the state of mind of which he was a representative was much nearer to that of the eighteenth-century philosophers than it was to that of men living in his own day, whether Protestants or Catholics.

The Edict of Romorantin (May, 1560) gave to the bishops criminal jurisdiction in cases of heresy, and to the secular courts the function of punishing the offence of holding Protestant meetings. This was L'Hospital's first effort to draw the line between spiritual and temporal -- between the religion of the kingdom and its police regulation. His address at the opening of the States General of Orléans (13 December, 1560) is summed up in these words: "The knife is worth little against the spirit. We must garnish ourselves with virtues and good morals, and then assail the Protestants with weapons of charity, prayers, persuasion, the word of God. Away with those diabolical names -- Lutheran, Huguenot, Papist -- names of factions and seditions. Let us keep to the name of Christian." To this programme of tolerance he added some extremely severe threats against Protestants who should stir up seditions, while, on the other hand, the religious articles of the Ordinance of Orléans (31 January, 1561) essayed to bring back the Church of France to the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, to restore to it certain elective franchises, and thus to do away with the exclusive rights which the pope and the king had exercised over it since the concordat of Francis I. On 19 April, 1561, L'Hospital sent to the governors, without previously submitting it to the Parliament, an edict granting to all subjects the right of worshipping as they pleased in their own homes. In July, 1561, he caused all prosecutions for religious opinions to be suspended until a "council" should be assembled. This "council," which was the Colloquy of Poissy, resulted in nothing. By another edict (15 January, 1562) he granted to the Protestants liberty of worship outside of cities, and recognized their right to hold meetings in private houses, even within the limits of cities. This edict the Protestants always regarded as a kind of charter of enfranchisement, and during the religious wars they constantly demanded its restoration.

But other measures touching the Church, taken by L'Hospital at the same time, gave the Holy See good reason for uneasiness. He caused a thesis on the pope to be denounced before the Parliament, because it seemed to him too ultramontane; he opposed the monitorium by which Pius IV had invited Jeanne d'Albret to appear in France before the Inquisition. At last Pius IV in 1562 requested of the French Court that the chancellor be dismissed. L'Hospital, in fact, was not present at the conclusion of the council which decided on war against Condé and the Protestants; he returned to court only after this first war of religion, when the Edict of Amboise (19 March, 1563) restored religious peace by guaranteeing certain liberties to the Protestants. He agreed with Catharine de' Medici that the cause of peace would be served by having Charles IX declared of age, and by letting him make a progress through the country. The declaration of the king's majority took place in 1563, and from 1564 to 1566 L'Hospital caused him to make an extensive journey through France. During this tour the Ordinance of Moulins (February, 1566) was promulgated by the chancellor, to reform the administration of justice. But L'Hospital's plans failed; party violence continued, and the Catholics blamed him for his indulgence towards the Protestants, all the more bitterly because he refused to let the Council of Trent be published in France. In February, 1564, he had declared himself so strongly against the acceptance of the Tridentine decrees that the Cardinal of Lorraine exclaimed: "You should take off your mask and embrace Protestantism." The same cardinal also, when he appeared before L'Hospital at Moulins (February, 1566) to demand the abrogation of the Edict of Amboise, treated him as a worthless fellow (bélître).

Meanwhile, suspicion of him continued to increase in the Catholic camp, and after the Protestants had made an attempt at Meaux (26-28 September, 1567) to get possession of the king's person, thus precipitating the second war of religion, Catharine de' Medici turned against the chancellor with the brutal words: "It is you who have brought us to this pass with your counsels of moderation." From that day the policy of moderation, which had been L'Hospital's dream, was exploded; his repeated assurances of Huguenot loyalty were belied by the conspiracy of Meaux, and he retired, disheartened, to his estate at Vignay. Irremovable as chancellor, he had to give up the seals on 24 May, 1568. He followed from a distance the events which little by little brought Catharine de' Medici to the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. His daughter, who was in Paris at the time of the massacre, was saved through the protection of François de Guise's widow. L'Hospital himself and his wife were threatened by the peasantry of Vignay, and a report was spread that they had been killed; Catharine sent some soldiers to protect him. On 1 February, 1573, the Court compelled L'Hospital to resign the chancellorship, and he died six weeks later. His Latin poems, which in the seventeenth century had passed into the hands of Jan de Witt, grand pensionary of Holland, were published in 1732, in a more complete edition than that of his grandson (1585). His complete works, edited by Dufey, appeared at Paris, in 1824, in five volumes.

Villemain, Etudes d'Histoire moderne (2nd ed., Paris, 1856); Amphoux, Michel de L'Höpital et la libert, de conscience au XVIe siècle (Paris, 1900); Atkinson, Michel de L'Hospital (London, 1900); Dupr,-Lasale, Michel de L'Hospital avant son élévation au poste de chancelier de France (2 vols., Paris, 1875-1899); Shaw, Michel de L'Hospital and His Policy (London, 1905).

GEORGES GOYAU

Libel

(Lat. libellus, a little book)

A malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign, or otherwise than by mere speech, which exposes any living person, or the memory of any person deceased, to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes or tends to cause any person to be ashamed or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure any person, corporation, or association of persons, in his, her, or its business or occupation. The use of the word libel, as relating to defamatory writings, seems to have originated early in the sixteenth century. Such a writing then became known as a libellus famosus, 1. a scurrilous or defamatory pamphlet. Since the earliest ages every civilized community has provided for the protection of the citizen from defamation of character, and practically the same theories of redress and penalties as exist to-day were held under the very ancient laws. The Mosaic law provided penalties for the offence (Ex., xxiii), and under the laws of Solon it was punished by a severe fine. A libel may be either a civil injury or a criminal offence. The theory upon which it is made the subject of criminal law is that it is calculated to cause a breach of the public peace. Libel differs essentially from slander, in that it may be the subject of both criminal and civil litigation, whereas slander is not a criminal offence.

Many statements may be actionable per se when written, or printed, and published, which would not be actionable if merely spoken, without claiming and proving special damage. Thus, unwritten words imputing immoral conduct are not actionable per se unless the misconduct imputed amounts to a criminal offence, for which the person slandered may be indicted. If the published matter holds a person up to public scorn, contempt, and ridicule, it is libellous per se. Libel per se embraces all cases which would be actionable if made orally, and also embraces all other cases where the additional gravity imparted to the charge by the publication can fairly be supposed to make it damaging. The nature of the charge must be such that the court can legally presume that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his acquaintances or of the public, or has suffered some loss, either to his property, character, or business, or in his domestic or social relations, in consequence of the publication of such charges. Compensation for mental suffering caused by the libel may be included in the damages recovered. In cases of libels upon the dead, although no private injury in the ordinary sense results to anyone, they are properly the subject of criminal prosecution, as being likely to cause a breach of the peace, on account of the resentment of the surviving relatives.

In criminal prosecution in Great Britain, and in many jurisdictions in America, for many years the jury have been made judges of both the law and the fact (Fox's Criminal Libel Act, 32 George III, c. 60). In such cases it is still the duty of the presiding judge to inform and instruct the jury as to the law of evidence, and to decide all questions arising in that regard.

The law of libel is not limited to injuries done to personal reputation, but also includes the protection of the reputation of property; and this form of libel is commonly called slander of title. Slander of title was actionable at common law upon proof of special damage. A claim of title made in good faith, however, and upon probable cause cannot be considered as furnishing grounds for a cause of action, but the principle sustaining this form of actionable libel is well-established. A corporation can maintain an action for libel per se when the libel necessarily and directly occasions pecuniary injury. A distinction between criticism and defamation is, that criticism deals only with such things as invite public attention or call for public comment, and does not follow a man into his private life, or pry into his domestic concerns. It never attacks the individual, but only his work. A criticism of a public man, consisting of imputations upon his motives, which arise fairly and legitimately out of his conduct, is generally regarded as justifiable.

Publication

To constitute a libel there must be a publication, as well as a writing. While a defamatory writing is not libel if it remains with the writer undelivered, yet if it goes to other hands, even inadvertently, there has been a publication. The writing must go into the hands of persons who by a knowledge of the language or of reading are able to become acquainted with its contents. In relation to criminal libel, it has been adjudged that, even if the defamatory communication has been seen by no one but the person to whom it is addressed, a case has been made out, as in such an event it is likely to cause a breach of the public peace. [Barrow v. Lewellen, Hobart's (K. B.) Reports, 62 a (152); Lyle v. Clason, 1 Cairnes (N. Y.), 581.]

Malice

It is an essential ingredient in both libel and slander that the defamation be malicious. A distinction is made between malice in fact and malice in law. In a legal sense, any act done wilfully to the prejudice and injury of another, which is unlawful, is, as against that person, malicious. The falsity of the charge establishes a presumption of malice. It is not necessary to render an act in law malicious that the party be actuated by a feeling of hatred or ill-will toward the individual, but if in pursuing a design, even if actuated by a general good purpose, he wilfully inflicts a wrong on others which is not warranted by law, such act is malicious.

Privileged Communications

A communication made to a person entitled to, or interested in, the communication, by one who is also interested in or entitled to make it, or who stood in such a relation to the former as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing his motive innocent, is presumed not to be malicious, and is called a privileged communication. To support the claim of privilege there must be something more than a social or moral duty, for, no matter how praiseworthy the motive may be, unless the circumstances are such, in the opinion of the court, as to come within the above definition, privilege cannot be successfully pleaded. Two elements must exist: not only must the occasion create the privilege, but the occasion must be made use of bona fide and without malice. Reports of proceedings in legislative assemblies and in judicial tribunals (where the published matter is pertinent to any cause of which the court has jurisdiction) are absolutely privileged.

Justification

The truth of a charge is always a justification and a complete answer to a civil proceeding for libel. In criminal proceedings it is the general rule that it must be shown in addition that the publication was for the public benefit and for justifiable ends. This has been the law in almost all of the United States for many years, and in Great Britain since 1843 (6 and 7 Victoria, c. 96). Formerly in criminal cases the truth of the charges constituting the alleged libel was no defence, the rule being embodied in the maxim, "The greater the truth the greater the libel". There was substantial reason for this theory, as it was deemed that a truthful defamatory statement was more apt to cause a breach of the public peace than one that was untrue. It is a well-established and universal fact that courts will never assume that there has been wrongdoing, and the burden in both civil and criminal litigation is upon the person making the charge to sustain it. Moreover, if the defamatory matter consists of charges involving moral turpitude, and subject to criminal prosecution, the requirements as to the proof of the truth of the same are substantially as strict as if the person claiming to have been defamed was on trial for the alleged offences.

A striking and interesting illustration of the application of this rule is to be found in the record of the case of the Queen against Newman, the defendant being Dr. (afterwards Cardinal) Newman. This was a proceeding for criminal libel instituted by Giovanni G. Achilli, who had formerly been a priest of the Catholic Church, but had been disciplined and suspended by the ecclesiastical authorities. The complainant, prior to the publication, had been delivering public addresses, attacking the Church and its institutions, and giving a wrong impression as to the circumstances connected with his suspension. Dr. Newman published a statement setting forth the facts in relation to the complainant's suspension, and making specific charges of a number of instances of sexual immorality, in one case a young girl of about fifteen years being involved. The acts charged took place on the Continent of Europe, and the persons who could have supported the statement by their testimony were beyond the jurisdiction of the English court in which the proceeding was conducted. Dr. Newman was, therefore, unable to prove the truth of the twenty-one charges made, except the one in relation to the proceedings conducted by the Church, and which was supported by documentary evidence. He had pleaded the truth of the alleged libel under the statute of Victoria. The court found him guilty and he was fined one hundred pounds.

It may be generally stated that any circumstances that would appeal to a reasonable person as being mitigating may be introduced in evidence in either criminal or civil litigation under a plea of mitigation, even including a belief in the truth of the matter, or an attempt subsequently to repair the alleged wrong by a retraction or apology.

MUNROE, English Dictionary of Historical Principles (Oxford, 1903); COOLEY, Wrongs and their Remedies, I: Torts (Chicago, 1888); New York Penal Code; Blacksione's Commentaries; WENDELL, Starkie on Slander and Libel (West Brookfield, Massachusetts, 1852).

EUGENE A. PHILBIN.

Libellatici, Libelli

The libelli were certificates issued to Christians of the third century. They were of two kinds:

1. certificates of conformity, to attest that the holders had conformed to the religious tests required by the edict of Decius;
2. certificates of indulgence, in which the confessors or martyrs interceded for the lapsi (i. e. those who had apostatized).

The opprobrious term libellatici is applied only to holders of the former kind. The edict of Decius (Dec., 249, or Jan., 250), coming as it did after a comparatively long period of peace, frightened many Christians into submission. But the methods and extent of submission were of several kinds: the lapsi might be:

• apostates, who had entirely abandoned their religion, or
• sacrificati, thurificati, who had taken part in the pagan rites, or
• libellatici, who had secured certificates (libelli) of conformity from the proper civil authorities.

Three such libelli are extant, all of them of Egyptian origin ("Oxyrhynchus Papyri", IV, 658; Gebhardt, "Acta Martyrum Selecta"). Therein the petitioner declares that he was ever constant in sacrificing to the gods, and has actually performed the test of conformity, in attestation of which he begs the pagan commissioners to sign this certificate. However, it seems that the declaration was sometimes accepted for the deed, or the deed itself performed by proxy; and no doubt the document might be bought from amenable commissioners without any declaration of paganism.

It was in connexion with the reconciliation of these libellatici as well as other lapsi that the libelli pacis, or letters of indulgence, were introduced. The lapsi were in the habit of seeking the intercession of the confessors, who were suffering for the Faith; and the latter would address to the bishop libelli pacis petitioning for the reconciliation of the apostates. The libelli were, however, more than mere recommendations to mercy; the confessors were understood to be petitioning that their own merits should be applied to the excommunicated, and procure them a remission of the temporal punishment due to their defection. And this indulgence was not simply a remission of the canonical penance; it was believed that it availed before God and remitted the temporal punishment that would otherwise be required after death (Cyprian, "De Lapsis", ad fin.). This custom does not seem to have been established in Rome, but it was particularly prevalent in Carthage, and was not unknown in Egypt and Asia Minor. Even in the time of Tertullian, the lapsi of Carthage were in the habit of thus appealing to the intercession of the confessors ("Ad Mart.", i; "De Pudicitia", xxii). In the letters that Saint Cyprian wrote from his place of exile he has frequent occasion to complain of the abuse of the libelli. There was a party of laxists who ignored the necessity of the bishop's sanction, and their leader actually promulgated a general indulgence to all the lapsi (Cyprian, "Epp.", xxxiv, 23). The confessors themselves seem to have lacked discretion in the petitions they presented. Cyprian's letter to them (ep. xv), couched though it is in the tenderest of terms, begs them to be more judicious, to avoid vague petitions, such as "Let him and his people be received into communion", and not to lend their services to the schemes of the seditious or the avarice of traffickers. The bishop's own method of treating the petitions for indulgence varied according to circumstances. Ep. xviii contains instructions that the lapsi who held such letters should be reconciled in case of sickness. Subsequently, however, owing no doubt to the above-mentioned abuses and the need for wider methods, the libelli were not given any special mention in the general conditions of reconciliation (African Councils, I, 38).

See the Letters of ST. CYPRIAN, e. g. in P. L., IV and V; and notably his treatise De Lapsis; Vita S. Cypriani per Pontium diaconum ejus scripta; EUSEBIUS, Hist. eccl., IV, xlii; BENSON, Cyprian (London, 1897); ALLARD, Histoire des Persécutions, II (2nd ed., Paris, 1896), viii.

JAMES BRIDGE.

Liberalism

A free way of thinking and acting in private and public life.

I. DEFINITION

The word liberal is derived from the Latin liber, free, and up to the end of the eighteenth century signified only "worthy of a free man", so that people spoke of "liberal arts", "liberal occupations". Later the term was applied also to those qualities of intellect and of character, which were considered an ornament becoming those who occupied a higher social position on account of their wealth and education. Thus liberal got the meaning of intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial. Again Liberalism may also mean a political system or tendency opposed to centralization and absolutism. In this sense Liberalism is not at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church. Since the end of the eighteenth century, however, the word has been applied more and more to certain tendencies in the intellectual, religious, political, and economical life, which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order. Usually, the principles of 1789, that is of the French Revolution, are considered as the Magna Charta of this new form of Liberalism. The most fundamental principle asserts an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics. The necessary consequences of this are, on the one hand, the abolition of the Divine right and of every kind of authority derived from God; the relegation of religion from the public life into the private domain of one's individual conscience; the absolute ignoring of Christianity and the Church as public, legal, and social institutions; on the other hand, the putting into practice of the absolute autonomy of every man and citizen, along all lines of human activity, and the concentration of all public authority in one "sovereignty of the people". This sovereignty of the people in all branches of public life as legislation, administration, and jurisdiction, is to be exercised in the name and by order of all the citizens, in such a way, that all should have share in and a control over it. A fundamental principle of Liberalism is the proposition: "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself". This principle implies the denial of all true authority; for authority necessarily presupposes a power outside and above man to bind him morally.

These tendencies, however, were more or less active long before 1789; indeed, they are coeval with the human race. Modern Liberalism adopts and propagates them under the deceiving mask of Liberalism in the true sense. As a direct offspring of Humanism and the Reformation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, modern Liberalism was further developed by the philosophers and literati of England especially Locke and Hume, by Rousseau and the Encyclopedists in France, and by Lessing and Kant in Germany. Its real cradle, however, was the drawing-rooms of the moderately free-thinking French nobility (1730-1789), especially those of Mme Necker and her daughter, Mme de Staël. The latter was more than anybody else the connecting link between the free-thinking elements before and after the Revolution and the centre of the modern Liberal movement both in France and Switzerland. In her politico-religious views she is intimately connected with Mirabeau and the Constitutional party of the Revolution. These views find their clearest exposition in her work "ConsidÈrations sur les principaux ÈvÈnements de la RÈvolution française". She pleads for the greatest possible individual liberty, and denounces as absurd the derivation of human authority from God. The legal position of the Church, according to her, both as a public institution and as a property-owner is a national arrangement and therefore entirely subject to the will of the nation; ecclesiastical property belongs not to the church but to the nation; the abolition of ecclesiastical privileges is entirely justified, since the clergy is the natural enemy of the principles of Revolution. The ideal form of government is in smaller states the republic, in larger ones the constitutional monarchy after the model of England. The entire art of government in modern times, consists, according to Mme de Staël, in the art of directing public opinion and of yielding to it at the right moment.

II. DEVELOPMENT AND PRINCIPAL TYPES OF MODERN LIBERALISM IN NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

Since the so-called Liberal principles of 1789 are based upon a wrong notion of human liberty, and are and must forever be contradictory and indefinite in themselves, it is an impossibility in practical life to carry them into effect with much consistency. Consequently the most varying kinds and shades of Liberalism have been developed, all of which remained in fact more conservative than a logical application of Liberal principles would warrant. Liberalism was first formulated by the Protestant Genevese (Rousseau, Necker, Mme de Staël, Constant, Guizot); nevertheless it was from France, that it spread over the rest of the world, as did its different representative types. These developed in closest connection with the different Revolutions in Europe since 1789. The principal types are:—

(A) Anti-ecclesiastical Liberalism

(1) The old Liberalism, first advocated by Mme de Staël and Constant. It may be described as the drawing-room Liberalism of the free-thinking educated classes, who, however, did not condescend to become practical politicians or statesmen; they were superior observers, infallible critics, standing above all parties. In later days some few of these old Liberals, animated by a truly liberal chivalry, stood up for the rights of suppressed minorities against Jacobin majorities, for instance, LittrÈ and Laboulaye in France (1879-1880).

(2) Closely connected with this old Liberalism of Mme de Staël is doctrinaire Liberalism which originated in the lecture-hall of Royer-Collard and in the salon of the Duc de Broglie (1814-1830). It was the Liberalism of the practical politicians and statesmen, who intended to re-establish, maintain, and develop, in the different states, the constitutional form of government based upon the principles of 1789. The most prominent representatives of this body were, besides de Broglie, Royer-Collard, Guizot in France, Cavour in Italy, von Rotteck and his partisans in Germany.

(3) Bourgeois Liberalism, was the natural outgrowth of doctrinaire Liberalism. It adapted itself more to the interests of the propertied and moneyed classes; for the clergy and nobility having been dispossessed of their political power, these were the only classes which could make use of the new institutions, the people not being sufficiently instructed and organized to do so. The rich industrial classes, therefore, were from the very beginning and in all countries the mainstay of Liberalism, and Liberalism for its part was forced to further their interests. This kind of bourgeois Liberalism enjoyed its highest favour in France during the time of the citizen-king, Louis-Philippe (1830-40), who openly avowed his dependence upon it. It flourished in Germany, as "national Liberalism", in Austria, as "political Liberalism in general", in France, as the Liberalism of Gambetta's Opportunist party. Its characteristic traits are materialistic, sordid ideals, which care only for unrestrained enjoyment of life, egoism in exploiting the economically weak by means of tariffs which are for the interests of the classes, a systematic persecution of Christianity and especially of the Catholic Church and her institutions, a frivolous disregard and even a mocking contempt of the Divine moral order, a cynical indifference in the choice and use of means — slander, corruption, fraud, etc. — in fighting one's opponents and in acquiring an absolute mastery and control of everything.

(4) The Liberal "parties of progress" are in opposition to the Conservatives and the Liberals of the bourgeois classes, in so far as these, when once in power, usually care little or nothing for further improvements according to their Liberal principles, whereas the former lay more stress on the fundamental tenets of Liberalism themselves and fight against a cynical one-sided policy of self-interest; for this reason they appear to an outsider more fair-minded.

(5) Liberal Radicals are adherents of progressive modem ideas, which they try to realize without consideration for the existing order or for other people's rights, ideas, and feelings. Such was the first Liberal political party, the Spanish Jacobinos in 1810. This is the Radicalism, which under the mask of liberty is now annihilating the rights of Catholics in France.

(6) The Liberal Democrats want to make the masses of the common people the deciding factor in public affairs. They rely especially on the middle classes, whose interests they pretend to have at heart.

(7) Socialism is the Liberalism of self-interest nurtured by all classes of Liberals described above, and espoused by the members of the fourth estate and the proletariat. It is at the same time nothing but the natural reaction against a one-sided policy of self-interest. Its main branches are:

• Communism, which tries to reorganize the social conditions by abolishing all private ownership;
• Radical Social Democracy of Marx (founded 1848), common in Germany and Austria;
• Moderate Socialism (Democratic Socialistic Federation in England, Possibilists in France, etc.);
• Anarchist parties founded by Bakunin, Most, and Krapotkin, after 1868, for some periods allied to Social Democracy. Anarchism as a system is relatively the most logical and radical development of the Liberal principles.

(B) Ecclesiastical Liberalism (Liberal Catholicism)

(1) The prevailing political form of modern Liberal Catholicism, is that which would regulate the relations of the Church to the State and modern society in accordance with the Liberal principles as expounded by Benjamin Constant. It had its predecessors and patterns in Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephinism. Founded 1828 by Lamennais, the system was later defended in some respects by Lacordaire, Montalembert, Parisis, Dupanloup, and Falloux.

(2) The more theological and religious form of Liberal Catholicism had its predecessors in Jansenism and Josephinism; it aims at certain reforms in ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline in accordance with the anti-ecclesiastical liberal Protestant theory and atheistical "science and enlightenment" prevailing at the time. The newest phases of this Liberalism were condemned by Pius X as Modernism. In general it advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations, sympathy with the State even in its enactments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishops, clergy, religious orders and congregations, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the efforts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion.

III. CONDEMNATION OF LIBERALISM BY THE CHURCH

By proclaiming man's absolute autonomy in the intellectual, moral and social order, Liberalism denies, at least practically, God and supernatural religion. If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God. It has been censured in the condemnations of Rationalism and Naturalism. The most solemn condemnation of Naturalism and Rationalism was contained in the Constitution "De Fide" of the Vatican Council (1870); the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical "Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions. The older and principally political form of false Liberal Catholicism had been condemned by the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos", of 15 August, 1832 and by many briefs of Pius IX (see SÈgur, "Hommage aux Catholiques LibÈraux", Paris, 1875). The definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican council was virtually a condemnation of Liberalism. Besides this many recent decisions concern the principal errors of Liberalism. Of great importance in this respect are the allocutions and encyclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. (Cf., Recueil des allocutions consistorales encycliques . . . citÈes dans le Syllabus", Paris, 1865) and the encyclicals of Leo XIII of 20 January, 1888, "On Human Liberty"; of 21 April, 1878, "On the Evils of Modern Society"; of 28 December, 1878, "On the Sects of the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists"; of 4 August, 1879, "On Christian Philosophy"; of 10 February, 1880, "On Matrimony"; of 29 July, 1881, "On the Origin of Civil Power"; of 20 April, 1884, "On Freemasonry"; of 1 November, 1885, "On the Christian State"; of 25 December, 1888, "On the Christian Life"; of 10 January, 1890, "On the Chief Duties of a Christian Citizen"; of 15 May, 1891, "On the Social Question"; of 20 January, 1894, "On the Importance of Unity in Faith and Union with the Church for the Preservation of the Moral Foundations of the State"; of 19 March, 1902, "On the Persecution of the Church all over the World". Full information about the relation of the Church towards Liberalism in the different countries may be gathered from the transactions and decisions of the various provincial councils. These can be found in the "Collectio Lacensis" under the headings of the index: Fides, Ecclesia, Educatio, Francomuratores.

FERRAZ, Spiritualisme et libÈralisme (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Traditionalisme et ultramontanisme (Paris, 1880); D'HAUSSONVILLE, Le salon de Mme Necker (Paris, 1882); LADY BLENNERHASSET, Frau von Staël (1887-89); LABOULAYE, Le parti libÈral (Paris, 1864); IDEM in the Introduction to his edition of Cours de politique constitutionelle de Benj. Constant (Paris, 1872); CONSTANT, De la religion (Paris, 1824-31); BLUNTSCHLI, Allgemeine Staatslehre (Stuttgart, 1875), 472; SAMUEL, Liberalism (1902); DEVAS, Political Economy (London, 1901), 122, 531, 650 seq.; VILLIERS, Opportunity of Liberalism (1904); RUDEL, Geschichte des Liberalismus und der deutschen Reichsverfassung (1891); DEBIDOUR, Histoire des rapports de l'Èglise et de l'Ètat 1789-1905 (Paris, 1898-1906); BRÜCK, Die Geheimen Gesellschaften in Spanien (1881); Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, I, 296-327, s. v. Anarchismus; Ferrer im Lichte der Wahrheit in Germania (Berlin, 1909); MEFFERT, Die Ferrer-Bewegung als Selbstentlarvung des Freidenkertums (1909).

Works concerning ecclesiastical Liberalism:— (A) Protestant Churches:— GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse, le protestantisme (Paris, 1898); SABATIER, Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit; POLLOCK, Religious Equality (London, 1890); REVILLE, Liberal Christianity (London, 1903); IDEM, Anglican Liberalism (London, 1908). (B) Concerning Catholic Liberalism:— WEILL, Histoire de Catholicisme libÈral en France, 1828-1908 (Paris, 1909). (C) Concerning Modernism: SCHELL, Katholizismus als Prinzip des Fortschritts (1897); IDEM, Die neue Zeit und der neue Glaube (1898); MÜLLER, Reformkatholizismus (these three works are on the Index); STUFLER, Die heiligkeit Gottes in Zeit. für kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1908), 100-114; 364-368.

Critique and condemnation of Liberalism:— FAGUET, Le LibÈralisme (Paris, 1906); FRANTZ, Die Religion des National-liberalismus (1872). From the Catholic standpoint:— DONAT, Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft (1910); VON KETTELER, Freiheit Autorität und Kirche (Mainz, 1862); IDEM, Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christenthum (Mainz, 1864); DECHAMPS, Le libÈralisme (1878); DONOSO CORTÉS, Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism (tr. Philadelphia, 1862); H. PESCH, Liberalismus, Sozialismus und christliche Gesellschaftsordnung (Freiburg, 1893-99); CATHREIN, Der Sozialismus (Freiburg, 1906); PALLEN, What is Liberalism? (St. Louis, 1889); MOREL, Somme contre le catholicisme libÈral (Paris, 1876); Die Encyklika Pius IX. vom 8 Dez. 1864 in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach; CHR. PESCH, Theologische Zeitfragen, IV (1908); HEINER, Der Syllabus (Pius IX.) (1905); Der Syllabus Pius X. und das Dekret des hl. Offiziums "Lamentabili" vom 3 Juli, 1907 (1908); BROWNSON, Conversations on Liberalism and the Church (New York, 1869), reprinted in his Works, VII (Detroit, 1883-87), 305; MING, Data of Modern Ethics Examined (New York, 1897), x, xi; MANNING, Liberty of the Press in Essays, third series (London, 1892); BALMES, European Civilization (London, 1855), xxxiv, xxxv, lxvii; IDEM, Letters to a Sceptic (tr. Dublin, 1875), letter 7; GIBBONS, Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore, 1871), xvii, xviii; The Church and Liberal Catholicism, pastoral letter of the English bishops, reprinted in Messenger of the Sacred Heart XXXVI (New York, 1901). 180-93; cf. also Dublin Review, new series, XVIII, 1, 285; XXV, 202; XXVI, 204, 487; third series XV, 58.

HERM. GRUBER

Libera Me

(Domine, de morte aeterna, etc.).

The responsory sung at funerals. It is a responsory of redundant form, having two versicles ("Tremens factus sum" and "Dies illa"). As in all the Office for the Dead, the verse "Requiem aeternam" takes the place of "Gloria Patri"; then all the first part, down to the first versicle, is repeated. Its form therefore is exceptional, considerably longer than the normal responsory. It is a prayer in the first person singular for mercy at the Last Day. This should no doubt be understood as a dramatic substitution; the choir speaks for the dead person. A great part of our Office for the Dead is made up of such prayers about the Last Day, the meaning of which appears to refer rather to the people who say them than to the dead (the sequence "Dies irae", most of the Vespers, Matins, and Lauds).

Another dramatic substitution is involved in the prayers of this responsory (and throughout the Office for the Dead) that the person for whom we pray may be saved from hell. That question was settled irrevocably as soon as he died. This is one instance of the dramatic displacement or rearrangement of the objective order of things that occurs continually in all rites (compare for instance in the baptism service the white robe and shining light given after the essential form, in the ordination of priest the power to forgive sins given after the man has been ordained and has concelebrated, the Epiclesis in Eastern liturgies, etc.). The explanation of all these cases is the same. Since we cannot express everything at one instant, we are forced to act and speak as if things really simultaneous followed each other in order. And in the eternity of God all things (including our consecutive prayers) are present at once -- nunc stans aeternitas. The responsory "Libera me" is begun by a cantor and continued by the choir in the usual way (the cantor alone singing the versicles) at the beginning of the "Absolution", that is the service of prayers for the dead person said and sung by the bier immediately after the Mass for the Dead. As soon as Mass is over the celebrant exchanges his chasuble for a (black) cope (all the sacred ministers of course take off their maniples) and chants the prayer "Non intres in judicium". Then "Libera me" is sung. Meanwhile the celebrant puts incense into the thurible, assisted by the deacon. During the whole Absolution the subdeacon stands at the head of the bier, facing the altar, with the processional cross.

The ninth responsory of Matins for the Dead also begins with "Libera me", but continues a different text (Domine, de viis inferni, etc.). This is built up according to the usual arrangement (with "Requiem aeternam" instead of "Gloria Patri"). But on All Souls' Day (2 November), and whenever the whole Office of nine lessons is said, the "Libera me" of the Absolution is substituted for it. The Vatican Gradual gives the new chant for the "Libera me" after the Mass for the Dead.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Libera Nos

The first words of the Embolism of the Lord's Prayer in the Roman Rite. Most liturgies contain a prayer developing the idea of the last clause of the Our Father (But deliver us from evil), and specifying various evils from which we pray to be delivered. This prayer, which always follows the Our Father immediately, is called its Embolism (embolismos, insertion). In many rites (Antiochene, Alexandrine, Nestorian) it is rather of the nature of an insertion into the Our Father, repeating again and enlarging on its last clauses (e.g. the Antiochene Embolism: "And lead us not into temptation, O Lord, Lord of Hosts Who knowest our weakness, but deliver us from the evil one, and from his works and all his might and art, for the sake of Thy Holy Name invoked upon our lowliness"). The Roman Embolism is said secretly by the celebrant as soon as he has added Amen to the last clause of the "Pater noster" sung by the choir (or said by the server). In the middle (after omnibus sanctis) he makes the sign of the cross with the paten and kisses it. During the last clause (Per eundem Dominum nostrum . . .) he puts the paten under the Host, he (at high Mass the deacon) uncovers the chalice, genuflects, breaks the Host over the chalice, puts a small fraction into the chalice and the rest on the paten. This rite is the Fraction common to all liturgies. The last words (Per omnia sæcula sæculorum) are sung (or said) aloud, forming the Ecphonesis before the Pax). Only on Good Friday does he sing it aloud, to the tone of a ferial Collect, and the choir answers Amen. In this case the Fraction does not take place till the Embolism is finished. In the Milanese and Mozarabic Rites he sings it, and the choir answers Amen. For the Gallican Embolism (of Germanus of Paris, d. 576) see Duchesne, "Origines du Culte chretien (Paris, 1898), 211. The present Milanese form is very similar to that of Rome. It will be found with its chant in any edition of the Ambrosian Missal. The Mozarabic Embolism with its chant is in the "Missale Mistum" (P.L. LXXXV, 559-60). In both rites the Fraction has preceded the Lord's Prayer. The Embolisms of the Eastern rites are given in Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", (Oxford, 1896), namely: Antiochene, 60, 100; Alexandrian, 136, 182; Nestorian, 296; Armenian, 446. In all these the Embolism is said secretly, with the last words aloud (Ecphonesis); the people answer Amen. The Byzantine Rite has no Embolism of the Lord's Prayer, but only the final clause: "For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and for ever and for ages of ages. R. Amen" (ibid., 392 and 410). That it once had this prayer, like the parent Rite of Antioch, seems certain from the fact that there is an Embolism in the Nestorian and Armenian Liturgies, both derived at an early date from Constantinople.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Matteo Liberatore

A philosopher, theologian, and writer, born at Salerno, Italy, 14 August, 1810; died at Rome, 18 October, 1892. He studied at the College of the Jesuits at Naples in 1825, and a year later applied for admission into the Society of Jesus, His remarkable innocence, brilliant talents, and strength of character made him a most acceptable candidate, and he entered the novitiate on 9 October, 1826. The long course of studies was completed by him with unusual success, and resulted in his teaching philosophy for the space of eleven years, from 1837 until the Revolution of 1848 drove him to Malta. On returning to Italy he was appointed to teach theology, but gave up his professorship to found and assume charge in 1850 of the "Civiltà Cattolica", a periodical founded by the Jesuits to defend the cause of the Church and the papacy, and to spread the knowledge of the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. Indeed it is Liberatore's chief glory to have brought about the revival of the Scholastic philosophy of St. Thomas. This movement he inaugurated by publishing his course of philosophy in 1840, at a time when the prevailing methods of teaching that science, even among certain Catholics, were, to say the least, little calculated to provide solid foundation for Catholic doctrine. This movement he supported to his dying day by his teaching in the class-room, by textbooks on philosophy, by able articles in the "Civiltà Cattolica" and other periodicals, by larger and more extensive works, and also by his work as member of the Accademia Romana by appointment of Leo XIII.

For more than half a century he was the tireless champion of truth in the fields of philosophy and theology, and of the rights of the Church. His pen was constantly at work, analysing the vexed problems of Christian life both theoretical and practical, marking out the relations between Church and State, and the moral and social aspects of life. His watchfulness over the foundations of the faith is attested by his successful struggles with Rationalism, Ontologism, and Rosminianism. His literary activity may be estimated from the fact that Sommervogel records more than forty of his published works, and gives the titles of more than nine hundred of his articles (including reviews) which appeared in the "Civiltà" alone. The most prominent characteristics of his writings are keenness of judgement, strength of argument, breadth of learning, logical sequence of thought, close observation of facts, knowledge of men and of the world, and simplicity and elegance of style. He has been regarded by many as the greatest philosopher of his day. It is a tribute to his holiness of life and deep religious spirit that his brethren of the Society of Jesus were Less impressed by his varied talents and immense learning than by the many virtues displayed during his long and fruitful life as scholar, professor, writer, academician, director of souls, and rector. His name will long be in blessed memory among all those who love the Church. The following are the best known, perhaps, of his works: "Institutiones Philosophicæ"; "Instructiones Ethicæ"; various compendiums of logic, metaphysics, ethics, and natural law; "Della Conoscenza intellettuale"; "Del Composto umano"; "Dell' Anima umana"; "Degli Universali"; "Chiesa e Stato"; "Dialoghi filosofici"; "Il Matrimomo"; "Roma e il mondo"; "Il Matrimonio e lo Stato"; "Le Commedie filosofiche"; and "Spicilegio".

Civiltà Cattolica, series XV, t. IV, 352-380; American Ecclesiastical Review (December, 1892); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., t. IV, c. 1774.

J. H. FISHER.

Liberatus of Carthage

(sixth century)

Archdeacon author of an important history of the Nestorian and Monophysite troubles. In 535 he was sent to Rome, as legate of a great African national synod of two hundred and seventeen bishops, to consult Pope Agapetus I (535-6) about a number of questions (Harduin, II, 1154; Mansi, VIII, 808). Like most Africans he was vehemently opposed to Justinian's edict against the "Three Chapters" (544). He was frequently employed by the African bishops as their ambassador in the disputes that arose from that question. "Tired with the fatigue of traveling, and resting the mind a little from temporal cares" (introduction to his book), he used his leisure to compose a summary history of the two great heresies of the preceding century. His object in writing it was avowedly to show how misjudged the emperor's condemnation of the Three Chapters was. The work is called "A Short Account of the Affair of the Nestorians and Eutychians" (Breviarium causæ Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum). It begins with the ordination of Nestorius (428) and ends with the Fifth General Council (Constantinople II, 553). From the fact that the author mentions Theodosius of Alexandria as being still alive (xx), it is evident that it was written before 567, in which year Theodosius died. On the other hand, Liberatus records the death of Pope Vigilius (June, 555). His authorities are the "Historia tripartita" of Cassiodorus, acts of synods, and letters of contemporary Fathers. In spite of Liberatus's controversial purpose and his indignation against Monophysites and all aiders and abettors of the condemnation of the Three Chapters, his short history is well and fairly written. It forms an important document for the history of the two heresies.

LIBERATUS, Breviarium causœ Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum in P. L., LXVIII, 963-1052; also in MANSI, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, IX (Florence, 1759), 659-700; FABRICUS-HARLES, Bibliotheca Grœca, XII (Hamburg, 1809), 685-92, a list of Liberatus's sources; KRÜGER, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten (Jena, 1884); FESSLER-JUNGMANN, Institutiones Patrologiœ (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896, 542); BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1894), 596.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum

A miscellaneous collection of ecclesiastical formularies used in the papal chancery until the eleventh century. It contains models of the important official documents usually prepared by the chancery; particularly of letters and official documents in connexion with the death, the election, and the consecration of the pope; the installation of newly elected bishops, especially of the suburbicarian bishops; also models for the profession of faith, the conferring of the pallium on archbishops, for the granting of privileges and dispensations, the founding of monasteries, the confirmation of acts by which the Church acquired property, the establishment of private chapels, and in general for all the many decrees called for by the extensive papal administration. The collection opens with the superscriptions and closing formulæ used in writing to the emperor and empress at Constantinople, the Patricius, the Exarch and the Bishop of Ravenna, a king, a consul; to patriarchs, metropolitans, priests, and other clerics. The collection is important both for the history of law and for church history, particularly for the history of the Roman Church. The formularies and models set down are taken from earlier papal documents, especially those of Gelasius I (492-6) and Gregory I (590-604).

This collection was certainly compiled in the chancery of the Roman Church, but probably a comparatively small number of the formularies contained in the extant manuscripts were included at first, the remainder being added from time to time. There is no systematic arrangement of the formularies in the manuscripts. In its final form, as seen in the two existing manuscripts (one codex in the Vatican Archives, and another, originally from Bobbio, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan), the Liber Diurnus dates back to the eighth century. Concerning the more exact determination of the date of its compilation, there is even a still great diversity of opinion. Garnier gives in his edition the year 715. Zaccaria, in his "Dissertationes" (P. L., CV, 119 sqq.), attributes the compilation to the ninth century; Rozière, to whom we owe the first good edition (see below), decides for the period 685 to 751 — the former date, because Emperor Constantine Pogonatus (died 685) is mentioned as dead, and the latter, because in 751 Northern Italy was conquered by the Lombards and the Byzantine administration at Ravenna came to an end (see Introduction, pp. 25 sqq.). Sickel, however in his "Prolegomena" and in his researches on the Liber Diurnus (see below), has shown that the work possesses by no means a uniform character. He recognizes in it three divisions, the first of which he ascribes to the time of Honorius I (625-38), the second to the end of the seventh century, and the third to the time of Hadrian I (772-95). Duchesne (Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, LII, 1891, pp. 7 sqq.) differs from Sickel, and maintains that the original version of most of the formularies, and among them the most important, must be referred to the years after 682, and that only the last formularies (nn. lxxxvi-xcix) were added in the time of Hadrian I, though some few of these may have existed at an earlier date. Hartmann defends the views of Sickel (Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreich. Gesch., XIII, 1892, pp. 239 sqq.). Friederich (Sitzungsberichte der bayer. Akademie der Wiss. zu München, Phil.-hist. Kl., I, 1890, pp. 58 sqq.) investigated more closely the case of some of the formularies attributed by Sickel to one of the aforesaid periods, and attempted to indicate more nearly the occasions and pontificates to which they belonged. These investigations have established beyond doubt that the collection had already attained its present form towards the end of the eighth century, though no insignificant portion had been compiled during the seventh century. The Liber Diurnus was used officially in the papal chancery until the eleventh century, after which time, as it no longer corresponded to the needs of papal administration, it gave way to other collections. Twelfth century canonists, like Ivo of Chartres and Gratian, continued to use the Liber Diurnus, but subsequently it ceased to be consulted, and was finally completely forgotten.

Lucas Holstenius (q. v.) was the first who undertook to edit the Liber Diurnus. He had found one manuscript of it in the monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme at Rome, and obtained another from the Jesuit Collège de Clermont at Paris; but as Holstenius died in the meantime and his notes could not be found, this edition printed at Rome in 1650 was withheld from publication, by advice of the ecclesiastical censors, and the copies put away in a room at the Vatican. The reason for so doing was apparently formula lxxxiv, which contained the profession of faith of the newly elected pope, in which the latter recognized the Sixth General Council and its anathemas against Pope Honorius for his (alleged) Monothelism. The edition of Holstenius was reprinted at Rome in 1658; but was again withdrawn in 1662 by papal authority, though in 1725 Benedict XIII permitted the issue of some copies. From the Clermont manuscript, which has since disappeared, Garnier prepared a new edition of the Liber Diurnus (Paris, 1680), but it is very inaccurate, and contains arbitrary alterations of the text. In his "Museum Italicum" (I, II, 32 sqq.) Mabillon issued a supplement to this edition of Garnier. From these materials, the Liber Diurnus was reprinted at Basle (1741), at Vienna (1762), and by Migne (P. L., CV, Paris, 1851). The first good edition, as stated above, we owe to Eug. de Rozière (Liber Diurnus ou Recueil des formules usitées par la Chancellerie pontificale du V ^e au XI ^e siècle, Paris, 1869). In the interest of this edition Daremberg and Renan compared Garnier's text with the Vatican manuscript, then regarded as the only authentic one. From this manuscript Th. von Sickel prepared a critical edition of the text: "Liber Diurnus Rom. Pont. ex unico codice Vaticano denuo ed." (Vienna, 1889). Just after the appearance of this work, however, Ceriani announced the discovery of a new manuscript, originally from Bobbio, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan; towards the end this was more complete than the Vatican manuscript. This text was published by Achille Ratti (Milan, 1891).

POTTHAST. Bibl. hist. medii œvi, I, 734-5; ROZIÈRE, Recherches sur le Liber Diurnus des Pontifes romains (Paris, 1868); SICKEL, Prolegomena zum Liber Diurnus, I and II, in Sitzungsberichte der k. k. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl., CXVII (1888-9), nn. 7, 13, also edited separately; IDEM, Die Vita Hadriani Nonantulana und die Diurnushandschriften in Neues Archiv, XVIII (1893), 107 sqq.; cf. ibid., XV (1890), 22 sq.; IDEM, Nouveauz éclaircissements sur la première édition du Diurnus in Mélanges Julien Havet (Paris, 1895), 14-38; GIORGI, Storia esterna del codice Vaticano del Liber Diurnus Rom. Pont. in Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria, XI (1889), 641 sqq.; CERIANI, Notizia di un antico manuscritto Ambrosiano del Liber Diurnus in Rendiconti del Istituto Lombardo di scienze, 2nd series, XXVI, 376 sqq.; DUCHESNE, Le Liber Diurnus et les élections pontificales au VII ^e siècle in Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes, LII (1891), 5-30; HARTMANN, Die Entstehungszeit des Liber Diurnus in Mitteilungen des Instituts für österr. Gesch., XIII (1892), 239-64; FRIEDRICH, Zur Entstehung des Liber Diurnus in Sitzungsber. der k. bayer. Akademie der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl., I (1890), 58-141.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Liberia

A republic on the west coast of Africa, between 4° 20´ and 7° 20´ N. lat., extending from the Sherbro river on the north-west, near the south boundary of the British colony of Sierra Leone, to the Pedro river on the south-east, a distance along the coast of nearly six hundred miles. It has enjoyed the status of a sovereign State since 1874, when its independence was formally recognized by England, France, and Germany. The habitable region of the country is a strip from ten to twelve miles wide along a slightly indented shore line of 350 miles. The area over which the political jurisdiction of the republic extends is estimated at 9700 square miles. The interior is one of the wildest and least visited sections of Africa.

Liberia had its origin in the scheme of the American Colonization Society to found in Africa a place to which free blacks and persons of African descent might return from the United States. Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, was at one time president of this society, which sent out its first colony to Africa on 6 Feb., 1820. They settled first on Sherbro Island, but in April, 1822, abandoned this site for the more promising location at Cape Mesurado, between Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast. Here the colony became permanently established, and continued under the management of the Colonization Society until the political exigencies of commercial intercourse with other countries, especially with England, forced Liberia, 26 July, 1847, to make a declaration of independence as a sovereign State. It is divided into four counties, Mesurado, Grand Bassa, Sinon, and Maryland. The capital and largest town is Monrovia, a seaport on Cape Mesurado, called after James Monroe, President of the United States, under whose administration the colonizing scheme was begun. There are no harbours, and access to the most important rivers is prevented for vessels of deep draught by a sand-bar. The temperature varies from 56 to 105 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average of 80 degrees and a rainfall of about 100 inches a year. The rainy season begins in May and ends in November, the hottest month being December and the coolest August. The climate is deadly to white men, African fever being prevalent.

Some 12,000 quasi-American negroes constitute the governing class. With these are affiliated about 30,000 who are civilized, native born, and native bred. The wilder tribes of the interior, estimated as numbering about 2,000,000 are the descendants of the aborigines. The Americo-Liberian settlers are to be found on the sea-coast and at the mouths of the two most important rivers. Of the native tribes the principal are the Veys, the Pessehs, the Barlines, the Bassas, the Kroos, the Frebos, and the Mandingos. Outside of the negroes of American origin not many Liberians are Christians. The converts have been made chiefly among the Kroos and the Frebos. Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterians, and Episcopalian missions have been established for many years with scant results. As a number of the first American colonists were Catholic negroes from Maryland and the adjoining states, the attention of Propaganda was called to their spiritual needs and the second Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1833 undertook to meet the difficulty. In accordance with the measures taken, the Very Rev. Edward Barron, Vicar-General of Philadelphia, the Rev. John Kelly of New York, and Denis Pindar, a lay catechist from Baltimore, volunteered for the mission and sailed for Africa from Baltimore on 2 December, 1841. They arrived there safe and Father Barron said the first Mass at Cape Palmas on 10 Feb., 1842. After a time, finding that he did not receive missionaries enough to accomplish anything practical, Father Barron returned to the United States, and thence went to Rome where he was made on 22 Jan., 1842, Vicar Apostolic of the Two Guineas, and titular Bishop of Constantia. With seven priests of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost he returned to Liberia, arriving at Cape Palmas on 30 Nov., 1843. Five of these priests died on the mission of fever, to which Denis Pindar, the lay catechist, also fell a victim, 1 Jan., 1844. Bishop Barron and Father Kelly held out for two years, and then, wasted by fever, they determined to return to the United States, feeling that it was impossible to withstand the climate any longer. Bishop Barron died of yellow fever during an epidemic at Savannah, Georgia, 12 Sept., 1854, and after a long pastorate Father Kelly died at Jersey City, New Jersey, 28 April, 1866.

The Fathers of the Holy Ghost, who took up the work, were also forced by the climate to abandon it in a couple of years, and the permanent mission lapsed until 25 Feb., 1884. The Fathers of Montfort (Company of Mary), under Fathers Blanchet and Lorber, then laid the foundation of another mission at Monrovia. The president of the republic, Mr. Johnson, and the people generally gave them a cordial welcome, but the sectarian ministers organized a cabal against them, and endeavoured to thwart all their efforts to spread the Faith. They made some progress in spite of this, and in the following year, having received reinforcements from France, opened a school for boys and extended their operations into other places. Father Bourzeix learned the native language, in which he compiled a catechism and translated a number of hymns. Later, when he returned to France, he wrote a history of Liberia. He died in 1886. Deaths among the missionaries and the health of the others shattered by fever forced these priests also to abandon the Liberia mission. After this it was visited occasionally by missionaries from Sierra Leone until 1906, when Propaganda handed its care over to the Priests of the African Missions (Lyons), and three Irish priests, Fathers Stephen Kyne, Joseph Butler, and Dennis O'Sullivan, with two French assistants, went to work with much energy, and continue (1910) to make much progress among the 2800 Catholics the vicariate is estimated to contain (see Africa, subtitle The Catholic Church). The British colony of Sierra Leone on the west, and the French colonies of the Ivory Coast to the east, and French Guinea to the north have gradually been encroaching on its territory, and internal troubles over deficits adding other complications, Liberia sent in 1908 an urgent appeal to the United States Government for help to preserve its integrity. To learn the conditions there, and find out what assistance could best be given, a commission of three was appointed by the president; it sailed from New York 24 April, 1909, and returned in the following August. The diary kept by Father John Kelly during his stay in Liberia was published in the United States Catholic Historical Society's "Records" (New York, 1910).

Stockwell, The Republic of Liberia (New York, 1868); Annual Report Smithsonian Inst. (Washington, 1905); Prolet, Miss. Cath., V (Paris, 1902), 172; Clark, Lives of Deceased Bishops U. S., II (New York, 1872), appendix; Catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1855); Shea, Hist Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1856); Kirlin, Catholicity in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1909); Flynn, The Cath. Church in New Jersey (Morristown, 1904), 92 sqq.

Thomas F. Meehan

Pope Liberius

(Reigned 352-66)

Pope Julius died on 12 April, according to the "Liberian Catalogue", and Liberius was consecrated on 22 May. As this was not a Sunday, 17 May was probably the day. Of his previous life nothing is known save that he was a Roman deacon. An epitaph preserved in a copy by a seventh-century pilgrim is attributed to Liberius by De Rossi, followed by many critics, including Duchesne. The principal points in it are that the pope confirmed the Nicene Faith in a council, and died in exile for the Faith, unless we render "a martyr by exile". The epitaph is attributed by Funk to St. Martin I. De Rossi, however, declared that no epigraphist could doubt that the verses are of the fourth and not the seventh century; still it is not easy to fit the lines to Liberius. The text is in De Rossi, "Inscr. Christ. Urbis Romæ", etc., II, 83, 85, and Duchesne, "Lib. Pont.", I, 209. See De Rossi in "Bull. Archeol. Crist." (1883), 5-62; and Von Funk in "Kirchengesch. Abhandl.", I (Paderborn, 1897), 391; Grisar in "Kirchenlex.", s. v.; Suvio, "Nuovi Studi", etc.

This subject will be considered under the following headings:

I. FIRST YEARS OF PONTIFICATE

By the death of Constans (Jan., 350), Constantius had become master of the whole empire, and was bent on uniting all Christians in a modified form of Arianism. Liberius, like his predecessor Julius, upheld the acquittal of Athanasius at Sardica, and made the decisions of Nicæa the test of orthodoxy. After the final defeat of the usurper Magnentius and his death in 353, Liberius, in accordance with the wishes of a large number of Italian bishops, sent legates to the emperor in Gaul begging him to hold a council. Constantius was pressuring the bishops of Gaul to condemn Athanasius, and assembled a number of them at Arles where he had wintered. The court bishops, who constantly accompanied the emperor, were the rulers of the council. The pope's legates (of whom one was Vincent of Capua, who had been one of the papal legates at the Council of Nicæa) were so weak as to consent to renounce the cause of Athanasius, on condition that all would condemn Arianism. The court party accepted the compact, but did not carry out their part; and the legates were forced by violence to condemn Athanasius, without gaining any concession for themselves. Liberius, on receiving the news, wrote to Hosius of Cordova of his deep grief at the fall of Vincent; he himself desired to die, lest he should incur the imputation of having agreed to injustice and heterodoxy. Another letter in the same strain was addressed by the pope to St. Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, who had formerly been one of the Roman clergy.

Earlier than this, a letter against Athanasius signed by many Eastern bishops had arrived at Rome. The emperor sent a special envoy named Montanus to Alexandria, where he arrived 22 May, 353, to inform the patriarch that the emperor was willing to grant him a personal interview; but Athanasius had never asked for this; he recognized that a trap had been set for him, and did not move. He quitted Alexandria only in the following February, when George, an Arian, was set up as bishop in his place, amid disgraceful scenes of violence. But Athanasius had already held a council in his own defence, and a letter in his favour, signed by seventy-five (or eighty) Egyptian bishops, had arrived at Rome at the end of May, 353. Constantius publicly accused the pope of preventing peace and of suppressing the letter of the Easterns against Athanasius. Liberius replied with a dignified and touching letter (Obsecro, tranqullissime imperator), in which he declares that he read the letter of the Easterns to a council at Rome (probably an anniversary council, 17 May, 353), but, as the letter which arrived from Egypt was signed by a greater number of bishops, it was impossible to condemn Athanasius; he himself had never wished to be pope, but he had followed his predecessors in all things; he could not make peace with the Easterns, for some of them refused to condemn Arius, and they were in communion with George of Alexandria, who accepted the Arian priests whom Alexander had long ago excommunicated. He complains of the Council of Arles, and begs for the assembling of another council, by means of which the exposition of faith to which all had agreed at Nicæa may be enforced for the future. The letter was carried by Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris (Cagliari), the priest Pancratius, and the deacon Hilary, to the emperor at Milan. The pope asked St. Eusebius to assist the legates with his influence, and wrote again to thank him for having done so. A council was in fact convened at Milan, and met there about the spring of 355. St. Eusebius was persuaded to be present, and he insisted that all should begin by signing the Nicene decree. The court bishops declined. The military were called in. Constantius ordered the bishops to take his word for the guilt of Athanasius, and condemn him. Eusebius was banished, together with Lucifer and Dionysius of Milan. Liberius sent another letter to the emperor; and his envoys, the priest Eutropius and the deacon Hilary, were also exiled, the deacon being besides cruelly beaten. The Arian Auxentius was made Bishop of Milan. The pope wrote a letter, generally known as "Quamuis sub imagine", to the exiled bishops, addressing them as martyrs, and expressing his regret that he had not been the first to suffer so as to set an example to others; he asks for their prayers that he may yet be worthy to share their exile.

That these were not mere words was proved, not only by Liberius's noble attitude of protest during the preceding years, but by his subsequent conduct. Constantius was not satisfied by the renewed condemnation of Athanasius by the Italian bishops who had lapsed at Milan under pressure. He knew that the pope was the only ecclesiastical superior of the Bishop of Alexandria, and he "strove with burning desire", says the pagan Ammianus, "that the sentence should be confirmed by the higher authority of the bishop of the eternal city". St. Athanasius assures us that from the beginning the Arians did not spare Liberius, for they calculated that, if they could but persuade him, they would soon get hold of all the rest. Constantius sent to Rome his prefect of the bed-chamber, the eunuch Eusebius, a very powerful personage, with a letter and gifts. "Obey the emperor and take this" was in fact his message, says St. Athanasius, who proceeds to give the pope's reply at length: He could not decide against Athanasius, who had been acquitted by two general synods, and had been dismissed in peace by the Roman Church, nor could he condemn the absent; such was not the tradition he had received from his predecessors and from St. Peter; if the emperor desired peace, he must annul what he had decreed against Athanasius and have a council celebrated without emperor or counts or judges present, so that the Nicene Faith might be preserved; the followers of Arius must be cast out and their heresy anathematized; the unorthodox must not sit in a synod; the Faith must first be settled, and then only could other matters be treated; let Ursacius and Valens, the court bishops from Pannonia, be disregarded, for they had already once disowned their bad actions, and were no longer worthy of credit.

The eunuch was enraged, and went off with his bribes, which he laid before the confession of St. Peter. Liberius severely rebuked the guardians of the holy place for not having prevented this unheard-of sacrilege. He cast the gifts away, which angered the eunuch yet more, so that he wrote to the emperor that it was no longer a question of simply getting Liberius to condemn Athanasius, for he went so far as formally to anathematize the Arians. Constantius was persuaded by his eunuchs to send Palatine officers, notaries, and counts, with letters to the Prefect of Rome, Leontius, ordering that Liberius should be seized either secretly or by violence, and despatched to the court.

There followed a kind of persecution at Rome. Bishops, says St. Athanasius, and pious ladies were obliged to hide, monks were not safe, foreigners were expelled, the gates and the port were watched. "The Ethiopian eunuch", continues the saint, "when he understood not what he read, believed St. Philip; whereas the eunuchs of Constantius do not believe Peter when he confesses Christ, nor the Father indeed, when He reveals His Son"--an allusion to the declarations of the popes that in condemning Arianism they spoke with the voice of Peter and repeated his confession, "Thou art [the] Christ, the Son of the living God", which the Father Himself had revealed to the Apostle. Liberius was dragged before the emperor at Milan. He spoke boldly, bidding Constantius cease fighting against God, and declaring his readiness to go at once into exile before his enemies had time to trump up charges against him. Theodoret has preserved the minutes of an interview between "the glorious Liberius" and Contstantius, which were taken down by good people, he says, at the time. Liberius refuses to acknowledge the decision of the Council of Tyre and to renounce Athanasius; the Mareotic acts against him were false witness, and Ursacius and Valens had confessed as much, and had asked pardon from the Synod of Sardica. Epictetus, the young intruded Bishop of Centumcellæ, interposes, saying that Liberius only wanted to be able to boast to the Roman senators that he had beaten the emperor in argument. "Who are you", adds Constantius, "to stand up for Athanasius against the world?" Liberius replies: "Of old there were found but three to resist the mandate of the king." The eunuch Eusebius cried: "You compare the emperor to Nabuchodonosor." Liberius: "No, but you condemn the innocent." He demands that all shall subscribe the Nicene formula, then the exiles must be restored, and all the bishops must assemble at Alexandria to give Athanasius a fair trial on the spot.

Epictus: "But the public conveyances will not be enough to carry so many."
Liberius: "They will not be needed; the ecclesiastics are rich enough to send their bishops as far as the sea."
Constantius: "General synods must not be too numerous; you alone hold out against the judgment of the whole world. He has injured all, and me above all; not content with the murder of my eldest brother, he set Constans also against me. I should prize a victory over him more than one over Silvanus or Magnentius."
Liberius: "Do not employ bishops, whose hands are meant to bless, to revenge your own enmity. Have the bishops restored and, if they agree with the Nicene Faith, let them consult as to the peace of the world, that an innocent man be not condemned."
Constantius: "I am willing to send you back to Rome, if you will join the communion of the Church. Make peace, and sign the condemnation."
Liberius: "I have already bidden farewell at Rome to the brethren. The laws of the Church are more important than residence in Rome."

The emperor gave the pope three days for consideration, and then banished him to Beroea in Thrace, sending him five hundred gold pieces for his expenses; but he refused them, saying Constantius needed them to pay his soldiers. The empress sent him the same amount, but he sent it to the emperor, saying: "If he does not need it, let him give it to Auxentius or Epictetus, who want such things." Eusebius the eunuch brought him yet more money: "You have laid waste the Churches of the world", the pope broke out, "and do you bring me alms as to a condemned man? Go and first become a Christian."

II. EXILE

On the departure of Liberius from Rome, all the clergy had sworn that they would receive no other bishop. But soon many of them accepted as pope the Archdeacon Felix, whose consecration by the Arian Bishop Acacius of Cæsarea had been arranged by Epictetus at the emperor's order. The people of Rome ignored the antipope. Constantius paid his first visit to Rome on 1 April, 357, and was able to see for himself the failure of his nominee. He was aware that there was no canonical justification for the exile of Liberius and the intrusion of Felix; in other cases he had always acted in accordance with the decision of a council. He was also greatly moved by the grandeur of the Eternal City--so Ammianus assures us. He was impressed by the prayers for the return of the pope boldly addressed to him by the noblest of the Roman ladies, whose husbands had insufficient courage for the venture. There is no reason to suppose that Felix was recognized by any bishops outside Rome, unless by the court party and a few extreme Arians, and the uncompromising attitude of Liberius through at least the greater part of his banishment must have done more harm to the cause the emperor had at heart than his constancy had done when left at Rome in peace. It is not surprising to find that Liberius returned to Rome before the end of 357, and that it was noised abroad that he must have signed the condemnation of Athanasius and perhaps some Arian Creed. His restoration is placed by some critics in 358, but this is impossible, for St. Athanasius tells us that he endured the rigours of exile for two years, and the "Gesta inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos", which forms the preface to the "Liber Precum" of Faustinus and Marcellinus, tells us that he returned "in the third year". The cause of his return is variously related. Theodoret says that Constantius was moved by the Roman matrons to restore him, but when his letter to Rome, saying that Liberius and Felix were to be bishops side by side, was read in the circus, the Romans jeered at it, and filled the air with cries of "One God, one Christ, one bishop". The Arian historian Philostorgius also speaks of the Romans having eagerly demanded the return of their pope, and so does Rufinus. St. Sulpicius Severus, on the other hand, gives the cause as seditions at Rome, and Sozomen agrees. Socrates is more precise, and declares that the Romans rose against Felix and drove him out, and that the emperor was obliged to acquiesce. The reading in St. Jerome's "Chronicle" is doubtful. He says that a year after the Roman clergy had perjured themselves they were driven out together with Felix, until (or because) Liberius had re-entered the city in triumph. If we read "until", we shall understand that after Liberius's return the forsworn clergy returned to their allegiance. If we read "because", with the oldest MS., it will seem rather that the expulsion of Felix was subsequent to and consequent on the return of Liberius. St. Prosper seems to have understood Jerome in the latter sense. The preface to the "Liber Precum" mentions two expulsions of Felix, but does not say that either of them was previous to the return of Liberius.

On the other hand, the Arian Philostorgius related that Liberius was restored only when he had consented to sign the second formula of Sirmium, which was drawn up after the summer of 357 by the court bishops, Germinius, Ursacius, Valens; it rejected the terms homoousios and homoiousios; and was sometimes called the "formula of Hosius", who was forced to accept it in this same year, though St. Hilary is surely wrong in calling him its author. The same story of the pope's fall is supported by three letters attributed to him in the so-called "Historical Fragments" ("Fragmenta ex Opere Historico" in P.L., X, 678 sqq.) of St. Hilary, but Sozomen tells us it was a lie, propagated by the Arian Eudoxius, who had just invaded the See of Antioch. St. Jerome seems to have believed it, as in his "Chronicle" he says that Liberius "conquered by the tedium of exile and subscribing to heretical wickedness entered Rome in triumph". The preface to the "Liber Precum" also speaks of his yielding to heresy. St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." St. Hilary, writing at Constantinople in 360, addresses Constantius thus: "I know not whether it was with greater impiety that you exiled him than that you restored him" (Contra Const., II).

Sozomen tells a story which finds no echo in any other writer. He makes Constantius, after his return from Rome, summon Liberius to Sirmium (357), and there the pope is forced by the Semi-Arian leaders, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius, and Eleusius, to condemn the "Homoousion"; he is induced to sign a combination of three formulæ: that of the Catholic Council of Antioch of 267 against Paul of Samosata (in which homoousios was said to have been rejected as Sabellian in tendency), that of the Sirmian assembly which condemned Photinus in 351, and the Creed of the Dedication Council of Antioch of 341. These formulæ were not precisely heretical, and Liberius is said to have exacted from Ursacius and Valens a confession that the Son is "in all things similar to the Father". Hence Sozomen's story has been very generally accepted as giving a moderate account of Liberius's fall, admitting it to be a fact, yet explaining why so many writers implicitly deny it. But the date soon after Constantius was at Rome is impossible, as the Semi-Arians only united at the beginning of 358, and their short-lived influence over the emperor began in the middle of that year; hence Duchesne and many others hold (in spite of the clear witness of St. Athanasius) that Liberius returned only in 358. Yet Sozomen mentions the presence of Western bishops, and this suits 357; he says that Eudoxius spread the rumour that Liberius had signed the second Sirmian formula, and this suits 357 and not the time of Semi-Arian ascendancy. Further, the formula "in all things like" was not the Semi-Arian badge in 358, but was forced upon them in 359, after which they adopted it, declaring that it included their special formula "like in substance". Now Sozomen is certainly following here the lost compilation of the Macedonian (i.e. Semi-Arian) Sabinus, whom we know to have been untrustworthy wherever his sect was concerned. Sabinus seems simply to have had the Arian story before him, but regarded it, probably rightly, as an invention of the party of Eudoxius; he thinks the truth must have been that, if Liberius signed a Sirmian formula, it was the harmless one of 351; if he condemned the "Homoousion", it was only in the sense in which it had been condemned at Antioch; he makes him accept the Dedication Creed (which was that of the Semi-Arians and all the moderates of the East), and force upon the court bishops the Semi-Arian formula of 359 and after. He adds that the bishops at Sirmium wrote to Felix and to the Roman clergy, asking that Liberius and Felix should both be accepted as bishops. It is quite incredible that men like Basil and his party should have done this.

III. LATER YEARS OF LIBERIUS

At the time of his return, the Romans cannot have known that Liberius had fallen, for St. Jerome (who is so fond of telling us of the simplicity of their faith and the delicacy of their pious ears) says he entered Rome as a conquerer. It was clearly not supposed that he had been conquered by Constantius. There is no sign of his ever having admitted that he had fallen. In 359 were held the simultaneous Councils of Seleucia and Rimini. At the latter, where most of the bishops were orthodox, the pressure and delay, and the underhand machinations of the court party entrapped the bishops into error. The pope was not there, nor did he send legates. After the council his disapproval was soon known, and after the death of Constantius at the end of 361 he was able publicly to annul it, and to decide, much as a council under Athanasius at Alexandria decided, that the bishops who had fallen could be restored on condition of their proving the sincerity of their repentance by their zeal against the Arians. About 366 he received a deputation of the Semi-Arians led by Eustathius; he treated them first as Arians (which he could not have done had he ever joined them), and insisted on their accepting the Nicene formula before he would receive them to communion; he was unaware that many of them were to turn out later to be unsound on the question of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. We learn also from St. Siricius that, after annulling the Council of Rimini, Liberius issued a decree forbidding the re-baptism of those baptized by Arians, which was being practiced by the Luciferian schismatics.

IV. FORGED LETTERS

In the fragments of St. Hilary are embedded a number of letters of Liberius. Fragment IV contains a letter, "Studens paci", together with a very corrupt comment upon it by St. Hilary. The letter has usually been considered a forgery since Baronius (2nd ed.), and Duchesne expressed the common view when he said in his "Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise" (1907) that St. Hilary meant us to understand that it is spurious. But its authenticity was defended by Tillemont, and has been recently upheld by Schiktanz and Duchesne (1908), all Catholic writers. Hermant (cited by Coustant), followed by Savio, believed that the letter was inserted by a forger in the place of a genuine letter, and he took the first words of St. Hilary's comment to be serious and not ironical: "What in this letter does not proceed from piety and from the fear of God?" In this document Liberius is made to address the Arian bishops of the East, and to declare that on receiving an epistle against St. Athanasius from the Oriental bishops, which had been sent to his predecessor Julius, he had hesitated to condemn that saint, since his predecessor had absolved him, but he had sent legates to Alexandria to summon him to Rome. Athanasius had refused to come, and Liberius on receiving new letters from the East had at once excommunicated him, and was now anxious to communicate with the Arian party. Duchesne thinks this letter was written in exile at the beginning of 357, and that Liberius had really sent an embassy (in 352-3), suggesting that Athanasius should come to Rome; now in his exile he remembers that Athanasius had excused himself, and alleges this as a pretext for condemning him. It seems inconceivable, however, that after heroically supporting Athanasius for years, and, having suffered exile for more than a year rather than condemn him, Liberius should motive his present weakness by a disobedience on the saint's part at which he had testified no resentment during all this stretch of time. On the contrary, St. Hilary's comment seems plainly to imply that the letter was forged by Fortunatian, Metropolitan of Aquileia, one of the bishops who condemned Athanasius and joined the court party at the Council of Milan in 355. Fortunatian must have tried to excuse his own fall, by pretending the pope (who was then still in Rome) had entrusted this letter to him to give to the emperor, "but Potamius and Epictetus did not believe it to be genuine when they condemned the pope with glee (as the Council of Rimini said of them)", else they would not have condemned him to exile, "and Fortunatian sent it also to many bishops without getting any gain by it". And St. Hilary goes on to declare that Fortunatian had further condemned himself by omitting to mention how Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica after the letter of the Easterns against him to Pope Julius, and how a letter had come from a council at Alexandria and all Egypt in his favour to Liberius, as earlier to Julius. Hilary appeals to documents which follow, evidently the letter "Obsecro" to the emperor (already mentioned), in which Liberius attests that he received the defence by the Egyptians at the same time with the accusation by the Arians. The letter "Obsecro" forms fragment V, and it seems to have been immediately followed in the original work by fragment VI, which opens with the letter of Liberius to the confessors, "Quamuis sub imagine" (proving how steadfast he was in his support of the faith), followed by quotations from letters to a bishop of Spoleto and to Hosius, in which the pope deplores the fall of Vincent at Arles. These letters are incontestably genuine.

There follows in the same fragment a paragraph which declares that Liberius, when in exile, reversed all these promises and actions, writing to the wicked, prevaricating Arians the three letters which complete the fragment. These correspond to the authentic letters which have preceded, each to each: the first, "Pro deifico timore" is a parody of "Obsecro"; the second "Quia scio uos", is a reversal of everything said in "Quamuis"; the third "Non doceo", is a palinode, painful to read, of the letter to Hosius. The three are clearly forgeries, composed for their present position. They defend the authenticity of "Studens paci", which they represent as having been sent to the emperor from Rome by the hands of Fortunatian; the genuine letters are not contested, but it is shown that Liberius changed his mind and wrote the "Studens paci"; that in spite of this he was exiled, through the machinations of his enemies, so he wrote "Pro deifico timore" to the Easterns, assuring them not only that he had condemned Athanasius in "Studens paci", but that Demophilus, the Bishop of Beroea (reprobated as a heretic in "Obsecro"), had explained to him the Sirmian formula of 357, and he had willingly accepted it. This formula disapproved of the words homoousios and homoiousios alike; it had been drawn up by Geminius, Ursacius, and Valens. "Quia scio nos" is addressed precisely to these three court bishops and Liberius begs them to pray the emperor for his restoration, just as in "Quamuis" he had begged the three confessors to pray to God that he too might be exiled. "Non doceo" parodies the grief of Liberius at the fall of Vincent; it is addressed to Vincent himself and begs him to get the Campanian bishops to meet and write to the emperor for the restoration of Liberius. Interspersed in the first and second letters are anathemas "to the prevaricator Liberius", attributed by the forger to St. Hilary. The forger is clearly one of the Luciferians, whose heresy consisted in denying all validity to the acts of those bishops who had fallen at the council of Rimini in 359; whereas Pope Liberius had issued a decree admitting their restoration on their sincere repentance, and also condemned the Luciferian practice of rebaptizing those whom the fallen bishops had baptized.

The aforesaid "Fragments" of St. Hilary have recently been scrutinized by Wilmart, and it appears that they belonged to two different books, the one written in 356 as an apology when the saint was sent into exile by the Synod of Béziers, and the other written soon after the council of Rimini for the instruction (says Rufinus) of the fallen bishops; it was entitled "Liber adversus Valentem et Ursacium". The letters of Liberius belonged to the latter work. Rufinus tells us that it was interpolated--he implies this of the whole edition--and that Hilary was accused at a council on the score of these corruptions; he denied them, but, on the book being fetched from his own lodging, they were found in it, and St. Hilary was expelled excommunicate from the council. St. Jerome denied all knowledge of the incident, but Rufinus certainly spoke with good evidence, and his story fits in exactly with St. Hilary's own account of a council of ten bishops which sat at his urgent request at Milan about 364 to try Auxentius whom he accused of Arianism. The latter defended himself by equivocal expressions, and the bishops as well as the orthodox Emperor Valentinian were satisfied; St. Hilary, on the contrary, was accused by Auxentius of heresy, and of joining with St. Eusebius of Vercelli in disturbing the peace, and he was banished from the city. He does not mention of what heresy he was accused, nor on what grounds; but it must have been Luciferianism, and Rufinus has informed us of the proofs which were offered. It is interesting that the fragments of the book against Valens and Ursacius should still contain in the forged letters of Liberius (and perhaps, also in one attributed to St. Eusebius) a part of the false evidence on which a Doctor of the Church was turned out of Milan and apparently excommunicated.

It would seem that when St. Hilary wrote his book "Adversus Constantium" in 360, just before his return from exile in the East, he believed that Liberius had fallen and had renounced St. Athanasius; but his words are not quite clear. At all events, when he wrote his "Adversus Valentem et Ursacium" after his return, he showed the letter "Studens paci" to be a forgery, by appending to it some noble letters of the pope. Now this seems to prove that the Luciferians were making use of "Studens paci" after Rimini, in order to show that the pope, who was now in their opinion too indulgent to the fallen bishops, had himself been guilty of an even worse betrayal of the Catholic cause before his exile. In their view, such a fall would unpope him and invalidate all his subsequent acts. That St. Hilary should have taken some trouble to prove that the "Studens paci" was spurious makes it evident that he did not believe Liberius had fallen subsequently in his exile; else his trouble was useless. Consequently, St. Hilary becomes a strong witness to the innocence of Liberius. If St. Athanasius believed in his fall, this was when he was in hiding, and immediately after the supposed event; he was apparently deceived for the moment by the rumours spread by the Arians. The author of the preface to the "Liber Precum" of Faustinus and Marcellinus is an Ursinian masquerading as a Luciferian in order to get the advantage of the toleration accorded to the latter sect, and he takes a Luciferian view of Liberius; possibly he followed Jerome's "Chronicle", which seems to be following the forged letters; for Jerome knew St. Hilary's book "Against Valens and Ursacius", and he refused to accept the assertion of Rufinus that it had been interpolated. In his account of Fortunatian (De Viris Illust., xcvii) he says this bishop "was infamous for having been the first to break the courage of Liberius and induce him to give his signature to heresy, and this on his way into exile". This is incredible, for St. Athanasius twice tells us that the pope held out two whole years. Evidently St. Jerome (who was very careless about history) had got hold of the story that Fortunatian had a letter of Liberius in his hands after the Council of Milan, and he concludes that he must have met Liberius as the latter passed through Aquileia on his way to Thrace; that is to say, Jerome has read the forged letters and has not quite understood them.

Rufinus, who was himself of Aquileia, says he could not find out whether Liberius fell or not. This seems to be as much as to say that, knowing necessarily the assertions of St. Jerome, he was unable to discover on what they were based. He himself was not deceived by the forgeries, and there was indeed no other basis.

Positive evidence in favour of Liberius is not wanting. About 432 St. Prosper re-edited and continued St. Jerome's "Chronicle", but he was careful to omit the words tædio victus exilii in relating the return of Liberius. St. Sulpicius Severus (403) says Liberius was restored ob seditiones Romanas. A letter of Pope St. Anastasius I (401) mentions him with Dionysius, Hilary, and Eusebius as one of those who would have died rather than blaspheme Christ with the Arians. St. Ambrose remembered him as an exceedingly holy man. Socrates has placed the exile of Liberius after the Council of Milan, through too carelessly following the order of Rufinus; unlike Rufinus, however, he is not doubtful about the fall of Liberius, but gives as sufficient reason for his return the revolt of the Romans against Felix, and he has expressly omitted the story which Sozomen took from Sabinus, a writer of whose good faith Socrates had a low opinion. To Theodoret Liberius is a glorious athlete of the faith; he tells us more of him than any other writer has done, and he tells it with enthusiasm.

But the strongest arguments for the innocence of Liberius are a priori. Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it; it would have been more notorious than even that gained over Hosius. But if he was released because the Romans demanded him back, because his deposition had been too uncanonical, because his resistance was too heroic, and because Felix was not generally recognized as pope, then we might be sure he would be suspected of having given some pledge to the emperor; the Arians and the Felicians alike, and soon the Luciferians, would have no difficulty in spreading a report of his fall and in winning credence for it. It is hard to see how Hilary in banishment and Athanasius in hiding could disbelieve such a story, when they heard that Liberius had returned, though the other exiled bishops were still unrelieved.

Further, the pope's decree after Rimini, that the fallen bishops could not be restored unless they showed their sincerity by vigour against the Arians, would have been laughable, if he himself had fallen yet earlier, and had not publicly atoned for his sin. Yet, we can be quite certain that he made no public confession of having fallen, no recantation, no atonement.

The forged letters and, still more, the strong words of St. Jerome have perpetuated the belief in his guilt. The "Liber Pontificalis" makes him return from exile to persecute the followers of Felix, who becomes a martyr and a saint. St. Eusebius, martyr, is represented in his Acts as a Roman priest, put to death by the Arianizing Liberius. But the curious "Gesta Liberii", apparently of the time of Pope Symmachus, do not make any clear allusion to a fall. The Hieronymian Martyrology gives his deposition both on 23 Sept. and 17 May; on the former date he is commemorated by Wandalbert and by some of the enlarged MSS. of Usuard. But he is not in the Roman Martyrology.

V. MODERN JUDGMENTS ON POPE LIBERIUS

Historians and critics have been much divided as to the guilt of Liberius. Stilting and Zaccaria are the best known among the earlier defenders; in the nineteenth century, Palma, Reinerding, Hergenröther, Jungmann, Grisar, Feis, and recently Savio. These have been inclined to doubt the authenticity of the testimonies of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome to the fall of Liberius, but their arguments, though serious, hardly amount to a real probability against these texts. On the other hand, Protestant and Gallican writers have been severe on Liberius (e.g. Moeller, Barmby, the Old-Catholic Langen, and Döllinger), but they have not pretended to decide with certainty what Arian formula he signed. With these Renouf may be grouped, and lately Schiktanz. A more moderate view is represented by Hefele, who denied the authenticity of the letters, but admitted the truth of Sozomen's story, looking upon the union of the pope with the Semi-Arians as a deplorable mistake, but not a lapse into heresy. He is followed by Funk and Duchesne (1907), while the Protestant Krüger is altogether undecided. The newest view, brilliantly exposed by Duchesne in 1908, is that Liberius early in 357 (because the preface to the "Liber Precum" makes Constantius speak at Rome in April-May as though Liberius had already fallen) wrote the letter "Studens paci", and, finding it did not satisfy the emperor, signed the indefinite and insufficient formula of 351, and wrote the three other contested letters; the Arian leaders were still not satisfied, and Liberius was only restored to Rome when the Semi-Arians were able to influence the emperor in 358, after Liberius had agreed with them as Sozomen relates. The weak points of this theory are as follows: There is no other authority for a fall so early as the beginning of 357 but a casual word in the document referred to above; the "Studens paci" is senseless at so late a date; the letter "Pro deifico timore" plainly means that Liberius had accepted the formula of 357 (not that of 351), and had he done so, he would certainly have been restored at once; the story of Sozomen is untrustworthy, and Liberius must have returned in 357.

It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.

The letters of Liberius, together with his sermon on the occasion of the consecration of St. Ambrose's sister to virginity (preserved by that Father, "De Virg.", i, ii, iii), and the dialogue with the emperor (Theodoret, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xvi) are collected in Coustant "Epistolæ Rom. Pont." (reprint in P.L. VIII). A critical edition from MSS. of the three spurious epistles of St. Hilary, `Frag.' VI, in "Revue Bénéd." (Jan., 1910).

STILTING in Acta SS., Sept., VI (1757), 572; TILLEMONT, Mémoires, VI; ZACCARIA, Dissertatio de commentitio Liberii lapsu in PETAVIUS, Theol. dog., II, ii (1757); PALMA, Prælectiones Hist. Eccl., I (Rome, 1838); REINERDING, Beiträge zur Honorius und Liberiusfrage (1865); LE PAGE RENOUF, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius (London, 1868); HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, I (2nd ed. and later ones; Eng tr. vol. II, 1876); JUNGMANN, Dissertationes selectæ, II (Ratisbon and New York, 1881); BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; HERGENRÖTHER, Kirchengesch., I, (1884) 374; GRISAR in Kirchenlex., s. v.; FEIS, Storia di Liberio Papa e dello scisma dei Semiariani (Rome, 1894); MOELLER-SCHUBERT, Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch., I (Leipzig, 1902); LOOFS in Realencyklopädie für protestantitsche Theologie und Kirche, s. v. Hilarius; KRUGER, ibid., s. v. Liberius; SCHIKTANZ, Die Hilariusfragmente (Breslau, 1905); SALTET, La formation de la légende des papes Libère de 357, ibid. (Dec., 1907); WILMART, L'Ad Contstantium liber I de S. Hilaire in Revue Bénéd. (April and July, 1907); IDEM, Les Fragments historiques et le synode de Béziers, ibid. (April, 1908); IDEM, La question du pape Libère, ibid. (July, 1908); DUCHESNE, Libère et Fortunatien in Mélanges de l'école française de Rome, XXVIII, i-ii (Jan.-April, 1908); SAVIO, La questione di papa Liberio (Rome, 1907, an answer to SCHIKTANZ); IDEM, Nuovi studi sulla questione di papa Liberio (Rome, 1909; in reply to DUCHESNE); FEDER, Studien zu Hilarius von Poitiers, I, in Sitzungsber. der K. Akad. Wiss. von Wien (Vienna, 1910), follows DUCHESNE.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Ven. Francis Mary Paul Libermann

Founder of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was afterwards merged in the Congregation of the Holy Ghost (q.v.). The son of a Jewish rabbi, he was born at Severne in Alsace, 12 April, 1804; he died at Paris, 2 February, 1852. He received the name of Jacob at his circumcision, and was the third youngest of seven children whom his mother Lia Suzanna Haller, bore to his father, Lazarus Libermann. He was brought up according to the sternly strict tenets of the Talmud, and his mind was early imbued with a special horror of the "Goim", or Christians. He lost his mother when he was nine years old; and this, together with the harsh treatment he received from his schoolmaster, caused his boyhood to pass in much bitterness. The learned and universally esteemed rabbi of Severne fixed his mind on his son, Jacob, as his successor in the rabbinical office. With this in view, he sent him to Metz to perfect his studies in the Talmud, and in Hebrew and Chaldaic. But God had other designs on the young man, who was then in his twentieth year. During his stay at Metz, the Gospels, translated into Hebrew came accidentally into his hands, and impressed him deeply. Moreover, his eldest brother first, and afterwards two other brothers, embraced Catholicity. And, although Jacob deeply resented their change of religion, he gradually came to recognize their happiness and peace of soul, which was in strong contrast with his own distracted frame of mind. Finally, he obtained from his father permission to go to Paris; and there he came under the influence of M. Drach, a convert from Judaism, who had him received into the College Stanislas, where he was instructed in the truths of Faith, which he embraced with eagerness. He was baptized on Christmas Eve, 1826, in the twenty-third year of his age. At baptism he took the three-fold name of Francis Mary Paul, the first two in gratitude to his godfather, Baron Francois de Mallet, and to his godmother, Comtesse Marie d'Heuse, and the last as a mark of his admiration of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, whom he was so closely to imitate in many respects.

Immediately after his conversion, M. Libermann displayed marked signs of a vocation for the ecclesiastical state. His protectors and friends found a place for him, first, in the college of the Missions de France, where he received tonsure five months after his baptism, and later in the seminary of St. Sulpice, which he entered in October, 1827. On the very eve of his promotion to subdeaconship, he was stricken down by an attack of epilepsy which was to be his companion for the next five years. During that time he was kept by his charitable superiors at the seminary of Issy. It was there that he was brought into close apostolic relationship with two Creole seminarians, M. Le Vavasseur, from Bourbon, and M. Tisserand, from Santo Domingo, both of whom were filled with zeal for the evangelization of the poor ex-slaves of those islands. This acquaintanceship evoked the first concept of a religious society for the conversion of those abandoned souls. It took five years more of prayer and patience to accomplish the foundation of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for that purpose. Meanwhile, M. Libermann was called away to become, though yet only in minor orders, master of novices for the Eudist Fathers at Rennes. After two years of devotion to that work (1838-39), he felt a very positive call from God to unite with MM. Le Vavasseur and Tisserand in furthering the apostolate to the negroes. At their suggestion, he proceeded to Rome and laid his plans before the Holy See. The year of his sojourn at Rome (1840-41) was passed in great obscurity and poverty. He profited by the time he was kept waiting for a decision to write the provisional rules of the proposed institute, as well as a remarkable "Commentary on St. John's Gospel". At last, after a year's waiting, the obscure and friendless ecclesiastic received the warm encouragement of the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda, to pursue his project for the evangelization of the negroes. He repaired to the seminary of Strasburg to prepare for his ordination, which took place at Amiens, 18 September, 1841. On the twenty-seventh of the same month the novitiate of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was opened in the neighbouring village of La Neuville.

The first occupants of the novitiate were the founder himself, his first associate, Father La Vavasseur, and a sub-deacon, M. Collin. Others filled with apostolic zeal quickly joined them, among the number being Rev. Ignatius Schwindemhammer, who was destined to be the founder's immediate successor. Missions were soon offered to the infant society in Mauritius, where Father Laval wrought wonders which continue to the present day; in Bourbon and Hayti; and, especially in Africa. Father Libermann's sons were, practically, the first since the downfall of the African Church to penetrate the Dark Continent. Most of the first missioners paid for their heroism with their lives; but others filled their places; and the widespread prosperity of the Church in Africa, at the present day is, in large measure, due to the initiative and self-sacrifice of the first members of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Venerable Libermann was the heart and soul, the father and model of the nascent community during the seven years of its independent existence, 1841-1848. By that time it had become numerous and flourishing; and Divine Providence ordained that it should be engrafted on the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, which had a similar object, but which had become almost exstinct during the Revolution (see HOLY GHOST, RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS OF THE, I). This difficult and delicate task of uniting two congregations was successfully accomplished, at the request of the Holy See, by Father Libermann; and he was chosen superior general of the united societies, a post he occupied till his death. By the time of his death, the Venerable Libermann enjoyed the reputation of the highest sanctity in the minds of all who knew him; and shortly after his death there was a widespread desire to have the cause of his beatification introduced. The usual ecclesiastical tribunal was erected in Paris, in 1867; its labours were continued till 1872, when the depositions of the witnesses and the other documents bearing on the case were forwarded to Rome. After mature examination and deliberation, the Sacred Congregation of Rites unanimously decreed the introduction of his cause. This decree was ratified a few days afterwards, 1 June, 1876, by Pius IX, who thus declared the holy convert from Judaism Venerable. Since that time, the cause of his beatification has progressed through the usual forms; and his spiritual sons throughout the world expect to see him ere long declared Blessed.

Several thousand of his letters have been preserved; and these, together with all his other writings, have been examined and approved by the Holy See. His method of spiritual direction was, like his life, a mingling of sweetness and self-denial, breathing peace and courage, in the midst of all manner of trials. His published writings are, "Lettres Spirituelles", 2 vols. (Paris, 1880); "Ecrits Spirituels" (Paris, 1891); "Commentaire sur l'Evangile de St. Jean" (Paris, n.d.).

PITRA, Vie du R. P. Libermann, (Paris, 1872); Vie du R. P. Libermann par un pere de la Cong. du S. Esprit (Paris, 1878); GOEPFERT, Life of Ven. F. M. P. Libermann, (Dublin, 1880).

JOHN T. MURPHY

Liber Pontificalis

(BOOK OF THE POPES).

A history of the popes beginning with St. Peter and continued down to the fifteenth century, in the form of biographies. The first complete collection of the papal biographies in the original form of the Liber Pontificalis reached to Stephen V (885-91). They were afterwards continued in a different style as far as Eugene IV (d. 1447) and Pius II (d. 1464). The individual biographies are very unequal in extent and importance. In most cases they exhibit a definite symmetrical form, which in the old Liber Pontificalis is quite uniform. These brief sketches give the origin and birthplace of the pope, the length of his pontificate, the decrees issued by him on questions of ecclesiastical discipline and liturgy, civil and ecclesiastical events, the building and renovation of Roman churches, donations to churches of land, liturgical furniture, reliquaries valuable tapestries and the like, transfer of relics to churches, the number of the principal ordinations (bishops, priests, deacons), the burial-place of the pope, and the time during which the see was vacant.

Historical criticism has for a long time dealt with this ancient text in an exhaustive way, especially in recent decades after Duchesne had begun the publication of his classic edition. In most of its manuscript copies there is found at the beginning a spurious correspondence between Pope Damasus and Saint Jerome. These letters were considered genuine in the Middle Ages; consequently, in those times St. Jerome was considered the author of the biographies as far as Damasus, at whose request it was believed Jerome had written the work, the subsequent lives having been added at the command of each individual pope. When the above-mentioned correspondence was proved entirely apocryphal, this view was abandoned. In the sixteenth century Onofrio Panvinio on quite insufficient grounds attributed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius in the ninth century the continuation of the biographies as far as Nicholas I. Although Baronius in great measure corrected this false impression, the earlier editions, which appeared in the seventeenth century, bear the name of Anastasius as the author of our book of the popes. The investigations of Ciampini ("Examen Libri Pontificalis seu Vitarum Rom. Pont. quæ sub nomine Anastasii circumferuntur", Rome, 1688), Schelstrate ("Dissertatio de antiquis Romanorum Pontificum catalogis", Rome, 1692), and other scholars, disprove any possible claim of Anastasius to the authorship of this work. The conclusive researches of Duchesne have established beyond a doubt that in its earlier part, as far as the ninth century, the Liber Pontificalis war gradually compiled, and that the later continuations were added unsystematically. In only a few cases is it possible to ascertain the authors.

Modern criticism deals chiefly with two points, the period in which the Liber Pontificalis, in its earliest part, was compiled, and the sources then available to the author of this oldest division of the Liber Pontificalis. Duchesne has proved exhaustively and convincingly that the first series of biographies from St. Peter to Felix III [IV (d. 530)], were compiled at the latest under Felix's successor, Boniface II (530-2), and that their author was a contemporary of Anastasius II (496-8) and of Symmachus (498-514). His principal arguments are the following. A great many biographies of the predecessors of Anastasius II are full of errors and historically untenable, but from Anastasius II on the information on the ecclesiastico-political history of the popes is valuable and historically certain. In addition, some manuscripts offer a summary of the earlier part of the Liber Pontificalis as far as Felix III (IV) whence the name "catalogus Felicianus"; consequently, the Liber Pontificalis must have been accessible to the author of this summary in a recension that reached to the above-mentioned Felix III (IV). This observation tallies well with the aforesaid fact that the biographies from Anastasius II on exhibit accurate historical information. Duchesne defended successfully this opinion against Waitz and Mommsen, who placed the first edition of the Liber Pontificalis in the beginning of the seventh century. To bear out this view they suppose that from the time of Anastasius II to that of the author a genuine and reliable historical source, since lost, was at his disposal. Since, moreover, they cannot explain the summary ending with Felix III (IV), as easily is done by the hypothesis of Duchesne, the latter's opinion meets with the general approval of historians, and has recently been perfected by investigators like Grisar. The first part therefore, to the death of Felix III (IV) i.e. to 530, should be considered a complete work, the compilation of some author who wrote shortly after the death of Pope Felix; later Biographies were added at different times in groups or separately by various authors.

The compiler of the first part made use of two ancient catalogues or lists of the popes taking from them the order of succession, the chronological data, and also certain historical notes; these lists were: (a) the so-called "Catalogus Liberianus", and (b) a list of the popes that varies in length in the manuscripts, and perhaps depends on the "Catalogus Liberianus" for the period before the middle of the sixth century. The "Catalogus Liberianus" is so called, because it terminates with Pope Liberius (352-66). It has reached us in the so-called Chronographus anni 354), an ancient manuscript that contains the valuable lists of the "Depositio martyrum" and the "Depositio episcoporum" In the "Catalogus Líberianus" there are already short historical notices of some popes (Peter, Pius, Pontianus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Xystus, Marcellinus, Julius), which were taken over by the author of the Liber Pontificalis. For its list of the earliest popes the "Catalogus Liberianus" was able to draw on the papal catalogue given by Hippolytus of Rome in his "Liber generationis", though even this list is not the oldest list of popes. It is probable that from the beginning of the second century there was already a list of popes, which contained short historical notices and was afterwards continued. Eusebius and later chroniclers used such lists in their works [Lightfoot, "The Apostolic Fathers", Part I; "St. Clement of Rome", I (2nd ed., London, 1890), 201 sqq.; Harnack, "Gesch. der altchristl. Litt.", Part II: "Die Chronologie", I (Leipzig, 1897), 70 sqq.; Segna, "De Successione Romanorum Pontificum" (Rome, 1897)]. Such a catalogue of popes has reached us, as above stated, in the "Catalogus Liberianus", and forms a basis for the earliest recension of the work.

The compiler of the Liber Pontificalis utilized also some historical writings e.g. St. Jerome, "De Viris Illustribus"), a number of apocryphal fragments (e.g. the Pseudo-C1ementine Recognitions), the "Constitutum Silvestri", the spurious Acts of the alleged Synod of 275 bishops under Silvester etc., and fifth century Roman Acts of martyrs. Finally the compiler distributed arbitrarily along his list of popes a number of papal decrees taken from unauthentic sources; he likewise attributed to earlier popes liturgical and disciplinary regulations of the sixth century. The building of churches, the donations of land, of church plate and furniture, and many kinds of precious ornaments are specified in great detail. These latter items are of great value, since they are based on the records of the papal treasury (vestiarium), and the conclusion has been drawn that the compiler of the Liber Pontificalis in its earliest form must have been a clerk of the treasury. It is to be noted that the actual Liber Pontificalis that we have was not the only work of this kind. There existed a similar collection of papal biographies, executed under Pope Hormisdas (d. 523), of which a lengthy fragment has reached us (Fragmentum Laurentianum); it gives the end of the life of Anastasius II (d. 498) and the life of his successor Symmachus. The text of the early Liber Pontificalis (first half of the sixth century), as found in the manuscripts that exhibit the later continuations, is not the original text. Duchesne gives a reconstruction of the earliest text of the work. After Felix III (IV) the Liber Pontificalis was continued by various authors at intervals, each writer treating a group of papal lives. Duchesne recognizes a first continuation as far as Pope Silverius (536-7), whose life is attributed to a contemporary. The limits of the next continuation are more difficult to determine; moreover in its earliest biographies several inaccuracies are met with. It is certain that one continuation ended with Pope Conon (d. 687); the aforesaid summary ending with this pope (Catalogus Cononianus) and certain lists of popes are proof of this.

After Conon the lives down to Stephen V (885-91) were regularly added, and from the end of the seventh century usually by contemporaries of the popes in question. While many of the biographies are very circumstantial, their historical value varies much; from a literary point of view both style and diction are, as a rule, of a low grade. Nevertheless they are a very irnportant historical source for the period covered. Some of these biographies were begun in the lifetime of the Pope, the incidents being set down as they occurred. The authors were Roman ecclesiastics, and some of them were attached to the papal court. In only two cases can the author's name be discovered with any probability. The life of Stephen II (752-7) was probably written by the papal "Primicerius" Christopher. Anastasius bibliothecarius perhaps wrote the life of Nicholas I (858-67), a genuine, though brief, history of this pope; this author may also have worked at the life of the following pope, Adrian II (867-72), with whose pontificate the text of this Liber Pontificalis, as exhibited in the extant manuscripts, comes to an end. The biographies of the three following popes are missing and that of Stephen V (885-91) is incomplete. In its original form the Liber Pontificalis reached as far as the latter pope. From the end of the ninth century the series of the papal lives was long interrupted. For the whole of the tenth and eleventh centuries there are only lists of the popes with a few short historical notices, that usually give only the pope's origin and the duration of his reign.

After Leo IX (1049-54) detailed biographies of the popes were again written; at first, however, not as continuations of the Liber Pontificalis, but as occasion offered, notably during the Investitures conflict. In this way Bonizo of Sutri, in his "Liber ad amicum" or "De persecutione ecclesiæ", wrote lives of the popes from Leo IX to Gregory VII; he also wrote, as an introduction to the fourth book of his "Decretals", a "Chronicon Romanorum Pontificum" as far as Urban II (1088-99). Cardinal Beno wrote a history of the Roman Church in opposition to Gregory VII, "Gesta Romanæ ecclesiæ contra Hildebrandum" (Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 368 sqq.). Important information concerning the popes is contained in the "Annales Romani", from 1044 to 1187, and is utilized, in part, by Duchesne in his edition of the Liber Pontificalis (below). Only in the first half of the twelfth century was a systematic continuation again undertaken. This is the Liber Pontificalis of Petrus Guillermi (son of William), so called by Duchesne after the manuscript written in 1142 by this Petrus in the monastery of St. Gilles (Diocese of Reims). But Petrus Guillermi merely copied, with certain additions and abbreviations, the biographies of the popes written by Pandulf, nephew of Hugo of Alatri. Following the lines of the old Liber Pontificalis, Pandulf had made a collection of the lives of the popes from St. Peter down; only from Leo IX does he add any original matter. Down to Urban II (1088-99) his information is drawn from written sources; from Paschal II (1099-1118) to Honorius II (1124-30), after whose pontificate this recension of the Liber Pontificalis was written, we have a contemporary's own information. Duchesne holds that all biographies from Gregory VII on were written by Pandulf, while earlier historians like Giesebrecht ("Allgemeine Monatsschrift", Halle, 1852, 260 sqq.) and Watterich (Romanorum Pontificum vitæ, I, LXVIII sqq.) had considered Cardinal Petrus Pisanus as author of the lives of Gregory VII, Victor III, and Urban II, and had attributed to Pandulf only the subsequent lives--i.e. those of Gelasius II, Callistus II, and Honorius II. This series of papal biographies, extant only in the recension of Petrus Guillermi, is continued in the same manuscripts of the monastery of St. Gilles as far as Martin II (1281-5); however, the statements of this manuscript have no special value, being all taken from the Chronicle of Martinus Polonus.

On the other hand the series of papal lives written by the cardinal priest Boso (d. about 1178), has independent value; it was his intention to continue the old Liber Pontificalis from the death of Stephen V, with which life, as above said, the work ends. For the popes from John XII to Gregory VII Boso drew on Bonizo of Sutri; for the lives from Gelasius II (1118-19), to Alexander III (1179-81) under whom Boso filled an important office, the work has independent value. This collection, nevertheless, was not completed as a continuation of the Liber Pontificalis and it remained unnoticed for a long time. Cencius Camerarius, afterwards Honorius III, was the first to publish, together with his "Liber censuum", the "Gesta Romanorum Pontificum" of Boso. Biographies of individual popes of the thirteenth century were written by various authors, but were not brought together in a continuation of the Liber Pontificalis. Early in the fourteenth century an unknown author carried farther the above-mentioned continuation of Petrus Guillermi, and added biographies of the popes from Martin IV (d. 1281) to John XXII (1316-34); but the information is taken from the "Chronicon Pontificum" of Bernardus Guidonis, and the narrative reaches only to 1328. An independent continuation appeared in the reign of Eugene IV (1431-47).

From Urban V (1362-70) to Martin V (1417-31), with whom this continuation ended, the biographies have special historical value; the epoch treated is broadly the time of the Great Western Schism. A later recension of this continuation, accomplished under Eugene IV, offers several additions. Finally, to the fifteenth century belong two collections of papal biographies, which were thought to be a continuation of the Liber Pontificalis, but nevertheless have remained separate and independent collections. The first comprises the popes from Benedict XII (1334-42) to Martin V (1417-31), and in another manuscript to Eugene IV (1431-47); the second reaches from Urban VI (1378-89) to Pius II (1458-64). For the last popes in each case they exhibit valuable historical material. In consequences of the peculiar development of the Liber Pontificalis as a whole, it follows that, in order to obtain the full value of the historical sources used in the Liber Pontificalis, each particular life, each larger or smaller group of lives, needs separate critical treatment. The Liber Pontificalis was first edited by J. Busæus under the title "Anastasii bibliothecarii Vitæ seu Gesta. Romanorum Pontificum" (Mainz, 1602). A new edition, with the "Historia ecclesiastica" of Anastasius, was edited by Fabrotti (Paris, l647). The best of the older editions of the primitive Liber Pontificalis (down to Hadrian II), with edition of the life of Stephen VI, was done by Fr. Bianchini (4 vols., Rome, 1718-35; a projected fifth volume did not appear). Muratori added to his reprint of this edition the lives of later popes down to John XXII (Scriptores rerum Italicarum, III). The edition of Bianchini with several appendixes is found also in Migne (P. L., CXXVII-VIII). For a classic edition of the early Liber Pontificalis, with all the above-mentioned continuations, we are indebted to the tireless industry of Louis Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire" (2 vols., Paris, 1886-92). Mommsen began a new critical edition of the same work under the title "Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum pars I: Liber Pontificalis" (Mon. Germ. hist.); the first volume extends to 715 (Berlin, 1898).

On the plan of the Roman Liber Pontificalis, and in obvious imitation, Agnellus, a priest of Ravenna, wrote the history of the bishops of that city, and called it "Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiæ Revennatis". It began with St. Apollinaris and reached to about 485 (see AGNELLUS OF RAVENNA). This history of the bishops of Ravenna was continued, first by the unknown author to the end of the thirteenth century (1296), and afterwards to 1410 by Petrus Scordilli, provost of Ravenna. Other medieval chroniclers have also left collections of biographies of the bishops of particular sees, arranged on the lines of the Liber Pontificalis. Thus in 1071-2, at the order of Bishop Gundecharus of Eichstätt, the "Liber Pontificalis Eichstettensis" (ed. Bethmann in "Mon. Germ. hist., script.", VII, 242-50). Many medieval archiepiscopal and episcopal sees possess, under the title of "Gesta", histories of the occupants of these sees. Most of them offer very important original material for local diocesan history (for a list of them consult Potthast, "Bibliotheca historica medii ævi", 2nd ed., I,511, 514-6).

Besides the learned Prolegomena to the editions of DUCHESNE and MOMMSEN, see DUCHESNE, Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis in Bibl. des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome (1st series, Paris, 1877); IDEM. La date et les récensions du Liber Pont. in Revue de quest. hist., XXVI (1879), 493-530; IDEM, Le premier Liber Pont., Ibid., XXIX (1881), 246-62; IDEM, La nouvelle édition du Liber Pont. in Mélanges d'archéoal. et d'hist., XVIII (1898), 381-417; GRISAR, Der Liber Pontif. in Zeitschr. für kath. Theol., XI (1887), 417-46; IDEM, Analecta Romana, I (Rome, 1899). 1 sqq.; WAITZ, Ueber die italienischen Handschriften des Liber Pont. in Neues Archiv. X (1885), 455-65 IDEM, Ueber den sogennanten Catalogus Felicianus der Päpste, ibid., XI (1886), 217-99: IDEM, Ueber die verschiedenen Texte des Liber Pont., ibid., IV (1879), 216-73; BRACKMANN, Reise nach Italien, ibid., XXVI (1901), 299-347; GIORGI, Appunti intorno ad alcuni manorcritti del Liber Pont. in Archivio della Soc. romana di storia patria, XX (1897), 247 sqq.; WATTERICH, Vitæ Pontif. Roman. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1862); LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers. Part I: S. Clement of Rome, I (London, 1890). 303-25; FABRE: Etude sur le Liber Sensuum de l'Eglise romaine in BIBL. des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, n. lxii (1st series, Paris, 1899); GLASSCHRÖDER, Des Lucas Holstenius Sammlung von Papstleben in Römische Quartalschr., IV (1890), 125 sqq.; IDEM. Vitæ aliquot Ponticum Sæc. XV, ibid., V (1891), 178 sqq.; IDEM, Zur Quellenkunde der Papstgesch. des XIV. Jahrhunderts in Historiches Jahrbuch, XI (1890), 240 sqq.; HARNACK. Ueber die Ordinationes im Papstbuch in Sitzungsber. der Akad. der Wiss. Zu Berlin (1897), 761 sqq.; MOMMSEN. Ordo et spatia episcoporum Romanorum in Libro Pontificali in Neues Archiv., XXI (1894), 333 sqq.; SÄ;GMÜLLER. Dietrich von Niem und der Liber Pontificalis in Hist. Jahrbuch. XV (1894), 802 sqq.; ROSENFELD, Ueber die Komposition des Liber Pontificalis bis zu Konstantin. Dissert. (Marburg. 1896); SCHNÜRER, Der Verfasser der Vita Stephani II 752-757) im Liber Pontificalis in Histor. Jahrbuch. XI (1890). 425 sqq.; POTTHAST, Bibl. hist. medii ævi, I, 737-9; DE SMEDT, Introductio generalis ad historiam eccl. critice tractandam (Ghent, 1876), 220 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Liber Septimus

Three canonical collections of quite different value from a legal standpoint are known by this title.

(1) The "Constitutiones Clementis V" or "Clementinæ", not officially known as "Liber Septimus", but so designated by historians and canonists of the Middle Ages, and even on one occasion by John XXII, in a letter to the Bishop of Strasburg, in 1321. This collection was not even considered a "Liber". It was officially promulgated by Clement V in a consistory held at Monteaux near Carpentras (France) on 21 March, 1314, and sent to the Universities of Orléans and Paris. The death of Clement V, occurring on 20 April following, gave rise to certain doubts as to the legal force of the compilation. Consequently, John XXII by his Bull, "Quoniam nulla", of 25 October, 1317, promulgated it again as obligatory, without making any changes in it. Johannes Andreæ compiled its commentary, or glossa ordinaria. It was not an exclusive collection, and did not abrogate the previously existing laws not incorporated in it (see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI; DECRETALS, PAPAL).

(2) A canonist of the sixteenth century, Pierre Mathieu (Petrus Matthæus), published in 1690, under the title of "Septimus Liber Decretalium", a collection of canons arranged according to the order of the Decretals of Gregory IX, containing some Decretals of preceding popes, especially of those who reigned from the time of Sixtus IV (1464-71) to that of Sixtus V, in 1590. It was an entirely private collection and devoid of scientific value. Some editions of the "Corpus Juris Canonici" (Frankfort, 1590; Lyons 1621 and 1671; Böhmer's edition, Halle, 1747), contain the text of this "Liber septimus" as an appendix.

(3) The name has been given also to a canonical collection officially known as "Decretales Clementis Papæ VIII". It owes the name of "Liber Septimus" to Cardinal Pinelli, prefect of the special congregation appointed by Sixtus V to draw up a new ecclesiastical code, who, in his manuscript notes, applied this title to it. Fagnanus and Benedict XIV imitated him in this, and it has retained the name. It was to supply the defect of an official codification of the canon law from the date of the publication of the "Clementinæ" (1317), that Gregory XIII, about the year 1580 appointed a body of cardinals to undertake the work. In 1587 Sixtus V established the congregation mentioned above. The printed work was submitted to Clement VIII, in 1598 for his approbation, which was refused. A new revision undertaken in 1607-08 had a similar fate, the reigning pope, Paul V, declining to approve the "Liber Septimus" as the obligatory legal code of the Church. It is divided into five books, subdivided into titles and chapters, and contains disciplinary and dogmatic canons of the Councils of Florence, Lateran, and Trent, and constitutions of twenty-eight popes from Gregory IX to Clement VIII. The refusals of approbation by Clement VIII and Paul V are to be attributed, not to the fear of seeing the canons of the Council of Trent glossed by canonists (which was forbidden by the Bull of Paul IV, "Benedictus Deus", confirming the Council of Trent), but to the political situation of the day, several states having refused to admit some of the constitutions inserted in the new collection, and also to the fact that the Council of Trent had not yet been accepted by the French Government; it was therefore feared that the Governments would refuse to recognize the new code. It seems a mistake, too, to have included in the work decisions that were purely and exclusively dogmatic and as such entirely foreign to the domain of canon law. This collection, which appeared appeared about the end of the sixteenth century, was edited by François Sentis ("Clementis Papæ VIII Decretales", Freiburg, 1870).

PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, IV (Ratisbon, 1851), 378 sqq.; LAURIN, Introductio in Corpus Juris Canonici (Freiburg, 1889), 196 sqq., 277; SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts, I (Graz, 1886), 253; SCHNEIDER, Die Lehre v.d. Kirchenrechtsquellen (Ratisbon, 1902), 156 sqq., 177; text-books of WERNZ, S&ÄGMÜLLER, etc.

A. VAN HOVE

Libraries

Libraries, that is to say, collections of books accumulated and made accessible for public or private use, were known to the ancients before the coming of Christ. Probably the most ancient library of which we have any precise knowledge is that of Tello in Mesopotamia, discovered through the excavations of M. de Sarzec and now in great part removed to the Louvre. It seems to have consisted of more than 20,0000 tablets inscribed with cuneiform writing and belonging to the time of Gudea, ruler of Lagash, about 2500 B.C. Still more extensive was the royal library of Nineveh, formed by Sargon, King of Assyria from 722 to 705 B.C., and by his great-grandson Ashurbanipal (668 to 628 B.C.). The latter monarch sent scribes to the ancient cities of Babylonia and Assyria, where libraries existed, to make copies for him of rare and important works, and it seems certain that the collection comprised texts, impressed of course upon clay tablets, dealing with every branch of learning and science known to the wise men of his day. More than twenty thousand of these tablets have been brought to Europe and are now preserved in the British Museum. All the more important texts are marked with a formula attesting that they belong to the palace of Ashurbanipal, and the formulas concludes with an imprecation interesting to compare with those so often fount in the manuscripts of medieval libraries: "Whosoever shall carry off this table, or shall inscribe his name upon it side by side with mine own, may Ashur and Belit overthrow him in wrath and anger, and may they destroy his name and posterity in the land" (Wallis, Budge, and King, "Guide to Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities", 1908, p. 41). In Egypt collections of papyrus rolls must undoubtedly have been made, though the more perishable nature of the material has not permitted any considerable remains to be preserved from the earlier ages of Egyptian history. Of collections of books among the Jews little is known, though certain passages in the Historical books of the Old Testament (e.g., II Kings, i, 18; III Kings, xi, 41; xiv, 19; xv, 23, etc.) suggest that there must have been repositories where books might be consulted. Moreover, we find in II Mach., ii, 13, a distinct statement that Nehemias founded a library and "gathered together out of the countries, the books both of the prophets, and of David, and the epistles of the Kings, and concerning the holy gifts."

With regard to pagan Rome and Greece we have more precise evidence. Pisistratus is said to have formed a library which was carried off to Persia by Xerxes and afterwards restored. Aristotle, the philosopher, as his writings prove, must certainly have had some sort of library at his command, and this collection, after coming to Athens, is said to have been ultimately take by Sulla to Rome. But by far the most famous libraries of the Greek world were those of Pergamum and Alexandria. The former, which had been formed by the kings of the family of Attalus from about the year 200 B.C., must have been a very remarkable collection. Modern archaeological exploration has identified the site of this library with certain rooms in the precincts of the temple of Athene (see Conze in the "Sitzungsberichte" of the Berlin Academy, 1884, 1259-70). As for the books themselves, we learn from Plutarch that two hundred thousand volumes, or rather rolls, were removed by Mark Anthony to Alexandria and given to Cleopatra to replace the library which had been accidentally destroyed by fire in Julius Caesar's Egyptian campaign. The library so destroyed, which was known as that of the Musaeum, was formed by Ptolemy Philadelphus about 260 B.C. It is to this library that the legend attaches of the origin of the Septuagint, as recorded in the apocryphal, but very ancient, "Letter of Aristeas". According to this legend, Demetrius Phalereus, the keeper of the library, advised his master, King Ptolemy, to endeavour to obtain for it a translation of the Law of the Jews. Envoys were accordingly dispatched to the High Priest Eleazar of Jerusalem, who sent seventy (or, more exactly, seventy-two) scholars to Alexandria to make the Greek version required. the work was completed in seventy day, and the translation was read aloud by Demetrius and approved as final.

The "Musæum" (i.e., building consecrated to the Muses), which contained this, the older of the two libraries, seems to have been located within the precincts of the palace, but the other, of later date, was formed in connection with the temple of Serapis, hence called the Serapeum. Much havoc was wrought among its treasures when Bishop Theophilus made his attack upon pagan worship at Alexandria in A.D. 390, and whatever remained of the library must have perished after the incursion of the Arabs in 641. although Polybius, writing in the second century before Christ, speaks (xii, 27) as though libraries would naturally be found in any large town, it is only in the last years of the Roman Republic that we hear much of libraries in Rome itself. At first these collections were in private hands -- Cicero, for example, seems to have take much pains in acquiring books -- but, after an unfulfilled project of Julius Caesar to form a library for public use, C. Asinius Pollio carried this idea into execution a little later by means of the spoils he had obtained in his Illyrian campaign 39 B.C. The Emperor Augustus himself soon followed the same example, and we hear of the collections of both of Greek and Latin Books formed by him, first in the Porticus Octaviae, which he restored about the year 33 B.C., and, secondly, within the precincts of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, dedicated in 28 B.C. From this time forth public libraries multiplied in Rome under the imperial patronage of Tiberius and his successors, until they numbered, it is said, as many as twenty-six in all. From allusions in such writers as Ovid, Horace, and Aulus Gellius, it seems probable that these libraries, for example that of the Palatine Apollo, were furnished with copies of books on all subjects, and that soon as a new work of any well-known writer was given to the world the Roman libraries acquired it as a matter of course. We also know that they were administered by special officials, and that they served as places of resort for literary men, while one or more of them -- notably the Bibliotheca Ulpia in the forum of Trajan -- were used ad depositories for the public archives.

At the time that Christianity appeared upon the scene in Rome, it is interesting to learn from Seneca how firm a hold the fashion of maintaining libraries, either public or private, had taken of Roman society. "What", asks Seneca, "is the use of books and libraries innumerable, if scarce in a lifetime the master reads the titles? . . . Forty thousand books were burnt at Alexandria. I leave to others to praise this splendid monument of royal opulence . . . . Procure as many books as will suffice for use, but not one for show. . . . Why should you excuse a man who wished to possess book-presses inlaid with arbor-vitae wood or ivory, who gathers together masses of authors either unknown or discredited, and who derives his chief delight from their edges and their tickets? You will find, then, in the libraries of the most arrant idlers all that orators or historians have written -- bookcases built up as high as the ceiling. Nowadays a library takes rank with a bathroom as a necessary ornament of a house. I could forgive such ideas, of they were due to extravagant desire for learning. As it is, these productions of men whose genius we revere, paid for at a high price, with their portraits ranged in line above them, are got together to adorn and beautify a wall" (De Tranquil. Animi, xi).

These were the fashions that prevailed in the more cultured circles of the roman Empire at the time when Christianity began its life-and-death struggle with paganism. the use of books, even if attended with a certain amount of shallow affectation, was not a weapon which the Church could afford to neglect. In itself the accumulated learning of past ages was a good influence, and the teachers of the new faith were not slow in striving to enlist it on their side. In any case some small collection of books was needed for the church services which seem from the very beginning to have consisted in part -- as does the Divine Office of the present day -- of readings from the Old and New Testaments, and from works of Christian instruction and edification. In this way every church that was founded became the nucleus of a library, and we need not be surprised to find St. Jerome counselling Pammachius (Ep. xlix,3) to make use of these collections (ecclesiarum bibliothecis fruere), and apparently assuming that wherever there was a congregation of the faithful suitable books would be available. But there must, of course, have been certain centres where, on account of their position, antiquity, or the exceptional generosity of benefactors, more important accumulations existed. Of these the earliest known to us is the library formed at Jerusalem, principally by Bishop Alexander, about the year 250, and containing, as Eusebius attests, a number of letters and historical documents (Hist. Eccles., VI, xx). Still more important was the library of Caesarea in Palestine. This was collected by the martyr Pamphilus, who suffered in the year 308, and it contained a number of the manuscripts which had been used by Origin (Jerome, In Titum, III, ix). At about the same period again we hear that, in the persecution which devastated Africa (303-304), "the officers went to the church at Cirta, in which the Christians used to assemble, and they despoiled it of chalices, lamps, etc., but when they came to the library [bibliothecam], the presses [armaria] were found empty" (see appendix to Optatus).

Julian the Apostate, in 362, demanded that the books formerly belonging to George, the Arian Bishop of Alexandria, including "many philosophical and rhetorical works and many of the doctrines of the impious Galileans", should be sent him for a library formerly established by Constantius in the imperial palace (Julian, Epist. ix). On the other hand, when St. Augustine was dying, "he directed that the library of the church and all the books should be carefully kept for posterity forever", and "he bequeathed libraries to the church containing books and treatises by himself or other holy persons" (Possidius, "Vita Aug.", n.31). In Rome it would seem that Pope Damasus (366-384) built a record-office (archivium) which, besides being the depository of official documents served also as library and chancery. It was connected with the Basilica of St. Lawrence, on the facade of which was an inscription which ended with the three following lines:

Archivis fateor volui nova condere tecta.
Addere praeterea dextra laevaque columnas.
Quae Damasi teneant proprium per saecula nomen.

It is no doubt this building which St. Jerome refers to as "chartarium ecclesiæ Romanæ". De Rossi and Lanciani conjecture that Damasus, following the model of one of the great libraries of Rome, which in its turn had imitated the arrangement of the famous library of Pergamum, had first build a basilica dedicated to St. Lawrence and then added on the north and south sides a colonnade from which the rooms containing the records would be readily accessible (Lancianai, Ancient Rome, pp. 187-190). Whether this building did or did not ever strictly deserve the name of a library, we have evidence that Pope Agapetus (535-36) set about the erection of another building on the Coelian Hill intended for the keeping of books and afterwards known as the Library of St. Gregory. There, at any rate, an inscription was to be read in the ninth century speaking of the long array of portraits which adorned the walls and, amongst the rest, of that of Pope Agapetus:

Hos inter residens Agapetus jure sacerdos
Codicibus pulchrum condidit arte locum.

The celebrated Cassiodorus, who had been the friend of Agapetus, withdrew from the world in his declining years and gathered round him a religious community at Vivarium, in Southern Italy. There he formed a library as an adjunct of primary necessity for such an institute. Further, he enjoined upon the brethren that if they met with any book which he wanted they should make a copy of it, "that by the help of God and their labour the library of the monastery might be benefited" (De Inst. Div. Lit., viii). Cassiodorus also tells us a good deal about his library contrivances.

But at the break-up of the civilization of the Roman Empire the great influence which contributed more than anything else to preserve in the West some scattered remnants of the learning of the classical period was undoubtedly monasticism, and in particular that form of monasticism which was identified with the Rule of St. Benedict. Even in Africa, as the rule of St. Pachomius and the writings of Cassion clearly show, the maintenance of the ideal of coenobitical life was in some measure dependent upon the use of books. St. Pachomius, for example, enjoined that the books of the house were to be kept in a cupboard in the thickness of the wall. Any brother who wanted a book might have one for a week, at the end of which he was bound to return it. No brother might leave a book open when he went to church or to meals. In the evening the officer called the "second" -- that is the second in command -- was to take charge of the books, count them, and lock them up (see P.L., XXIII, 68, and cf. Butler, "Palladius", I, 236). we know from a letter of St. Augustine's that at Hippo even the nuns had a library, and that it was the duty of one of the sisters to distribute and then to collect the books at the hours set apart for reading. Nor could the large place that study -- but more particularly the study of the Scriptures -- played in the lives of ascetic women at the close of the fourth century, be more clearly illustrated than in the story of St. Melania the younger, the friend of St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who made it a rule to spend daily a prescribed time in reading, and whose labours as a scribe were long renowned. But of all the written documents which have influenced the preservation of books, the text of the Rule of St. Benedict is the most important. Upon this is chiefly based that love of learning distinctive of the great monastic orders: "Idleness", says the Rule, "is an enemy to the soul, and hence at certain times the brethren ought to occupy themselves with manual labour and at others with holy reading . . ." And, after specifying the hours to be devoted to reading at various seasons, the Rule further lays down:

During Lent let them apply themselves to reading from morning until the end of the third hour. . . An in these days of Lent let each one receive a book from the library and read it all through in order. These books are to be given out at the beginning of Lent. Above all let one or two seniors be appointed to go round the monastery at the hours when the brethren are engaged in reading and see that there be no slothful brother giving himself to idleness or to foolish talk and not applying himself to his reading, so that he is thus not only useless to himself but a distraction to others. If such a one be found (which God forbid) let him be corrected once and a second time,

and the Rule adds that if all this be ineffectual, the delinquent is to be chastised in such a way as to strike terror into others.

That these principles were fully taken to heart, and bore fruit in the respect shown for books and in the zeal displayed to acquire them, was nowhere more clearly proved than in England. The whole life of the Venerable Bede might serve to illustrate this theme. But it is Bede who tells us from first hand knowledge of Benedict Biscop, Abbot of Wearmouth, who, having visited Rome in 671, "brought home not a few books of all-divine erudition, either bought for a fixed price or given hem by the kindness of friends; and when on his return he came to Vienne he received those which he had bought and entrusted to his friends there" (Hist. Abbat., iv). In 678 he paid another visit to Rome and "brought home a multitude [innumerabilem copiam] of books of every kind". In his last illness Benedict Biscop gave directions that the very noble and complete library which he had brought from Rome as necessary for the instruction of the Church, should be scrupulously preserved entire and neither suffer injury through want of care nor be dispersed (Hist. Abb., xi). It was from this collection, which was doubled by the energy of Ceolfrid his successor (Hist. Abb., xv). It was from this collection, which Ceolfrid enriched with three new copies of the Vulgate and with one of the Itala, that the famous Codex Amiatinus (q.v.) was taken, which Ceolfrid on a later occasion carried with him to Italy as a present for the pope. This manuscript, now in the Laurentian Library in Florence, has been described as "perhaps the finest book in the world" (White in "Studia Biblica," II, 273), but it seems not to have been the work of native scribes but of Italians brought over to England.

Although Jarrow had not itself a great scriptorium with a staff of trained copyists -- such as, for example belonged to Lindisfarne, which followed Irish traditions, and to Canterbury, where the dominant influence was Italian -- still, through Archbishop Egbert, whom Bede loved and visited at York, Ceolfrid's library must have exercised a profound influence upon Alcuin (q.v.), and through him again upon the scholarship of all Western Christendom. Alcuin was the librarian of the fine collection of books which Egbert had formed in the monastery at York, and in one of his poems he gives a rather florid account of its contents (Migne, P.L., CI, 843) which has been described as the earliest catalogue of any English library. If we could trust this list, the collection was really one of extraordinary range, including, not merely the best-known of the Latin Fathers, but Athanasius, Basil, and Chrysostom, among the Greeks, and besides these a certain number of historians, with philosophers like Aristotle and Boethius, with the most representative of the Latin classics and a fair sprinkling of grammarians. When Alcuin became the trusted adviser of Charlemagne, that great monarch's influence was everywhere exerted to foster the spread of learning and the accumulation of books. In an ordinance of 789, Charlemagne made provision for the setting-up of schools for boys in which he directed that "in every monastery and cathedral [episcopium]" they were to learn "the psalms and canticles, plain chant, the computus [or regulation of the calendar] and grammar". And he adds, "Let them also have Catholic books well corrected."

All this, directory or indirectly, must have given an immense stimulus towards the formation of libraries in Western Europe. Neither can we leave out of account the great influence which had been exerted at a somewhat earlier period by St. Columban and the Irish missionaries who settled at Luxeuil in France, at St. Gall in Switzerland, at Bobbio in Italy, at Wurzburg in Germany, and in many other places. Still as at St. Gall, for example, the Benedictine Rule often supplanted the Columban, and it was in its Benedictine days that the Swiss abbey attained it greatest renown as a center of learning, and formed the library which still exists. Many, however, of its most precious volumes were at one time removed to Reichenau as a measure of safety, and they seem not to have been all returned to their owners when quiet was restored. At the same time there is abundant evidence for the existence of a system of lending manuscripts by one house to another among friendly monasteries, for the purpose of transcription and collation. This latter process may often be traced in the copies which still survive: for example, two of our oldest manuscripts of Bede's "Ecclesiastical History" have evidently been collated, and the readings of one transferred to the other.

The most famous libraries of the Carlovingian period were those of Fulda, Reichenau, Corvey, and Sponheim in Germany, and those of Fleury, St-Riquier, Cluny, and Corbie in France. the library of Fulda, under the great scholar Rhabanus Maurus, was regarded as the best equipped in Christendom, and a contemporary speaks of the books he was there as "almost countless". Even at the beginning of the sixteenth century the abbey still possessed nine hundred volumes of manuscripts, most of which seem to have been destroyed or scattered in the Thirty Years' War. In the case of Reichenau we still possess the catalogue made by the librarian, Reginbert, before A.D. 831, which enumerates over 500 works contained in 256 volumes. All the libraries just mentioned owed directly or indirectly a good deal to the support of Charlemagne. In southern Italy the Abbey of Monte Cassino, the cradle of Benedictine monasticism, well illustrates the perils to which books were exposed owing to the wildness of the times. After it had been demolished by the Lombards in the sixth century, the monastery was rebuilt, and a new library painfully brought together. But in the ninth century came the Saracens, and when the abbey was despoiled the library perished in the flames. None the less, the monks set to work once more to acquire books and to make new copies, and this collection of manuscripts, which still survives, is among the most remarkable in Italy.

In Spain, at an earlier date, we gain some insight into the ornamentation of a well-appointed library from certain verses written by St. Isidore of Seville (600-636) to inscribe upon the portraits which hung over his book-presses. Upon the door of the room were also displayed another set of verses as a warning to talkative intruders, the last couplet of which runs:

Which may be rendered:

Speaking of Western Europe as a whole, we may regard it as an undisputed principle throughout the Middle Ages that a library of some sort was an essential part of every monastic establishment. "Claustrum sine armario, castrum sine armamentario", ran the adage; that is to say, a monastery without a library is a fort without an armoury. In all the developments of the Benedictine Rule, regulations of some kind are laid down for the use of books. We may quote, for example, the directions given by Lanfranc for the annual calling-in of library books on the first Sunday of Lent. The monks are bidden to bring back all books to the chapter house, and thereupon, "let the librarian read a document [breve] setting forth the names of the brethren who have had books during the past year; and let each brother when he hears his own name pronounced, return the book which has been entrusted to him for reading, and let him who is conscious of not having read the book through which he has received, fall down upon his face, confess his fault, and pray for forgiveness. And let the aforesaid librarian hand to each brother another book for reading; and when the books have been distributed in order, let the aforesaid librarian in the same chapter put on record the names of the books and of those who receive them."

J.W. Clark gives a summary of the arrangements peculiar to the different orders. Both the Cluniacs and Benedictines, he says, put the books in charge of the precentor, and often also styled armarius, and there is to be an annual audit and registration similar to that just described. Among the later Benedictines we also find a further regulation that the precentor is to keep all in repair and personally to supervise the daily use of the manuscripts, restoring each to its proper place when done with. Among these later Benedictine rules, as found, for example, at Abingdon at the end of the twelfth century, first appears the important permission to lend books to others outside the monastery on receipt of an adequate pledge. The Carthusians also maintained the principle of lending. As for the monks themselves, each brother might have two books, and he is to be specially careful to keep them clean. Among the Cistercians a particular official has charge of the books, about the safety of which great care is to be taken, and at certain times of the day he is to lock the press. This last regulation is also observed by the Premonstratensians, who further require their librarian to take note of books borrowed as well as books lent. Finally, the Augustinians, who are very full in their directions regarding the use of the library, also permit books to be lent outside, but insist much on the need of proper security (see Clark, "Care of Books", 58-73).

The importance of the permission to lend consists, of course, in this: that the monasteries thus became the public libraries of the surrounding district and diffused much more widely the benefit afforded by their own command of books. The practice no doubt involved much risk of loss, and there was a disposition sometimes manifested to forbid the lending of books altogether. On the other hand, it is clear that there were those who looked upon this means of helping their neighbors as a duty prescribed by the law of charity. Thus, in 1212, a synod held in Paris passed the following decree:

We forbid those who belong to a religious order to formulate any vow against lending their books to those who are in need of them; seeing that to lend is enumerated among the principal works of mercy. After due consideration let some books be retained in the house for the use of the brethren; but let others according to the decisions of the abbot be lent to those who are in need of them, the rights of the house being safeguarded. In future no penalty of anathema is to be attached to the removal of any book, and we annul and grant absolution from all anathemas of the sort." (Delisle in "bib. de l'Ecole des Chartes", Ser. 3, I, 225).

It is noteworthy, also that in this same thirteenth century many volumes were bequeathed to the Augustinian house of St. Victor, Paris, on the express condition that they should be so lent. No doubt most of the lending was for the benefit of other monasteries, either for reading or, still more often, for the purpose of making a copy. Against the dangers thus incurred it would seem that some protection was sought by invoking anathemas upon the head of the faithless borrower. How far excommunications were seriously and validly enacted against the unlawful detainers of such volumes is a matter of some uncertainty, but, as in the case of Ashur-ban-i-pal's cuneiform tablets, the manuscripts of medieval monasteries frequently contain on the fly-leaf some brief form of malediction against unjust possessors or detainers. For example, in a Jumieges book we find:

Should anyone by craft or any device whatever abstract this book from this place [Jumieges] may his soul suffer in retribution for what he has done, and may his name be erased from the book of the living and not be recorded among the Blessed.

But in general such formulae were more compendious as, for example, the following found in many St. Alban's books: "this book belongs to St. Alban. May whoever steals it from him or erases his inscription of ownership [titulum deleverit] be anathema. Amen."

The high value set on books is also emphasized by the many decrees enjoining care in their use. "When the religious are engaged in reading", says an order of the General Benedictine Chapter, "They shall, if possible, hold the books in their left hands, wrapped in the sleeve of their tunics and resting on their knees, their right hands shall be uncovered, with which to hold and turn the leaves of the aforesaid books" (Gasquet, "Old English Bible", 29). Numberless other appeals recommending care, tenderness and even reverence, in the treatment of books might be quoted from medieval sources. In the "Philobiblon" of Bishop Richard of Bury we have a whole treatise upon the subject, written with an enthusiasm which could not have been exceeded by a nineteenth-century bibliophile. He says, for example (chap. xvii): "And surely next to the vestments and vessels dedicated to our Lord's Body, holy books deserve to be rightly treated by the clergy, to which great injury is done so often as they are touched by unclean hands." This care naturally extended to the presses in which the books were permanently lodged. The Augustinians, in particular, had a formal rule that "the press in which the books are kept ought to be lined inside with wood, that the damp of the walls may not moisten or stain the books", and devices were further suggested to prevent the books from being "packed so close as to injury each other, or delay those who want to consult them" (Clark, "Care of Books", 71).

Still, the monastic system did not until much later make provision for any separate room to be used as a library. It was in the cloister, in which little alcoves called "carrels" were fitted up, securing a certain amount of privacy for each student, that the literary work of the house, whether in reading or transcribing, was mainly done. The result of this system was that the books were not kept all together but preserved in presses in different parts of the building. At Durham, for example, "some were kept in the church, others in the 'spendiment' or treasury, and others again in the refectory, and in more than one place in the cloister" (Gasquet, "Old Eng. Bible", 10). this scattering of the books was the more likely to happen because, from the very nature of the case, a collection of volumes written by hand and kept up only by limited monastic resources could never be very vast. Until the art of printing had lent its aid to multiply books and to cheapen them, a comparatively small number of cupboards were sufficient to contain the literary treasures of the very largest monastery. At Christ Church, Canterbury, Henry de Estria's Catalogue of about the year 1300 enumerates 3000 titles in some 1850 volumes. At Glastonbury in 1247 there were 500 works in 340 volumes. The Benedictines at Dover in 1389 possessed 449, while the largest English monastic library, so far as is known to us, viz., that at Bury St. Edmunds, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, contained 2000 volumes.

The practice just referred to, of scattering books in different presses and collections, was probably also much influenced by the custom of lending, or allowing outsiders to consult, books, upon which something has previously been said. Naturally, there will always have been volumes which any community, monastic or collegiate, reserved for the exclusive use of its members. Liturgical books and some ascetical treatises, particular copies of the scripture, etc., will have belonged to this class, while there will have been divisions even among the books to which the outside world had access. The following passage, for example, is very suggestive. Thomas Gascoigne says of the Franciscans at Oxford about the year 1445: "They had two libraries in the same house; the one called the convent library, and the other the library of the schools; whereof the former was open only to graduates; the latter to the scholars they called seculars, who lived among those friars for the sake of learning". All this must have been very inconvenient, and it is not surprising that in the course of the fifteenth century the desirability of gathering their library treasures into one large apartment where study might be carried on occurred to the authorities of many monastic and collegiate institutions. During the whole of this period, therefore, libraries of some pretensions began to be build. Thus, to take a few examples, at Christ Church, Canterbury, a library, 60 feet long by 22 broad, was built by Archbishop Chichele, between 1414 and 1443, over the Prior's Chapel. The library at Durham was constructed between 1416 and 1446, by Prior Wessyngton, over the old sacristy; that at Cîteaux, in 1480, over the scriptorium, or writing-room, forming part of the cloister; that at Clairvaux, between 1495 and 1503, in the same position; that at the Augustinian monastery of St-Victor in Paris, between 1501 and 1508; and that at St-Germain des Pres in the same city, about 1513, over the south cloister.

The transformation of Clairvaux is easy to understand on account of two descriptions left us at a later date. A visitor in 1517 tells us: "On the same side of the cloister are fourteen studies [the carrels] where the monks write and study; and over the said studies is the new library, to which one mounts by a broad and lofty spiral staircase from the aforesaid cloister." The description goes on to extol the beauty of this new construction, which, adapting itself, of course, to the shape of the cloister below, was 198 feet long by 17 wide. In it, we are told, "there were 48 seats [bancs] and in each seat four shelves [poulpitres] furnished with books on all subjects". These books, although the writer does not say so, were probably chained to the shelves after the custom of that period. At any rate this is what the authors of the "Voyage litteraire", two hundred years later, say of the same library:

from the great cloister you pass into the cloister of conversation, so called because the brethren are allowed to converse there. In this cloister there are twelve or fifteen little cells [the carrels], all of a row, where the brethren formerly used to write books; for this reason they are still called at the present day the writing rooms. Over these cells is the Library, the building for which is large, vaulted, well lighted, and stocked with a large number of manuscripts fastened by chains to desks, but there are not many printed books.

This, then, is a type of the transformation which was going on in the last century of the Middle Ages, a process immensely accelerated, no doubt, by the multiplication of books consequent upon the invention of printing. the newly constructed libraries, whether connected with universities, or cathedrals, or religious houses, were rooms of considerable size, generally broken up into compartments or stalls, such as may still be seen in Duke Humphrey's Library in the Bodleian at Oxford. Here the books were chained to the shelves, but they could be taken down and laid upon the desk at which the student sat, and at which he could also use his writing materials without inconvenience. Some few survivals of this old arrangement, for example at Hereford Cathedral, and a Zutphen (where, however, the chained books can only be consulted standing), still exist. But it was not for very many years that this system lasted, except as a perpetuation of old tradition.

MODERN LIBRARIES

Foremost among the agencies which have contributed to the collection and preservation of books in later times is the papacy. The popes, as munificent patrons of learning, have founded a number of libraries and enriched them with manuscripts and documents of the greatest value. The most important of these papal foundations is the Vatican Library, which will be described in another article (see VATICAN LIBRARY). Indirectly, also the popes have furthered the establishment of libraries by founding and encouraging universities. Each of these naturally regarded the library and the indispensable means of research; and in modern times especially these university collections have been enriched by the ever-growing mass of scientific literature. It is interesting to note that the nucleus of the library was often obtained by taking over the books and manuscripts which had been preserved in monasteries and other ecclesiastical establishments. A glace at the history of the universities will show how much they are indebted in this respect to the care and industry of the monks (see, e.g., the brief accounts in "Minerve", II, Strasburg, 1893). From the same sources came, in many instances, the books which served as the beginnings of the libraries founded by sovereigns, princes, churchmen, national governments, municipalities, and private individuals. In recent times, moreover, numerous and successful attempts have been made to provide the people at large with the facilities which were once the privilege of the student. Among the efficient means for the diffusion of knowledge must be reckoned the public library which is found in nearly every town of importance. While this multiplication of libraries is due chiefly to the advance in popular education, it has led, on the other hand, to the creation of what might be called a special ar or science. Much attention is now given to the proper housing and care of books, and systematic instruction is provided for those who are to engage in library work. It is not surprising, then, that, along with the growing realization of the value and importance of libraries, there would gradually have come about a fairer appreciation of what was done by the Church of the preservation of books.

The following list gives the founders and dates of some famous libraries:

• Ambrosian (q.v.), Milan; Cardinal Federigo Borromeo, 1603-09.
• Angelica, Rome; Angelo Rocca, O.S.A., 1614.
• Bodleian, Oxford; Sir Thomas Bodley, c. 1611.
• British Museum, London; George III and George IV (largely with manuscripts taken from monasteries by Henry VIII), c. 1795.
• Casanatense, Rome; Cardinal Girolamo Casanata (q.v.), 1698.
• Congressional, Washington; U.S. Government, 1800.
• Mazarine, Paris; Cardinal Mazarin, 1643; public 1688.
• Mediceo-Laurenziana, Florence; Clement VII, 1571.
• Nationale, Paris; Charles V of France, 1367.
• Royal, Berlin; Elector Fred. William, c. 1650.
• Royal, Munich; Duke Albert V, c. 1560.
• Valiceliana, Rome; Achile Stazio, 1581.
• Vatican, Rome (See VATICAN LIBRARY).

CLARK, The Care of Books (Cambridge, 1902), a work of the very highest value and indispensable to any fuller study of the subject; POHLE AND STAHL in Kirchenlex. s. v. Bibliotheken; SCUDAMORE in Dict. of Christ. Antiq.; GASQUET, Mediaeval Monastic Libraries in the Old English Bible and other Essays (London, 1897), 1-61; EHRLE, JAMES, and others in Fasciculus; Joanni Willis Clark Dicatus (Cambridge, 1909); GOTTLEIB, Ueber mittelalterliche Bibliotheken (Leipzig, 1890); EDWARDS, Memoirs of Libraries, 2 vols., (London, 1895); PAULY-WINOWA, Realencyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (1893-); BECKER, Catalogi Bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn, 1885); JAMES, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cembridge, 1903); MACRAY, Annals of the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1890); ROBINSON AND JAMES, The Manuscripts of Westminster Abbey Monastery (Cambridge, 1898); BASS-MULLINGER in The Cambridge Hist. of English Literature, IV (Cambridge, 1909), 415-34; DELISLE, in Bib. de l'Ecole des Chartes (1849), 216-31; ID., Cabinet des MSS. de la Bib. Nationale (3 vols., Paris, 1874-76); THOMAS, The Philobiblon of Richard of Bury (London, 1888).

HERBERT THURSTON

Lichfield

ANCIENT DIOCESE OF LICHFIELD (LICHFELDENSIS).

This diocese took its rise in the conversion of Mercia by St. Cedd and his three companions in 652 and subsequent years. One of these was Diuma who was made Bishop of Mercia about 656. Among the successors of Diuma was St. Chad, who fixed his seat at Lichfield, where he built a monastery. As time went on other dioceses were carved out of the Mercian territory -- the sees afterwards known as Hereford, Worcester, and Dorchester. But Lichfield, though lessened in territory, grew in political importance until the time of the ascendancy of Mercia under Offa, when that king determined to raise Lichfield as a rival to Canterbury. At the Council of Chelsea in 785 legates from the pope invested Bishop Higbert of Lichfield with the archiepiscopal pallium, giving him metropolitan authority over Worcester, Leicester, Lincoln, Hereford, and the East Anglian dioceses of Elmham and Dunwich. On the death of Offa the pope restored the full power of Canterbury, and in 803 the Council of Clovesho accepted the decision of the Holy See. During the ninth century the diocese suffered much from the Danes, and the great Abbey of Repton was sacked. The next step was the gradual conversion of the invaders. In the anarchy that ensued in the Midlands after the Conquest, the estates of the see were devastated, and Lichfield itself was so poor a place that after the Synod of 1075, which directed the removal of all sees to walled towns, Bishop Peter fixed on Chester as his cathedral city, and his successor, Robert de Limesey, transferred his seat to Coventry.

The chapter at Lichfield was nevertheless maintained, and one of the early Norman bishops, Roger de Clinton, rebuilt its cathedral there, re-dedicating it to St. Chad, whose relics he there enshrined. Enmity and jealousy, however, marked for many years the relations between the Lichfield secular canons and the Coventry monks, and successive episcopal elections were the occasions for fresh quarrels. Gregory IX (1227-41) settled the dispute by arranging that the elections should be made alternately by each chapter. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the building of the cathedral continued. Though not one of the larger cathedrals, it has many beauties, including the west front and the Lady Chapel, and is altogether exceptional in having three spires. When the Reformation swept away all abbeys and monasteries, the great monastic cathedral church of Coventry was destroyed, and the diocese was robbed by the king of many manors. The churches were plundered and the shrine of St. Chad in Lichfield cathedral was violated and stripped. The schismatical bishops, Roland Lee and Richard Sampson, wasted the diocesan property. The last Catholic bishop was Ralph Bayne, who was deprived of the temporalities of his see by Elizabeth and imprisoned in the house of the Protestant bishop, Grindal. There he died in November, 1559. The following is the list of the bishops of Lichfield, the dates of the Saxon bishops being very doubtful:--

Bishops of Mercia: Diuma, 656; Ceollach, 658; Thumere, 659; Jaruman, 663. Bishops of Lichfield: St. Chad, 669; Winfred, 673; St. Sexwulf, 675; Headdi, 691; Aldwini (Wor.), 721; Witta, 737; Hemele, 752; Cuthred, 765; Berhthun, 768; Higbert, 785; Adulf, 801; Humbert, --; Herewin, 816; Higbert II, --; Aethelwald, 818; Hunberght, 828; Tunberht, --; Cineferth, 870; St. Cumbert, --; Tunbriht, 890; Wigmund, 901(?); Ella, 920; Alfgar, 944 (al. 935); Kynsy, 960 (al. 949); Wynsy, 974 (al. 961 or 964); Elphege, 992 (al. 973); Godwin, 1002; Leofgar, 1020; Brihtmar, 1026; Wulsy, 1039; Leofwin, 1053; vacancy, 1066; Peter, 1072; Robert de Limesey, 1086; vacancy, 1117. Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield: Robert Peche, 1121; Roger de Clinton, 1129; Walter Durdent, 1149; Richard Peche, 1161; vacancy, 1181; Gerard la Pucelle, 1183; vacancy, 1184; Hugh Nonant, 1188 (al. 1184); Geofrey de Muschamp, 1198; vacancy, 1208; William de Cornhill, 1215; Alexander de Stavenby, 1224; Hugh Pateshull, 1240; vacancy, 1242; Roger Weseham, 1245; Roger de Meyland (Longespee), 1258; Walter de Langton, 1296; Roger de Northburgh, 1322; Robert Stratton, 1360; Walter Skirlaw, 1386; Richard Scroope, 1386; John de Burghill, 1398; John Catterick, 1415; William Heyworth, 1419; William Booth, 1447; Nicholas Cloose, 1452; Reginald Bolars (Butler), 1453; John Hales, 1459; William Smith, 1492; John Arundel, 1496; Godfrey Blyth, 1503; Roland Lee, 1524; Richard Sampson, (elected schismatically), 1543; Ralph Bayne, 1554.

In Catholic days the Diocese of Lichfield included the counties of Derby, Salop, Stafford, and most of Warwickshire. It was divided into four archdeaconries: Derby, Shrewsbury, Stafford, and Coventry. The arms of the see were: party per pale, gules and argent, a cross potent and quadrate in the centre between four crosslets patee of the second and or.

EDWIN BURTON

St. Lidwina

Born at Schiedam, Holland, 18 April 1380; died 14 April, 1433. Her father, Peter by name, came of a noble family while her mother Petronella, born at Kethel, Holland, was a poor country girl. Both were poor. Very early in her life St. Lidwina was drawn towards the Mother of God and prayed a great deal before the miraculous image of Our Lady of Schiedam. During the winter of the year of 1395, Lidwina went skating with her friends, one of whom caused her to fall upon some ice with such violence that she broke a rib in her right side. This was the beginning of her martyrdom. No medical skill availed to cure her. Gangrene appeared in the wound caused by the fall and spread over her entire body. For years she lay in pain which seemed to increase constantly. Some looked on her with suspicion, as being under the influence of the evil spirit. Her pastor, Andries, brought her an unconsecrated host, but the saint distinguished it at once. But God rewarded her with a wonderful gift of prayer and also with visions. Numerous miracles took place at her bed-side. The celebrated preacher and seer, Wermbold of Roskoop, visited her after previously beholding her in spirit. The pious Arnold of Schoonhoven treated her as a friend. Hendrik Mande wrote for her consolation a pious tract in Dutch. When Joannes Busch brought this to her, he asked her what she thought of Hendrik Mande's visions, and she answered that they came from God. In a vision she was shown a rose-bush with the words, "When this shall be in bloom, your suffering will be at an end." In the spring of the year 1433, she exclaimed, "I see the rose-bush in full bloom!" From her fifteenth to her fifty-third year, she suffered every imaginable pain; she was one sore from head to foot and was greatly emaciated. On the morning of Easter-day, 1433, she was in deep contemplation and beheld, in a vision, Christ coming towards her to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. She died in the odour of great sanctity. At once her grave became a place of pilgrimage, and as early as 1434 a chapel was built over it. Joannes Brugmann and Thomas à Kempis related the history of her life, and veneration of her on the part of the people increased unceasingly. In 1615 her relics were conveyed to Brussels, but in 1871 they were returned to Schiedam. On 14 March, 1890, Leo XIII put the official sanction of the Church upon that veneration which had existed for centuries.

COUDURIER, Vie de la bienheureuse Lidwine (Paris, 1862); RIBADENEIRA, La vie de s. Lidwine, vierge (Valenciennes, 1615); THOMAS À KEMPIS, Vita Lidewigis virginis in Opera Omnia, iv (Freiburg, 1905); HUYSMANS, Sainte Lydwine de Schiedam (Paris, 1901).

P. ALBERS

Ernst Maria Lieber

Born at Camberg in the Duchy of Nassau, 16 Nov., 1838; died 31 March, 1902. He was the principal leader of the Centre Party in the German Imperial Parliament (Reichstag) and the Prussian Diet (Landtag) after the death of Dr. Windthorst. Lieber's father, Moritz Lieber, Councillor of Legation, had long endeared himself to his Catholic countrymen by boldly defending their rights against bureaucratic aggressions in the petty German states. Ernst Maria was trained from his earliest years to take an active interest in public and especially Catholic, affairs. After graduating from the gymnasium, he studied law at Würzburg, Munich, Bonn, and Heidelberg, and received the degree of Doctor of Civil and Canon Law, 30 July, 1861. The next four years he devoted to a profound study of philosophy, history, literature, and law, with the hope of becoming a university professor. He was obliged, however, to abandon his purpose and retired to his native town, where he established his regular abode. In the meantime he became actively interested in the political life of the Duchy of Nassau. The Catholics of that small state desired a system of separate schools, such as existed in Prussia, instead of the mixed public schools where all were educated together without regard to creed. In the agitation carried on for this purpose Lieber was a zealous worker.

When Garibaldi invaded (1868) the Papal States, Lieber called a great mass-meeting in Walmerod to protest against this aggression. In 1870 the peasants of the Westerwald (West Forest) elected him their representative in the Prussian Diet, and later, when the German Empire was created (1871), in the Reichstag. In this capacity he took an active part in founding the famous Centre Party, which was organized at Berlin in December, 1870, by about fifty Catholic members of the Reichstag. These deputies had foreseen the conflict with the Church (Kulturkampf), and announced their intention to act on purely constitutional lines. From 1870 to 1878 the members of the new party were mostly engaged in the great battle for the interests of the Church. During this time Lieber developed his talent as a parliamentary orator and popular speaker. The Kulturkampf was chiefly the work of the individual states, the Empire taking no great part in it, except in the matter of the expulsion of the Jesuits, carried out by virtue of an imperial law. In 1878 a decided change took place in the inner political situation of Germany. Bismarck was meditating a change of attitude toward the tariff and needed the votes of the Centre to secure a majority in the coming parliamentary contest. Windthorst took advantage of the situation to win influence for his party in the Reichstag. His diplomatic attitude on the social question, and the abilities of many of his followers, aided him in the accomplishment of his purpose. Among these followers was Lieber. For the moment, however, he was too interested in the great question of the relations between Church and State to devote himself to social questions, though he fully realized what a prominent place the social programme was to hold in the history of the German Empire. He also knew that the Centre might hope for great success, should it manifest a sincere interest in the cause of social improvement. In the years that followed Lieber advocated unceasingly his party's programme for the protection of the labouring classes, a policy that was gradually adopted by all other groups.

The Centre did not, however, become identified with the Government as a result of its temporary alliance. Though the Kulturkampf was gradually discontinued, other difficulties with Bismarck succeeded, especially in regard to the socio-political agitation. The great chancellor understood its importance, but believed that the duty of the State in respect of social reform was limited to the insurance of labourers against sickness, accidents, and disability. The Centre, on the other hand, paid more attention to the legal protection of labourers against extortion and overtaxation. In the meantime the chancellor's demands in the matter of the army led to a rupture between himself and the Centre. In the debates on the Army Bill (1887), the so-called Septennate, Bismarck strenuously resisted the influence of the hated party. He even tried to diminish the power of the Reichstag, and to increase that of the Prussian Landtag, in order to effect his object. During the heated debates which followed it was Lieber who attacked Bismarck and his associates in the Landtag with the greatest vehemence. In 1890 Emperor William II relieved Bismarck of the chancellorship, and declared himself in favour of state protection for the labouring classes. In succeeding years, almost every bill for this purpose advocated by the Centre since 1877 has received imperial sanction. The Prussian ministry and Landtag, however, retained their power in local politics, notwithstanding Bismarck's retirement. On 14 March, 1891, the Centre lost its leader by the death of Windthorst. Several prominent members of the party were of opinion that they should come to an understanding with the Prussian Government and with the Conservative Party, in order to obtain more influence in Prussian affairs. This policy met with Lieber's approval, but fell through temporarily, when, in the spring of 1892, the Government withdrew a bill in the interest of Christian public schools. This bill endorsed the principles of Christian education, but failed owing to the violent opposition of the Liberals. A few weeks later, the Prussian Liberals and Conservatives formed a coalition in order to cripple the Centre policy of extending to the miners the advantages already granted to the labourers. The Catholic party was hopelessly outvoted.

The situation now became very critical for the Centre. Their failure to pass their bills was aggravated by discord within the party itself, so serious as to jeopardize its existence. Its unity had suffered by the loss of Windthorst. The defence of the rights of the Church, on which his followers had hitherto been as one man, no longer held the first place in the political field, being overshadowed by the differences, mostly economical, which had arisen between North and South Germany. To protect their diverging interests it appeared best to dissolve the party. The possibility of a split between the northern and southern members of the Centre grew more threatening when, in 1893, a great agrarian agitation arose in Germany. This led the Catholic voters of Bavaria, nearly all farmers, to desert the Prussian followers of the Centre, whose interests in this matter diverged from theirs. The crisis was approaching its culmination, but was obviated when in December, 1893, the government introduced a bill in the Reichstag to increase the army. This caused great excitement throughout the Empire. All the members of the Centre were united in their determination to grant only a part of the Kaiser's demands. The two most prominent, however, Baron von Huene and Dr. Lieber, disagreed on one point, namely as to whether only a part of the estimates should be voted for without the guarantees of the several state-governments. Lieber learned that the governments would not give the required guarantees, and moved for the consideration of the estimates only. The majority of the Centre seconded him, especially the southern members, thereby constituting him unquestionable leader of the party and Windthorst's successor. The Reichstag was dissolved by the emperor and a new election took place amid great popular interest and enthusiasm. The Centre Party returned to the Reichstag as the most numerous and important political factor in Germany.

Lieber's great qualities as a leader were demonstrated from 1893 to 1898, during which period his prominence became more and more manifest; at the same time took place the greatest domestic development of the Empire since 1870. In those years Germany so developed its political organization and became so self-reliant that the imperial idea has ever since dominated the popular mind, completely overshadowing the local patriotism of the individual states. This is primarily due to three main factors: the Russo-German commercial treaty of 1894; the civil code of 1896 with its resultant commercial law; as well as the reform of the procedure in army cases and the law of 1898 concerning the navy, the foundation of the actual German navy. These measures were so thoroughly discussed in Parliament as to bring home to the German people the full significance of an united Empire. It is to Lieber's credit that he grasped this idea fully and that he induced his party, and others in the Reichstag, to forget their differences and finish this great work in union with the Government. At the same time he re-organized his party. Its former organization, dating from the time of the Kulturkampf, owed its origin to a politico-religious condition of affairs, and it aimed at special legislation. Beginning with 1890, a new organization had come into existence with social reform as its principal object, the Volksverein für das Katholische Deutschland (People's Union for Catholic Germany). Lieber made numerous speeches in many cities on behalf of this association. He regarded it as the most important means of ensuring the continuance of the Centre by giving it a wider sphere of activity in the domain of politics than was attainable by a merely ecclesiastical party, also by reshaping it along such lines as would make it permanently influential as an imperial party, extending to all the states of the Empire, with social reform for its chief object (eine sociale und föderative Reichspartei).

Leiber was very active during these years; his great speeches are full of vivid German patriotic sentiment, and recall at once the political romanticists of 1813- 60 and the heroes of 1848. His idea was the political unity of Germany, so established, however, as to preserve the historical peculiarities of the different nationalities, with German science and educational methods, German industrial life, and the unifying power of a universal system of commerce. He was ever mindful of the prestige of the fatherland abroad, and was ever a sincere friend of universal peace and of an amicable rivalry in the pursuit and furtherance of civilization. He crossed the ocean three times to visit the United States. In his speeches he urged the preservation of the German racial characteristics. He was anxious for this in proportion as he studied American institutions, and realized their value, especially in their possible application to Germany.

When the election for the Reichstag took place in 1898, Lieber's party returned to Berlin with its former strength. New, and perhaps more difficult, problems awaited solution: the completion of the navy, the renewal of the commercial treaties, and the reform of the financial affairs of the Empire. Prussia was also endeavouring to secure greater influence in German politics by the construction of a large canal-system, and by the execution of Bismarck's policy against the Poles. The Prussian Government was ably led by Miquel, Minister of Finance, formerly Lieber's friend, but now his intriguing opponent.

Lieber now fell fatally ill. He continued his work without flinching, however, until January, 1900, though he no longer took part in any important proceedings. He recognized clearly that the Centre might henceforth have a standing in the Prussian Landtag. But the Canal bill, by means of which he hoped to achieve this end, failed at the last moment; he himself prevented the financial reform which he had desired only as a means of cancelling debts, and not as a measure for regulating the financial relations of the Empire with the confederated states, that were at this time overburdened by their share of imperial taxation. In the Polish question, he went no further than to outline a positive programme, by no means committing his party to a policy of opposition. He endorsed, however, the completion of the navy, and emphasized the need of a united national spirit in Parliament by means of which such great results had been obtained in the former Reichstag. In a word, he was the Catholic parliamentarian who attained the most definite results for the nation in the Reichstag, a skilled tactician, a politician ripe in knowledge and experience, discreet, shrewd and cautious, inspired by lofty aims and an enthusiasm for high ideals. He was a brave German citizen, unselfish, yet eager for action, a true Catholic Christian both in principle and in conduct.

Stenographic Records of the Reichstag and Landtag; Held, Eulogium (delivered on 3 April, 1903), pp. 63; Spahn, Ernst Lieber, a biographical essay (1906).

M. Spahn.

Moriz Lieber

Politician and publicist, b. at the castle of Blankenheim in the Eifel, 1 Oct., 1790, d. at Kamberg, in Hesse-Nassau, 29 Dec., 1860; a man of eminent ability, great learning, and the highest culture, from his youth to his death a true Christian and a faithful son of the Church, and an intrepid champion of her rights and interests. His earliest literary activity was the translation of prominent Catholic works from foreign tongues, seeking thus to combat the spirit of "enlightenment" and rationalism which had been rampant in Germany since the days of Joseph II. He first published under the title "Die Werke des Grafen Joseph von Maistre" (5 vols., Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822-24), the three principal works of de Maistre: "Du pape", "De l'Eglise gallicane dans son rapport avec le souverain pontife, and "Les soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg". He also translated John Milner's "The End of Religous Controversy" under the title "Ziel und Ende religiöser Kontroversen" (Frankfort 1828; new ed., Paderborn, 1849), and Thomas Moore's "Travels of an Irish Gentleman in Search of a Religion": "Reisen eines Irländers um die wahre Religion zu suchen" (Aschaffenburg, 1834; 6th ed, 1852). In answer to the pamphlet "Bruchstück eines Gespräches über die Priesterehe" (Hadamar, 1831), in which an anonymous "friend of the clergy and of women" attacked the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood, Lieber wrote "Vom Cölibat" (Frankfort, 1831). As a member of the Lower Chamber of Nassau, he published "Blick auf die jüngste Session der Landesdeputierten zur Ständeversammlung des Herzogthums Nassau" (Franfort, 1832). Lieber's name became known, however, throughout Germany by his manly championship of the Archbishop of Cologne, Clemens August von Droste-Vischering, who had been imprisoned by the Prussian Government. In his defence he issued under the pseudonym of "A Practical Jurist" the powerful polemic, "Die Gefangennehmung des Erzbischofs von Köln und ihre Motive" (3 parts, Frankfort, 1837-38) Effective as were his published writings for the liberties and interests of the Church, even more valuable were his professional opinions and advice. Thus he was entrusted by the assembly of bishops at Würzburg in 1848 and by the first conference of the bishops of the ecclesiastical Province of the Upper Rhine held at Freiburg in 1851, with the commission to draw up a memorial to the Government. His greatest services, however, were rendered in the cause of Catholic association and the catholic press. He took a prominent part in the founding of "Der Katholische Verein Deutschlands". He presided at its sessions held in 1849 at Breslau, and in 1867 at Salzburg, the predecessors of the great Catholic congresses, and as president of the Breslau Congress he drew up the protest of the "Katholische Verein Deutschlands" against the proposals for reform made by the Freiburg professor, J.B. Hirscher, in his work "Erörterungen über die grossen religiösen Fragen der Gegenwart" (3 parts, Freiburg im Br., 1846-55). In the conflict between the ecclesiastical Province of the Upper Rhine and the Government, Lieber interposed with a second pamphlet, "In Sachen der oberrheinischen Kirchen-provinz" (Freiburg im Br., 1853); and, especially in his last years, as a member of the Upper Chamber of Nassau he was an energetic champion of the interests of the Church, for which he also used his personal influence with his duke, who had appointed him counsellor of legation. His philanthropy is evidenced by his erection of a hospital at Kamberg, towards the foundation of which his father had left a rich bequest.

BRUCK, Geschichfe der katholischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, 2nd. ed. prepared by KISSLING, III, (Munster, 1905), passim; MAY, Geschschte der Generalversammlungen der Katholiken Deutschlands (Cologme, 1903) 52 sq., 106 sq. and passim; Historisch-politische Blatter XXIII (1849), 785 sq.; XXIV, 118 sq.; Der Katholik, XLI (1861), I, 127 sq.

GREGOR REINHOLD

Bruno Franz Leopold Liebermann

Catholic theologian, b., at Molsheim in Alsace 12 Oct., 1759; 4. at Strasburg, 11 Nov., 1844. Having finished his humanities in the college at Molsheim, he studied theology from 1776 to 1780 in the seminary at Strasburg, after which, as he was too young for ordination, he was as subdeacon appointed teacher in the college at Molsheim. He became a deacon and a licentiate of theologv in 1782, and was ordained priest on 14 June, 1783 lie shortly afterwards became professor in the Strasburg seminary, in 1784 preacher at the cathedral, and in 1787 pastor at Ernolsheim near Molsheim. During the Revolution he was obliged to take refuge across the Rhine (1792), and the Bishop of Strasburg, Cardinal Rohan, appointed him rector of the seminary which had been transferred for the time to the Abbey of All saints, in the Black Forest. Here he taught dogmatic theology and canon law, and wrote his unpublished "Institutiones iuris canonici universalis." In 1795 he secretly returned to his parish at Ernolsheim, where he laboured in secret and in great Ianger for the cure of souls until 1801, holding at the same time the office of extraordinary episcopal commissary for this division of the diocese. In 1801 he was called to Strasburg as preacher at the cathedral and secretary of the diocese, but returned once more to Ernolsheim in 1802. On 12 March, 1804 he was there unexpectedly arrested, and, on the groundless suspicion that he was in secret communication with the royal family, was held a prisoner in Paris for eight months. When, through the intercession of Bishop Colmar of Mainz with Napoleon, he regained his freedom he was called by this bishop to Mainz in 1805 as rector of the newly founded seminary there and in 1806 became also a member of the cathedral chapter. In the seminary he lectured on canon law, church history, pastoral theology, and, after 1812, also on dogmatic theology.

Personally and through the clergy trained by him, Liebermann exerted a wholesome and long-continued influence upon the revival of the ecclesiastical spirit in Mainz and the adjoining dioceses. Among his pupils were the future bishops Räss, Weis, Geissel, and such other distinguished men as Klee, Lüft, Lennig, Remling, and Nickel. After he had declined in 1823 the appointment to the See of Metz, Bishop Tharin summoned him as his vicar-general to Strasburg, where he continued his fruitful activity. Under Tharin's successor, Bishop Lepappe de Trevern, he withdrew more from public life. His last years were spent in retirement in the mother-house of the Sisters of Charity. Liebermann's name will live in theological literature through his well-known "Institutiones theologicæ", first published in five volumes (Mainz, 1819-27; 6th ed., 1844) and later in two (10th ed., Mainz, 1870). Owing to the correctness of its contents and its clear and well-ordered style, this work was used as a textbook for years in many theological seminaries in Germany, France, Belgium, and America. During the time of the Revolution, Liehermann published several anonymous pamphlets in defence of the rights of the Church and against the required oath of the civil constitution of the clergy. Of his sermons several have been published separately, e.g. "Lob- und Trauerrede bei Gelegenheit des Hintrittes des hochwürdigsten Herrn Joseph Ludwig Colmar, Bischof zu Mainz" (Mainz, 1818). After his death appeared:— "Liebermann's Predigten, herausgegeben von Freunden und Verehrern des Verewigten" (3 vols., Mainz, 1851-3). From 1825 to 1826 he was editor of the "Katholik".

GUERBER, Bruno Franz Leopold Liebermann (Freiburg im Br., 1880); Hist-pol. Blätt., LXXXVI (1880), 735-57; Katholik, I (1881), 90-109, 201-12; FELDER-WAITZENEGGER, Gelehrten- und Schriftsteller-Lexikon der deutschen kathol. Geistlichkeit it, III (Landshut, 1822), 287-94; GUERBER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; REUSCH in Allgem. deut. Biog., XVIII, 578-80.

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT

Liège

(The Diocese of Liège; canonical name Leodiensis).

Liège (Vicus Leudicus; Leodium; Legia) is now [1910] the capital of a Belgian province of the same name.

The first capital of this diocese was Tongres, northeast of Liège; its territory originally belonged to the Diocese of Trier, then to Cologne; but after the first half of the fourth century Tongres received autonomous organization. The boundaries were those of the Civitas Tungrorum, and they remained unchanged until 1559. These boundaries were, on the north, the Diocese of Utrecht; east, that of Cologne; south, the Dioceses of Trier and Reims; west, that of Cambrai. Thus Tongres extended from France, in the neighbourhood of Chimay, to Stavelot, Aachen, Gladbach, and Venlo, and from the banks of the Semois as far as Eeckeren, near Antwerp, to the middle of the Isle of Tholen and beyond Moerdyck, so that it included both Latin and Germanic populations. In 1559, its 1636 parishes were grouped in eight archdeaconries, and twenty-eight councils, chrétientés, or deaneries.

Some trace the bishops of Tongres to the first century, but the first Bishop was St. Servais, installed in 344 or 345 assisted at the Council of Rimini (359-60), and died in 384 (?). The invasion of 406 shattered the diocese, and its restoration required a long time. The conversion of the Franks began under Falco (first half of the sixth century) and continued under Sts. Domitian, Monulphus, and Gondulphus (sixth and seventh centuries). St. Monulphus built over the tomb of St. Servais a sumptuous church, near which his successors often resided. During the whole of the seventh century the bishops had to struggle against paganism. St. Amandus (647-50) abandoned the episcopal chair in discouragement, and built monasteries. St. Remaculus (650-60) did the same. St. Theodard (660-69), died a martyr.

St. Lambert (669-705?) completed the conversion of the pagans; probably about 705 he was murdered at Vicus Leudicus, for his defence of church property against the avarice of the neighbouring lords, and he was popularly regarded as a martyr. His successor, St. Hubert, built, to enshrine his relics, a basilica which became the true nucleus of the city, and near which the residence of the bishops was fixed.

Those bishops, nevertheless, continued to use the style of Bishop of the Church of Tongres, or Bishop of Tongres and of Liège. Agilbert (768-84), and Gerbald (785-810) were both placed in the see by Charlemagne. Hartgar built the first episcopal palace. Bishop Franco, who defeated the Normans, is celebrated by the Irish poet Sedulius. Stephen (908-20), Richaire (920-45), Hugh (945-47), Farabert (947-58) and Rathier were promoted from the cloister. To Stephen, a writer and composer, the Church is indebted for the feast and the Office of the Blessed Trinity. Rathier absorbed all the learning of his time. Heraclius, who occupied the see in 959, built four new parish churches, a monastery, and two collegiate churches, he inaugurated in his diocese an era of great artistic activity.

The domain of the Church of Liège had been developed by the donations of sovereign princes and the acquisitions of its bishops. Notger (972-1008), by securing for his see the feudal authority of a countship became himself a sovereign prince. This status his successors retained until the French Revolution: and throughout that period of nearly eight centuries the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, with a temporal jurisdiction of less extent than its spiritual, succeeded in maintaining its autonomy, though theoretically attached to the Empire. This virtual independence it owed largely to the ability of its bishops, under whom the Principality of Liège, placed between France and Germany, on several occasions played an important part in international politics. Notger, the founder of this principality, was also the second founder of his episcopal city. He rebuilt the cathedral of St. Lambert and the episcopal palace, finished the collegiate church of St. Paul, begun by Heraclius, facilitated the erection of Sainte-Croix and Saint-Denis, two other collegiate churches, and erected that of St. John the Evangelist. This bishop also strengthened the parochial organization of the city. He was one of the first to spread the observance of All Souls' Day, which he authorized for his diocese. But the most notable characteristic of Notger's administration was the development which, following up the work of Heraclius, he gave to education: thanks to these two bishops and to Wazo, "Liège for more than a century occupied among the nations a position in regard to science which it has never recovered". "The schools of Liège were, in fact, at that time one of the brightest literary foci of the period". Balderic of Looz (1008-18), Walbodon (1018-21), Durandus (1021-25), Reginard (1025-38), Nitard (1038-42), the learned Wazo, and Theoduin (1048-75) valiantly sustained the heritage of Notger. The schools went on forming many brilliant scholars, and gave to the Catholic Church Popes Stephen IX and Nicholas II.

In the reign of Henry of Verdun (1075-91) a tribunal was instituted (tribunal de la paix) to take cognizance of infractions of the Peace of God. Otbert (1091-1119) increased the territory of the principality. He remained faithful to Henry IV, who died as his guest. The violent death of Henry of Namur (1119-21) won for him veneration as a martyr. Alexander of Juliers (1128-34) received at Liège the pope, the emperor, and St. Bernard. The episcopate of Raoul of Zachringen was marked by the preaching of the reformer, Lambert le Bègue, who is credited with founding the béguines. The time at length came when the schools of Liège were to yield to the University of Paris, and the diocese supplied that university with some of its first doctors — William of Saint-Thierry, Gerard of Liège, Godfrey of Fontaines.

Albert of Louvain was elected Bishop of Liège in 1191, but Emperor Henry VI, on the pretext that the election was doubtful, gave the see to Lothair of Hochstadt. Albert's election was confirmed by the pope, and he was consecrated, but was assassinated at Reims, in 1192, by three German knights. It is probable that the emperor was privy to this murder, the victim of which was canonized. In 1195 Albert de Cuyck (1195-1200) formally recognized the franchises of the people of Liège. In the twelfth century the cathedral chapter assumed a position of importance in relation to the bishop, and began to play an important part in history of the principality.

The struggles between the upper and lower classes, in which the prince-bishops frequently intervened, developed through the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, to culminate, in the fifteenth, with the pillage and destruction of the episcopal city. In the reign of Robert of Thourotte, or of Langres (1240-46), St. Juliana — a religious of Cornillon, Liège — was led by certain visions to the project of having a special feast established in honour of the Blessed Sacrament. After much hesitation, the bishop approved of her idea and caused a special office to be composed, but death prevented his instituting the feast. The completion of the work was reserved for a former prior of the Dominicans of Liège, Hugh of Saint-Cher, who returned to the city as papal legate. Hugh, in 1252, made the feast one of obligation throughout his legatine jurisdiction. John of Troyes, who, after having been archdeacon at Liège, was elected pope as Urban IV, caused an office to be composed by St. Thomas, and extended the observance of the feast of Corpus Christi to the whole Church. Another archdeacon of Liège, becoming pope under the name of Gregory X, deposed the unworthy Henry of Gueldres (1247-74). The Peace of Fexhe, signed in 1316, in the reign of Adolph of La Marck (1313-44), regulated the relations of the prince bishop and his subjects; nevertheless the intestinal discord continued, and the episcopate of Arnould of Hornes (1378-89) was marked by the triumph of the popular party. Louis of Bourbon (1456-82) was placed on the throne by the political machinations of the dukes of Burgundy, who coveted the principality. The destruction of Dinant, in 1466, and of Liège, in 1468, by Charles the Bold, marked the ending of democratic ascendancy.

Erard de la Marck brought a period of restoration; he was an enlightened protector of the arts. He it was who commenced that struggle against the Reformation which his successors maintained after him, and in which Gerard of Groesbeeck (1564-80) was especially distinguished. With the object of assisting in this struggle, Paul IV, by the Bull "Super Universi" (12 May, 1550), created the new bishoprics of the Low Countries. This change was effected largely at the expense of the Diocese of Liège; many of its parishes were taken from it to form the entire Dioceses of Ruremonde, Bois-le-Duc (Hertogenboseh), and Namur, as well as, in part, those of Mechlin and Antwerp. The number of deaneries in the Diocese of Liège was reduced to thirteen.

Most of the bishops in the seventeenth century were foreigners, many of them holding several bishoprics at once. Their frequent absences gave free scope for those feuds of the Chiroux and the Grignoux to which Maximilian llenr of Bavaria (1650-88) put a stop by the Edict of 1681. In the middle of the eighteenth century the ideas of the French encyclopédistes began to be received at Liège; Bishop de Velbruck (1772-84), encouraged their propagation and thus prepared the way for the Revolution, which burst upon the episcopal city on 18 August, 1789, during the reign of Bishop de Hoensbroech (1781-92). At last the territory of the principality was united to France, and thenceforward shared the destines of the other Belgian provinces. The diocese, too, disappeared in the Revolution.

The new diocese, erected 10 April, 1802, included the two Departments of Ourte and Meuse-Inférieure, with certain parishes of the Forest districts. In 1818 it lost a certain number of cantons, ceded to Prussia. After the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands the diocese comprised the Provinces of Liège and Limburg. On 6 May, 1538. Mgr Van Bommel divided the Province of Liège into two deaneries. In 1839 the diocese lost those parishes which were situated in Dutch Limburg. The present Diocese of Liège, suffragan to Mechlin, consists of 670 parishes, grouped in 40 deaneries, and has (1909) a population of 1,152,151, the majority (Walloons) sneaking French; the minority, Flemish or German. Diocesan statistics (1909): deaneries, 40; curacies, 44; succursal parishes, 620; chapels, 30; vicariates paid by the State, 307; annexes, 22. After the Concordat, the diocese was governed by Zaepffel (1802-08); after him, Lejeas, nominated in 1809 by Napoleon, failed to obtain canonical institution, and the diocese was administered successively by the two vicars-capitular, Henrard (1808-14) and Barrett (1814-29). The succeeding bishops have been: Corneille Van Bommel (1829-52), Théodore de Montpellier (1852-79), Victor Joseph Doutreloux (1879-1901). Mgr Martin-Hubert Rutten, the present bishop was instituted in 1901. On account of the Law of Separation, a number of French religious communities have settled in the diocese.

FISEN, Flares ecclesiæ Leodiensis (Lille, 1647); IDEM, Historia ecclesiæ leodiensis (Liège, 1696); FOULLON, Historia leodiensis (Liège, 1735-37); BOUILLE, Histoire de la ville et pays de Liège (Liège, 1725-32); DE GERLACHE, Histoire de Liège depuis César jusqu'à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Brussels, 1874); DARIS, Histoire du diocèse et de la principauté de Liège, Des origines à 1879 (Liège. 1868-92); PAQUAY, Les oriqines chrétiennes dans le diocèse de Tongres (Tongres, 1909); KURTH, La cité de Liège au moyen âge (Liège, 1910); DEMARTEAU, Liège et les principautés épiscopales de l'Allemagne occidentale (Liège, 1900); Bulletin de l' Institut archéoloqique liègois (Liège, 1852—); Bulletin de la Société d'Art et d'Histoire du diocèse de Liège (Liège, 1881—): Leodium (Liège, 1902—); PIRENNE, Bibliographic de l'histoire de Belgique (Brussels, 1902), after that, in Archives Belges.

JOSEPH BRASSINNE

Liesborn

A former noted Benedictine Abbey in Westphalia, Germany, founded in 815; suppressed in 1803. It was situated near Beckurn, in the south-eastern part of the district of Münster. According to an old tradition the monastery was established in 785 by Charlemagne. More probably, however, it was built in 815 by two laymen, Bozo and Bardo, whom the register of deaths of Liesborn names as the founders. At first Liesborn was a convent for women. As time passed on the nuns grew more and more worldly, so that in 1131 Bishop Egbert of Münster expelled them, and installed Benedictine monks in their place. It was several times besieged by enemies and from the thirteenth century ascetic life steadily declined as the abbey increased in wealth. The monastery became a kind of secular foundation, into which the nobility gained admittance through influence. In 1298 the property of the abbey wall divided unto separate prebends, twenty-two of them full prebends, and six for boys. The Bursfeld Union successfully worked here also (1465) for the restoration of discipline. To the Union was due the flourishing condition of Liesborn in the period of the excellent abbots Heinrich of Cleves (1464-90), and Johann Smalebecker (1490-1522) who restored the buildings and greatly improved the economic condition of the abbey. Monastic life, art, and study flourished again. The zeal of Liesborn influenced other Benedictine abbeys, and it succeeded in re-establishing discipline and the cloister in several convents for women. The beautiful altar-paintings with which Abbot Heinrich adorned the church became famous, but under French administration (1807) they sold for a mere song. The artist is unknown, and the best pictures are now in the National Gallery, London.

The pious Bernard Witte, a warm friend of Humanistic learning, was a monk at Liesborn (l490 to about 1534). He wrote a history of Westphalia and a chronicle of the abbey. The period of prosperity, however, did not last long. Abbot Anton Kalthoff (1522-32) adopted the doctrines of the Anabaptists and was deposed; Gerlach Westhof (1554-82) favoured the Protestants and involved the monastery heavily in debt; under Johann Rodde (1582-1601) immorality and economic decay again increased. Conditions were still worse during the disorders caused by the wars of the seventeenth century. It was not until the Peace of Westphalia (1648) that any improvement appeared, and then it was only for a short time, for the wars of the eighteenth century also laid waste Liesborn so that at the time of the suppression there were still several thousand thalers of debt. The abbey was suppressed 2 May, 1803, and was declared the property of the Prussian Crown. The Gothic church, rebuilt 1499-1506, and several monastic buildings, are still standing.

Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem. Benediktiner- und Zister-zienser-orden XXV (1904), 738-744; SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG, Monasticon Westfaliae (Münster, 1909), 41, BECKER, Die Wirt-schaftsverhaltnisse des Klosters Liesborn am Ende des Mittelalters (Münster Dissertation, 1909).

KLEMENS LÖFFLER

The Master of Liesborn

A Westphalian painter, who in 1465 executed an altar-piece of note in the Benedictine monastery of Liesborn, founded by Charlemagne. His name is not mentioned by the historian of the monastery, who, however, declares that the Greeks would have looked on him as an artist of the first rank. Even in the fourteenth century the Cologne school of painting found a rival in Westphalia, and in the fifteenth century the latter could oppose the great Liesborn painter to Stephen Lochner. These two have something in common with each other and with the Van Eycks in Flanders, and both in their work rather reflect the past than look into the future. On the suppression of the monastery in 1807, the chef d'oeuvre of the Westphalian artist was unfortunately sold, divided into parts, and thus scattered. The principal parts, some of these purely fragmentary, are now to be found in the National Gallery of London, in the Muenster Museum, and in private hands. A fair idea of the altar-piece may be formed from a copy in a church at Luenen. The altar had not folding wings the painting being placed side by side on a long panel. in the centre was the Redeemer on the Cross, while Mary stood on one side with Cosmas and Damian, and on the other John, Scholastica, and Benedict. Four angels caught the blood which poured from the wounds. The touchingly beautiful head of the Saviour is still preserved, as are the busts of the saints whose countenances are so full of character and nobility, and several angels with golden chalices. The background is also golden. Four scenes chosen from Sacred History were reproduced on the sides.

The painting of the Annunciation represents a double apartment with vaulted ceiling, the front room being represented as an oratory and the other as a sleeping chamber: the marble floor, the damask curtains which surround the bed, a wardrobe, a bench some vases, and writing material, all are carefully drawn and with due regard for perspective; the arched doorway and the partition wall are adorned with figures of Prophets and Christ, and a representation of the world. The window looks out on a landscape. The Blessed Virgin, clad in a blue mantle over a robe of gold brocade, is seen in the front room turning from her prie-dieu towards the angel, who, richly robed and bearing in his left hand a sceptre, delivers his greeting. Of the Nativity group, there still remain five beautiful angels, who kneel on the ground around the effulgent form of the Child: there also remain two busts of male figures which were probably part of this scene. Of the " Adoration of the Magi " there is but one fragment left. The " Presentation in the Temple " shows a venerable priest, to whom the Mother presents her Child laid on a white cloth: three witnesses surround the priest, while the mother is attended by two maidservants carrying the doves. Several panels have been lost. The Liesborn artist is not as skilfully realistic as van Eyck, but his genius for delineation becomes quite apparent when one observes the nobility of expression about the mouths of his figures, the almond-shaped eyes, the loose curly hair, and the natural folds of the garments. But his most characteristic claim to fame lies in the purity of his taste and in his ideal conception of a sacred subject. The great master's influence is evident in other works, but no second work cam be attributed directly to him.

C. GIETMANN

Liessies

A Benedictine monastery near Avesnes, in the Diocese of Cambrai, France (Nord), founded about the middle of eighth century and dedicated to St. Lambert. The monastery appears to have been destroyed twice in the wars of the ensuing centuries, and was only finally established about the year 1110 by Theodoric of Avesnes and his wife Ada. From this time its continued history is on record, but without any fullness of detail, a list of the abbots may be found in "Gallia Christiana". The chief glory of Liessies is the famous Louis de Blois, who became a monk there at the early age of fourteen. In 1530 he was made abbot and at once inaugurated his well known series of reforms, which were rendered necessary by the gradual decline from strict monastic observance (see BLOSIUS). After the death of Abbot Blosius the next six abbots seem to have maintained the high state of observance inaugurated by him, but the forty-first abbot, Lambert Bouillon, was of a different type. He is said to have lived extravagantly, exhausted the monastery exchequer with lawsuits, and diverted the revenues to the advantage of his nephews and nieces. The illustrious Fénelon, then Archbishop of Cambrai accordingly held a visitation of the abbey in the year 1702 and left certain instructions of which the abbot circulated a largely fictitious account. The archbishop, however, having secured the changes he desired, refrained from any public disavowal of the abbot's declaration. After Abbot Bouillon's death in 1708 the existence of the monastery continued smoothly until the final suppression of religious houses in France. In 1791 the last abbot, Dom Mark Verdier, and his community signed a declaration, as ordered by the decree of 14 October, 1790, in which they protested their earnest desire to remain in religion, but the suppression followed nevertheless. The property of the monastery was sold in 1791 and 1792 and the church pillaged and destroyed. The valuable paintings for which the abbey was famous, which included a series of "religious founders", were burned or dispersed, a few being still to be seen in neighbouring churches.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

Life

(Greek zoe; Latin vita; French La vie, German Das Leben; vital principle; Greek psyche; Latin anima, vis vitalis, German leberzskraft).

The enigma of life is still one of the two or three most difficult problems that face both scientist and philosopher, and notwithstanding the progress of knowledge during the past twenty-three hundred years we do not seem to have advanced appreciably beyond the position of Aristotle in regard to the main issue. What are its characteristic manifestations? What are its chief forms? What is the inner nature of the source of vital activity? How has life arisen? Such are among the chief questions which present themselves with regard to this subject.

I. HISTORY

A. Greek Period

The early Greek philosophers for the most part looked on movement as the most essential characteristic of life, different schools advocating different material elements as the ultimate principle of life. For Democritus and most of the Atomists it was a sort of subtle fire. For Diogenes it was a form of air. Hippo derives it from water. Others compound it of all the elements, whilst some of the Pythagoreans explain it as a harmony -- foreshadowing modern mechanical theories. Aristotle caustically remarks that all the elements except earth had obtained a vote. With him genuine scientific and philosophic treatment of the subject begins, and the position to which he advanced it is among the finest evidences of both his encyclopedic knowledge and his metaphysical genius. His chief discussions of the topic are to be found in his peri psyches and peri zoön geneseos.

For Aristotle the chief universal phenomena of life are nutrition, growth, and decay. Movement or change in the widest sense is characteristic of all life but plants are incapable of local movement. This follows on desire, which is the outcome of sensation. Sentiency is the differentia which constitutes the second grade of life -- that of the animal kingdom. The highest kind of life is mind or reason, exerting itself in thought or rational activity. This last properly belongs to man. There are not in man three really distinct souls, as Plato taught. Instead, the highest or rational soul contains eminently or virtually in itself the lower animal or vegetative faculties. But what is the nature of the inner reality from which vital activity issues? Is it one of the material elements? Or is it a harmony the resultant of the balance of bodily forces and tendencies? No. The solution for Aristotle is to be found in his fundamental philosophical analysis of all sensible being into the two ultimate principles, matter and form. Prime Matter (materia prima) is the common passive potential element in all sensible substances; form is the determining factor. It actualizes and perfects the potential element. Neither prime matter nor any corporeal form can exist apart from each other. They are called substantial principles because combined they result in a being; but they are incomplete beings in themselves, incapable of existing alone. To the form is due the specific nature of the being with its activities and properties. It is the principle also of unity. (See FORM; MATTER.) For Aristotle, in the case of living natural bodies the vital principle, psyche is the form. His doctrine is embodied in his famous definition: psyche estin entekexeia e prote somatos fysikou dynamei zoen exontos. (De Anima, II, i), i. e. the soul is therefore the first entelechy (substantial form or perfect actualization) of a natural or organized body potentially possessing life. The definition applies to plants, animals, and man. The human soul, however, endowed with rationality is of a higher grade. It is form of the body which it animates, not in virtue of its rationality but through the vegetative and sentient faculties which it also possesses. The union of these two principles is of the most intimate character, resulting in one individual being. The form or entelechy, is therefore not a substance possessed of a distinct being from that of the body; nor in the case of animals and plants is it a reality separable from the body. The human soul, however, seems to be of a different kind (genos etepron), and separable as the eternal from the perishable. Aristotle's conception of the soul differs fundamentally from that of Plato for whom the vital principle is related to the body only as the pilot to the ship; who moreover distinguishes three numerically different souls in the individual man.

B. Medieval Period

The Aristotelian theory in its essential features was adopted by Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, and the doctrine of the vital principle as form of the body prevailed supreme throughout the Middle Ages. The differences separating the rational soul from the vital principle of the plant or animal, and the relations between intellectual activity and sensory cognition became more clearly defined. The human soul was conceived as a spiritual substantial principle containing virtually the lower faculties of sensory and vegetative life. It is through this lower organic capacity that it is enabled to inform and animate the matter of the body. But the human soul always remains a substance capable of subsisting of itself apart from the body, although the operations of its lower faculties would then necessarily be suspended. Because of its intrinsic substantial union with the material of the organism, the two principles result in one substantial being. But since it is a spiritual being retaining spiritual activities, intrinsically independent of the body, it is, as St. Thomas says, non totaliter immersa, not entirely submerged in matter, as are the actuating forms of the animal and the plant.

Moreover, the vital principle is the only substantial form of the individual being. It determines the specific nature of the living being, and by the same act constitutes the prime matter with which it is immediately and intrinsically united a living organized body. The Scotist School differed somewhat from this, teaching that antecedently to its union with the vital principle the organism is actuated by a certain subordinate forma corporeitatis. They conceived this form or collection of forms, however, as incomplete and requiring completion by the principle of life. This conception of inferior forms, though not easy to reconcile with the substantial unity of the human being, has never been theologically condemned, and has found favour with some modern Scholastic writers, as being helpful to explain certain biological phenomena.

With respect to the question of the origin of life Aristotle, followed by Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and the Schoolmen generally, believed in the spontaneous generation even of organisms comparatively high in the animal kingdom (see BIOGENESIS). The corruption of animal and vegetable matter seemed to result in the spontaneous generation of worms and insects, and it was universally assumed that the earth under the influence of moisture and the sun's heat could produce many forms of plant and animal life. St. Augustine taught in the fifth century that many minute animals were not formally created on the sixth day, but only potentially in a seminal condition in certain Portions of matter -- and subsequently several Catholic philosophers and theologians admitted this view as a probable theory (cf. Summa I:59:2; I:71:1). However, the concurrent agency of a higher cause working in nature was assumed as a necessary factor by all Christian thinkers.

C. Modern Period

In respect to the nature of life as in regard to so many other questions, Descartes (1596-1650) inaugurated a movement against the teaching of Aristotle and the Scholastics which, reinforced by the progress of science and other influences, has during the past two centuries and a half commanded at times considerable support among both philosophers and scientists. For Descartes there are but two agents in the universe -- matter and mind. Matter is extension; mind is thought. There is no possibility of interaction between them. All changes in bodies have to be explained mechanically. Vital processes such as "digestion of food, pulsations of heart, nutrition, and growth, follow as naturally from dispositions of the organism as the movements of a watch." Plants and animals are merely ingeniously constructed machines. Animals, in fact are merely automata. In the "Traité de l'homme" (1664), he applied the language of cogs and pulleys also to human physiology. Thus muscular movement was explained as due to the discharge of "animal spirits" from the brain ventricles through the nerves into the muscles, the latter being thereby filled out as a glove when one blows into it. This tendency to regard the organism as a machine was also fostered by the rapid advances made in physics and chemistry during the eighteenth century and the earlier part of the nineteenth, as well as by the progress in anatomical research of the Italian schools, and even by the discoveries of such men as Harvey, Malpighi, and Bishop Stensen. The earlier crude mechanical conceptions were, however, constantly met by criticism from men like Stahl. If the advance of science seemed to explain some problems, it also showed that life-phenomena were not so simple as had been supposed. Thus Lyonet's work on the goat-moth revealed such a microscopic complexity that it was at first received with incredulity.

Stahl (1660-1734) himself advocated an exaggerated form of vitalism. Rejecting the mechanical theories of the Cartesian School, he taught that life has its source in a vital force which is identical with the rational soul in man. It is conceived as constructor of the body, exerting and directing the vital processes in a subconscious but instinctively intelligent manner by what he calls logos in contrast with logismos, whilst it rather inhabits than informs the body. Others separated the vital force from the sentient soul and adopted "didynamism". Notwithstanding the growth of materialism, vitalism achieved considerable success during the second half of the eighteenth century. It was, however, mostly of a vague and inconsistent character tinged with Cartesian dualism. The entity by which the organic processes were regulated was generally conceived as a tertium quid between soul and body, or as an ensemble of the vital forces in antagonism and conflict with those of inanimate matter. This was substantially the view held by the Montpellier school (e.g. Barthez, Bérard, Lordat) and by Bichat. Even to men like Cuvier life was simply a tourbillon, a vortex, a peculiar kind of chemical gyroscope. The Bildungstrieb or nisus formativus of Blumenbach (1752-1840), who judiciously profited by the work of his predecessors, exhibits an improvement -- but succeeding vitalists still showed the same want of philosophic grasp and scientific precision. Even a physiologist of the rank of Claude Bernard was constantly wavering between une idée créatrice -- whatever that may mean -- and une sorte de force législative mais nullement exécutive, and the mechanical organism of Descartes. Von Baer, Treviranus, and J. Muller favoured a mild kind of vitalism. Lotze here, as in his general philosophy, manifests a twofold tendency to teleological idealism and to mechanical realism. The latter, however, seems to prevail in his view as to the nature of vegetative life. The second and third quarters of the nineteenth century witnessed a strong anti-vitalist reaction: a materialistic metaphysic succeeded the idealistic Identitätsphilosophie. Even the crude matter-and-motion theories of Moleschott, Vogt, and Buchner gained a wide vogue in Germany, whilst Tyndall and Huxley represented popular science philosophy in England and enjoyed considerable success in America.

The advent of Darwinism too, turned men's minds to "phylogeny", and biologists were busy establishing genetic relationships and tracing back the infinite variety of living types to the lowly root of the genealogical tree. To such men life was little better than the movements of a complicated congeries of atoms evolved from some sort of primitive protoplasmic nebula. The continuous rapid advance both of physics and chemistry flattered the hope that a complete "explanation" of vital processes was at hand. The successful syntheses of organic chemistry and the establishment of the law of the conservation of energy in the first half of the nineteenth century were proclaimed as the final triumph of mechanism. Ludwig, Helmholtz, Huxley, Häckel, and others brought out new and improved editions of the seventeenth-century machine view of life. All physiology was reduced to processes of filtration, osmosis, and diffusion, plus chemical reactions. But with the further advance of biological research, especially from about the third quarter of the last century, there began to find expression among many investigators an increasing conviction that though physico-chemistry might shed light on sundry stages and operations of vital processes, it always left an irreducible factor unexplained. Phenomena like the healing of a wound and even regular functions like the behaviour of a secreting cell, or the ventilating of the lungs, when closely studied, did not after all prove so completely amenable to physical treatment. But the insufficiency of physico-chemistry became especially apparent in a new and most promising branch of biological research -- experimental morphology, or as one of its most distinguished founders, W. Roux, has called it, Entwicklungsmechanik. The embryological problem of individualistic development had not been adequately studied by the older vitalists -- the microscope had not reached anything like its present perfection -- and this was one main cause of their failure. The premature success of the evolution theory too, had led to a blind, unquestioning faith in "heredity", "variation", and ' natural selection" as the final solvents of all difficulties, and the full significance had not yet been realized of what Wilson styles "the key to all ultimate biological problems" -- the lesson of the cell. Recent investigation in this field and better knowledge of morphogenesis have revealed new features of life which have conduced much towards a widespread neovitalistic reaction.

Among the chief of these has been the increased proof of the doctrine of epigenesis. Already in the eighteenth century embryologists were sharply divided as to the development of the individual organism. According to the advocates of preformation or predelineation, the growth of the embryo was merely the expansion or evolution of a miniature organism. This theory was held by ovulists like Swammerdam, Malpighi, Bonnet, and Spallanzani, and by animalculists like Leeuwenhoek, Hartsoeker, and Leibniz. In this view the future organism pre-existed in the primitive germ-ovum or spermatazoon, as the flower in the bud. Development is a mere"unfolding", analogous to the unrolling of a compressed pocket-handkerchief. Though not quite so crude as these early notions, the views of men like Weismann are really reducible to preformation. Indeed the logical outcome of all such theories is the "encasement" of all succeeding generations within the first germ-cell of the race. The opposite doctrine of "epigenesis", viz., that the development of the embryo is real successive production of visible manifoldness, real construction of new parts, goes back to Aristotle. It was upheld by Harvey, Stahl, Buffon, and Blumenbach. It was also advocated by the distinguished Douai priest, J. Turberville Needham (171-1781), who achieved distinction in so many branches of science. In its modern form O. Hertwig and Driesch have been amongst its most distinguished defenders. With some limitations J. Reinke may also be classed with the same school, though his system of "dominants" is not easy to reconcile with unity of form in the living being and leaves him what Driesch styles a "problematic vitalist". The modern theory of epigenesis, however, in the form defended, e.g. by Driesch, is probably not incompatible with the hypothesis of prelocalized areas of specific cytoplasmic stuffs in the body of the germ-cells, as advocated by Conklin and Wilson. But anyhow the modern theory of pre-delineation demands a regulating formative power in the embryo just as necessarily as the epigenetic doctrine. Moreover, in addition to the difficulty of epigenesis, the inadequacy of mechanistic theories to account for the regeneration of damaged parts of the embryo is becoming more clearly recognized every day. The trend of the best scientific thought is clearly evident in current biological literature. Thus Professor Wilson of Columbia University in 1906 closes his admirable exposition of the course of research over the whole field with the conclusion that "the study of the cell has on the whole seemed to widen rather than to narrow the enormous gap that separates even the lowest form of life from the inorganic world" (The Cell, 434). In these words, however, he is only affirming a fact to which the distinguished Oxford biologist Dr. Haldane also testifies:

To any physiologist who candidly reviews the progress of the last fifty years, it must be perfectly evident that, so far from having advanced towards a physico-chemical explanation of life, we are in appearance very much farther from one than we were fifty years ago. We are now more definitely aware of the obstacles to any advance in this direction, and there is not the slightest indication that they will be removed, but rather that with further increase of knowledge and more refined methods of physical and chemical investigation they will only appear more and more difficult to surmount. (Nineteenth Century 1898, p. 403).

Later in Germany, Hans Driesch of Heidelberg became, perhaps, the most candid and courageous advocate of vitalism among German biologists of the first rank. From 1899 he proclaimed his belief in the "autonomy" and "dynamical teleology" of the organism as a whole. The vital factor he boldly designates "entelechy", or "psychoid", and advocated a return to Aristotle for the most helpful conception of the principle of life. His views on some points were unfortunately and quite unnecessarily, as it seems to us, encumbered by Kantian metaphysics -- and he appeared not to have adequately grasped the Aristotelian notion of entelechy as a constitutive principle of the living being. Still he has furnished valuable contributions both to science and the philosophy of life.

Side by side with this vitalistic movement there continued an energetic section of representatives of the old mechanical school in men like Hackel, Loeb, Le Dantec, and Verworn, who have attempted physico-chemical explanations; but no new arguments have been adduced to justify their claims. Many others, more cautious, adopt the attitude of agnosticism. This position, as Reinke justly observes, has at least the merit of dispensing from the labour of thinking. The present neo-vitalistic reaction, however, as the outcome of very extensive and thorough-going research, is, we venture to think, the harbinger of a widespread return to more accurate science and a sounder philosophy in respect to this great problem. With regard to the question of the origin of life, the whole weight of scientific evidence and authority during the past half century has gone to demonstrate with increasing cogency Harvey's axiom Omne vivens ex vivo, that life never arises in this world save from a previous living being. It claims even to have established Virchow's generalization (1858) Omnis cellula ex cellula, and even Flemming's further advance (1882), Omnis nucleus e nucleo.

The history of vitalism, which we have thus briefly outlined, shows how the advance of biological research and the trend of the best modern scientific thought is moving steadily back in the direction of that conception of life to be found in the scholastic philosophy, itself based on the teaching of Aristotle. We shall now attempt a fuller positive treatment of the doctrine adopted by the great body of Catholic philosophers.

II. DOCTRINE

A. Science

Life is that perfection in a living being in virtue of which it is capable of self-movement or immanent action. Motion, thus understood includes, besides change of locality, all alterations in quality or quantity, and all transition from potentiality to actuality. The term is applied only analogically to God, who is exempt from even accidental modification. Self-movement of a being is that effected by a principle intrinsic to the nature of the being, though it may be excited or stimulated from without. Immanent action is action of which the terminus remains within the agent itself, e.g. thought, sensation, nutrition. It is contrasted with transient action, of which the effect passes to a being distinct from the agent, e.g. pushing, pulling, warming, etc. Immanent activity can be the property only of a principle which is an intrinsic constituent of the agent. In contrast with the power of self-movement, inertia is a fundamental attribute of inanimate matter. This can only be moved from without.

There are three grades of life essentially distinct: vegetative, sentient or animal, and intellectual or spiritual life; for the capacity for immanent action is of three kinds. Vegetative operations result in the assimilation of material elements into the substance of the living being. In animal conscious life the vital act is a modification of the sentient organic faculty, whilst in rational life the intellect expresses the object by a purely spiritual modification of itself. Life as we know it in this world is always bound up with organized matter, that is, with a material structure consisting of organs, or heterogeneous parts, specialized for different functions and combined into a whole.

The ultimate units of which all organisms, whether plant or animal are composed, are minute particles of protoplasm, called cells. But even in the cell there is differentiation in structural parts and in function. In other words, the cell itself living apart is an organism. The complexity of living structures varies from that of the single cell amoeba up to the elephant or man. All higher organisms start from the fusion of two germcells, or gametes. When these are unequal the smaller one -- the spermatozoon -- is so minute in relation to the larger, or ovum, that their fusion is commonly spoken of as the fertilization of the ovum by the spermatozoon. The ovum thus fertilized is endowed with the power, when placed in its appropriate nutrient medium, of building itself up into the full-sized living being of the specific type to which it belongs. Growth throughout is effected by a continuous process of cell cleavage and multiplication. The fertilized ovum undergoes certain internal changes and then divides into two cells juxtaposed. Each of the pair passes through similar changes and subdivides in the same way, forming a cluster of four like cells, then of eight, then of sixteen and so on. The specific shape and different organs of the future animal only gradually manifest themselves. At first the cells present the appearance of a bunch of grapes or the grains of a mulberry, the morula stage; the growth proceeds rapidly, a cavity forms itself inside and the blastosphere stage is reached. Next, in the case of invertebrates, one part of the sphere invaginates or collapses inwards and the embryo now takes the shape of a small sac, the gastrula stage. In vertebrates instead of invagination there is unequal growth of parts and the development continuing, the outlines of the nervous system, digestive cavity, viscera, heart, sense-organs, etc. appear, and the specific type becomes more and more distinct, until there can be recognized the structure of the particular animal -- the fish, bird, or mammal. The entire organism, skin, bone, nerve, muscle, etc. is thus built up of cells, all derived by similar processes ultimately from the original germ cell. All the characteristic features of life and the formative power which constructs the whole edifice is thus possessed by this germ-cell, and the whole problem of life meets us here.

The chief phenomena of life can be seen in their simplest form in a unicellular organism, such as the amoeba. This is visible under the microscope as a minute speck of transparent jelly-like protoplasm, with a nucleus, or a darker spot, in the interior. This latter, as Wilson says, may be regarded as "a controlling centre of cell activity." It plays a most important part in reproduction, and is probably a constituent part of all normal cells, though this point is not yet strictly proved. The amoeba exhibits irritability or movement in response to stimulation. It spreads itself around small particles of food, dissolves them, and absorbs the nutritive elements by a process of intussusception, and distributes the new material throughout its substance as a whole, to make good the loss which it is constantly undergoing by decomposition. The operation of nutrition is an essentially immanent activity, and it is part of the metabolism, or waste and repair, which is characteristic of living organisms. The material thus assimilated into the living organism is raised to a condition of chemically unstable equilibrium, and sustained in this state while it remains part of the living being. When the assimilation exceeds disintegration the animal grows. From time to time certain changes take place in the nucleus and body of the cell, which divides into two, part of the nucleus, reconstituted into a new nucleus, remaining with one section of the cell, and part with the other. The separated parts then complete their development, and grow up into two distinct cells like the original parent cell. Here we have the phenomenon of reproduction. Finally, the cell may be destroyed by physical or chemical action, when all these vital activities cease. To sum up the account of life in its simplest form, in the words of Professor Windle:

The amoeba moves, it responds to stimuli, it breathes and it feeds, it carries on complicated chemical processes in its interior. It increases and multiplies and it may die. (What is Life?, p. 36.)

These various phenomena constituting the cycle of life cannot, according to the Schoolmen, be rationally conceived as the outcome of any collection of material particles. They are inexplicable by mere complexity of machinery, or as a resultant of the physical and chemical properties of matter. They establish, it is maintained, the existence of an intrinsic agency, energy, or power, which unifies the multiplicity of material parts, guides the several vital processes, dominates in some manner the physical and chemical operations, controls the tendency of the constituents of living substance to decompose and pass into conditions of more stable equilibrium, and regulates and directs the whole series of changes involved in the growth and the building-up of the living being after the plan of its specific type. This agency is the vital principle; and according to the Scholastic philosophers it is best conceived as the substantial form of the body. In the Peripatetic theory, the form or entelechy gives unity to the living being, determines its essential nature, and is the ultimate source of its specific activities. The evidence for this doctrine can be stated only in the briefest outline.

(1) Argument from physiological unity

The physiological unity and regulative power of the organism as a whole necessitate the admission of an internal, formal, constituent principle as the source of vital activity. The living being -- protozoon or vertebrate, notwithstanding its differentiation of material parts and manifoldness of structure, is truly one. It exercises immanent activity. Its organs for digestion, secretion, respiration, sensation, etc., are organs of one being. They function not for their own sakes but for the service of the whole. The well-being or ill-being of each part is bound up in intimate sympathy with every other. Amid wide variations of surroundings the livine organism exhibits remarkable skill in selecting suitable nutriment; it regulates its temperature and the rate of combustion uniformly within very narrow limits, it similarly controls respiration and circulation -- the composition of the blood is also kept unchanged with remarkable exactness throughout the species. In fact, life selects, absorbs, distributes, stores various materials of its environment for the good of the whole organism, and rejects waste products, spending its energy with wonderful wisdom.

This would not be possible were the living being merely an aggregate of atoms or particles of matter in local contact. Each wheel of a watch or engine -- nay each part of a wheel -- is a being quite distinct from, and in its existence intrinsically independent of every other. No spoke or rivet sickens or thrives in sympathy with a bar in another part of the machine, nor does it contribute out of its actual or potential substance to make good the disintegration of other parts. The combination is artificial; the union accidental, not natural. All the actions between the parts are transient, not immanent. The phenomena of life thus establish the reality of a unifying and regulating principle, energy, or force, intimately present to every portion of the living creature, making its manifold parts one substantial nature and regulating its activities.

(2) Morpho-genetic argument: Growth

The tiny fertilized ovum placed in a suitable medium grows rapidly by division and multiplication, and builds up an infinitely complex structure, after the type of the species to which it belongs. But for this something more than the chemical and physical properties of the material elements engaged is required. There must be from the beginning some intrinsic formative power in the germ to direct the course of the vast series of changes involved. Machines may, when once set up be constructed to perform very ingenious operations. But no machine constructs itself, still less can it endow a part of its structure with the power of building itself up into a similar machine. The establishment of the doctrine of epigenesis has obviously increased indefinitely the hopelessness of a mechanical explanation. When it is said that life is due to the organization of matter, the question at once arises: What is the cause of the organization? What but the formative power -- the vital principle of the germ cell? Again the growing organism has been compared to the building up of the crystal. But the two are totally different. The crystal grows by mere aggregation of external surface layers which do not affect the interior. The organism grows by intussusception, the absorption of nutriment and the distribution of it throughout its own substance. A crystal liberates energy in its formation and growth. A living body accumulates potential energy in its growth. A piece of crystal too is not a unity. A part of a crystal is still a crystal. Not so, a part of a cow. A still more marvellous characteristic of life is the faculty of restoring damaged parts. If any part is wounded, the whole organism exhibits its sympathy; the normal course of nutrition is altered the vital energy economizes its supplies elsewhere and concentrates its resources in healing the injured part. This indeed is only a particular exercise of the faculty of adaptation and of circumventing obstacles that interfere with normal activity, which marks the flexibility of the universal working of life, as contrasted with the rigidity of the machine and the immutability of physical and chemical modes of action.

The argument in favour of a vital principle from growth was reinforced by the introduction of experiment into embryology. Roux, Driesch, Wilson, and others, showed that in the case of the sea-urchin, amphioxus, and other animals, if the embryo in its earliest stages, when consisting of two cells, four cells, and in some cases of eight cells, be carefully divided up into the separate single cells, each of these may develop into a complete animal, though of proportionately smaller size. That is, the fertilized ovum which was naturally destined to become one normal animal, though prevented by artificial interference from achieving that end, has yet attained its purpose by producing several smaller animals; and in doing so has employed the cells which it produced to form quite other parts of the organism than those for which they were normally designed. This proves that there must be in the original cell a flexible formative power capable of directing the vital processes of the embryo along the most devious paths and of adapting much of its constituent material to the most diverse uses.

(3) Psychical Argument

Finally, we have immediate and intimate knowledge of our own living conscious unity. I am assured that it is the same ultimate principle within me which thinks and feels, which originates and directs my movements. It is this same principle which has governed the growth of all my sense-organs and members, and animates the whole of my body. It is this which constitutes me one rational, sentient, living being.

All these various classes of facts prove that life is not explicable by the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of matter. To account for the phenomena there is required within the living being a principle which has built up the organism after a definite plan; which constitutes the manifold material a single being; which is intimately present in every part of it; which is the source of its essential activities; and which determines its specific nature. Such is the vital principle. It is therefore in the Scholastic terminology at once the final, the formal, and even the efficient cause of the living being.

C. Unity of the Living Being

In each animal or plant there is only one vital principle, one substantial form. This is obvious from the manner in which the various vital functions are controlled and directed to one end -- the good of the whole being. Were there more than one vital principle, then we should have not one being but a collection of beings. The practice of abstraction in scientific descriptions and discussions of the structure and functions of the cell has sometimes occasioned exaggerated notions as to the independence and separateness of existence of the individual cell, in the organism. It is true that certain definite activities and functions are exercised by the individual cell as by the eye or the liver; and we may for convenience consider these in isolation: but in concrete reality the cell, as well as the eye or the liver exerts its activity by and through the living energy of the whole being. In some lowly organisms it is not easy to determine whether we are in presence of an individual being or a colony; but this does not affect the truth of the proposition that the vital principle being the substantial form, there can only be one such principle animating the living being. With respect to the nature of this unity of form there has been much dispute among the adherents of the Scholastic philosophy down to the present day. It is agreed that in the case of man the unity, which is of the most perfect kind, is founded on the simplicity of the rational or spiritual soul. In the case of the higher animals also it has been generally, though not universally held that the vital principle is indivisible. With respect to plants and lower forms of animal life in which the parts live after division, the disagreement is considerable. According to some writers the vital principle here is not simple but extended, and the unity is due merely to its continuity. According to others it is actually simple, potentially manifold, or divisible in virtue of the nature of the extended organism which it animates. There does not seem to be much prospect of a final settlement of the point.

D. Ultimate Origin of Life

The whole weight of the evidence from biological investigation, as we have already observed, goes to prove with constantly increasing force that life never appears on the earth except as originating from a previous living being. On the other hand science also proves that there was a time in the past when no life could have possibly existed on this planet. How then did it begin? For the Christian and the Theist the answer is easy and obvious. Life must in the first instance have been due to the intervention of a living First Cause. When Weismann says that for him the assumption of spontaneous generation is a "logical necessity" (Evolution Theory, II, 366), or Karl Pearson, that the demand for "special creation or an ultrascientific cause" must be rejected because "it would not bring unity into the phenomena of life nor enable us to economize thought" (Grammar of Science, 353) we have merely a psychological illustration of the force of prejudice even in the scientific mind. A better sample of the genuine scientific spirit and a view more consonant with actual evidence are presented to us by the eminent biologist, Alfred Russel Wallace who, in concluding his discussion of the Darwinian theory, points out that

there are at least three stages in the development of the organic world when some new cause or power must necessarily have come into action. The first stage is the change from inorganic to organic, when the earliest vegetable cell, or the living protoplasm out of which it arose, first appeared. This is often imputed to a mere increase of complexity of chemical compounds; but increase of complexity with consequent instability, even if we admit that it may have produced protoplasm as a chemical compound, could certainly not have produced living protoplasm -- protoplasm which has the power of growth and of reproduction, and of that continuous process of development which has resulted in the marvellous variety and complex organization of the whole vegetable kingdom. There is in all this something quite beyond and apart from chemical changes, however complex; and it has been well said that the first vegetable cell was a new thing in the world, possessing altogether new powers -- that of extracting and fixing carbon from the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere that of indefinite reproduction, and still more marvellous, the power of variation and of reproducing those variations till endless complications of structure and varieties of form have been the result. Here, then, we have indications of a new power at work, which we may term vitality, since it gives to certain forms of matter all those characters and properties which constitute Life ("Darwinism", London, 1889, 474 5).

For a discussion of the relation of life to the law of the conservation of energy, see ENERGY, where the question is treated at length.

Having thus expounded what we believe to be the teaching of the best science and philosophy respecting the nature and immediate origin of life, it seems to us most important to bear constantly in mind that the Catholic Church is committed to extremely little in the way of positive definite teaching on the subject. Thus it is well to recall at the present time that three of the most eminent Italian Jesuits, in philosophy and science, during the nineteenth century Fathers Tongiorgi, Secchi, and Palmieri, recognized as most competent theologians and all professors in the Gregorian University, all held the mechanical theory in regard to vegetative life, whilst St. Thomas and the entire body of theologians of the Middle Ages, like everybody else of their time, believed implicitly in spontaneous generation as an everyday occurrence. If therefore these decayed scientific hypotheses should ever be rehabilitated or -- which does not seem likely -- be even established, there would be no insuperable difficulty from a theological standpoint as to their acceptance.

MICHAEL MAHER

Methodius I

Patriarch of Constantinople (842-846), defender of images during the second Iconoclast persecution, b. at Syracuse, towards the end of the eighth century; d. at Constantinople, 14 June, 846. The son of a rich family, he came, as a young man, to Constantinople intending to obtain a place at Court. But a monk persuaded him to change his mind and he entered a monastery. Under the Emperor Leo V (the Armenian, 813-820) the Iconoclast persecution broke out for the second time. The monks were nearly all staunch defenders of the images; Methodius stood by his order and distinguished himself by his opposition to the Government. In 815 the Patriarch Nicephorus I (806-815) was deposed and banished for his resistance to the Iconoclast laws; in his place Theodotus I (815-821) was intruded. In the same year Methodius went to Rome, apparently sent by the deposed patriarch, to report the matter to the pope (Paschal I, 817-824). He stayed in Rome till Leo V was murdered in 820 and succeeded by Michael II (820-829). Hoping for better things from the new emperor, Methodius then went back to Constantinople bearing a letter in which the pope tried to persuade Michael to change the policy of the Government and restore the Patriarch Nicephorus. But Michael only increased the fierceness of the persecution. As soon as Methodius had delivered his letter and exhorted the emperor to act according to it, he was severely scourged (with 70 stripes), taken to the island Antigoni in the Propontis, and there imprisoned in a disused tomb. The tomb must be conceived as a building of a certain size; Methodius lived seven years in it. In 828 Michael II, not long before his death, mitigated the persecution and proclaimed a general amnesty. Profiting by this, Methodius came out of his prison and returned to Constantinople almost worn out by his privations. His spirit was unbroken and he took up the defence of the holy images as zealously as before.

Michael II was succeeded by his son Theophilus (829-842), who caused the last and fiercest persecution of image-worshippers. Methodius again withstood the emperor to his face, was again scourged and imprisoned under the palace. But the same night he escaped, helped by his friends in the city, who hid him in their house and bound up his wounds. For this the Government confiscated their property. But seeing that Methodius was not to be overcome by punishment, the emperor tried to convince him by argument. The result of their discussion was that Methodius to some extent persuaded the emperor. At any rate towards the end of the reign the persecution was mitigated. Theophilus died in 842 and at once the whole situation was changed. His wife, Theodora, became regent for her son Michael III (the Drunkard, 842-867). She had always been an image-worshipper in secret; now that she had the power she at once began to restore images, set free the confessors in prison and bring back everything to the conditions of the Second Nicene Council (787). The Patriarch of Constantinople, John VII (832-842), was an Iconoclast set up by the Government. As he persisted in his heresy he was deposed and Methodius was made patriarch in his place (842-846). Methodius then helped the empress-regent in her restoration. He summoned a synod at Constantinople (842) that approved of John VII's deposition and his own succession. It had no new laws to make about images. The decrees of Nicæa II that had received the assent of the pope and the whole Church as those of an Œcumenical Council were put in force again. On 19 Feb., 842, the images were brought in solemn procession back to the churches. This was the first "Feast of Orthodoxy", kept again in memory of that event on the first Sunday of Lent every year throughout the Byzantine Church. Methodius then proceeded to depose Iconoclast bishops throughout his patriarchate, replacing them by image-worshippers. In doing so he seems to have acted severely. An opposition formed itself against him that nearly became an organized schism. The patriarch was accused of rape; but the woman in question admitted on examination that she had been bought by his enemies.

On 13 March, 842, Methodius brought the relics of his predecessor Nlicephorus (who had died in exile) with great honour to Constantinople. They were exposed for a time in the church of the Holy Wisdom, then buried in that of the Apostles. Methodius was succeeded by Ignatius, under whom the great schism of Photius broke out. Methodius is a saint to Catholics and Orthodox. He is named in the Roman Martyrology (14 June), on which day the Byzantine Church keeps his feast together with that of the Prophet Eliseus. He is acclaimed with the other patriarchs, defenders of images, in the service of the feast of Orthodoxy: "To Germanus, Tarasius, Nicephorus and Methodius, true high priests of God and defenders and teachers of Orthodoxy, R. Eternal memory (thrice)." The Uniate Syrians have his feast on the same day. The Orthodox have a curious legend, that his prayers and those of Theodora saved Theophilus out of hell. It is told in the Synaxarion for the feast of Orthodoxy.

St. Methodius is reputed to have written many works. Of these only a few sermons and letters are extant (in Migne, P.G., C, 1272-1325). An account of the martyrdom of Denis the Areopagite by him is in Migne, P.G., IV, 669-682, two sermons on St. Nicholas in N. C. Falconius, "S. Nicolai acta primigenia" (Naples, 1751), 39-74. For other fragments and scholia, see Krumbacher, "Byzantinische Litteratur" (Munich, 2nd ed., 1897), 167.

Anonymous Life of Methodius in P.G., C, 1244-1261; Logoteta, Commentarius critico-theologicus de Methodio Syracusano (Catania, 1786); Leo Allatius, de Methodiorum scriptis diatriba in S. Hippolyti opera (Hamburg, 1718), pp. 89-95; Cavel Scriptorum eccles. historia literaria, II (London, 1688), 30; Fabricius- Harles, Bibliotheca Græca, VII (Hamburg, 1790-1806), 273-274.

Adrian Fortescue

Ligamen

(Lat. for bond).

The existing marriage tie which constitutes in canon law a public impediment to the contracting of a second marriage. As marriage is monogamous and indissoluble, it follows that one who is still united in valid marriage cannot contract another valid marriage (Matt., v, 31 sq., xix, 4 sqq.; Mark, x, 11 sq.; Luke, xvi, 18; I Cor., vii, 10 sq.). The existence of a previous valid marriage at the moment of contracting a second entails of itself the invalidity of the latter. The Church enforces the law that no one can contract two or more marriages at the same time. Protestantism on the contrary does not take this stand as is shown, among other cases, by the action of Luther and other reformers in the case of the double marriage of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse (Janssen, "History of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages", VI (tr. London, 1908), book II, xii, 75 sqq.; Rockwell, "Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen" (Marburg, 1904); Paulus, "Cajetan and Luther über die Polygamie" in "Historisch-politische Blatter:, CXXXV, 81 sqq.; Köhler, "Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen" in "Historische Zeitschrift", XCIV, 385 sqq.). Hence he who has already contracted a marriage, in order to proceed legally with another, must prove that the first marriage tie (ligamen) no longer exists. Since marriage, apart from "matrimonium ratum" which is dissolved for one party by religious profession, is regularly dissolved by death alone, proof of this death must be established before the second marriage can validly be contracted (C. 19, X, de sponsal., IV, 1).

The proof of death required is either an official death certificate, issued by the parish priest or other authorized ecclesiastic, or by the proper civil official, the directors of hospitals, the military commanding officer, or satisfactory evidence from other public records and reports. The decision of a secular judge supported by a death certificate cannot ipso facto decide the question for the ecclesiastical authorities; they may, however, utilize the same. Death may be proved by two credible witnesses on their oath; by one witness of such rank or character that he is above suspicion; by hearsay witnesses, if their statements originate from unsuspected sources. Should such credible evidence be unattainable directly, and from ecclesiastical sources, the bishop should try as far as possible to obtain at least a moral certainty regarding the position of the contracting parties. He ought also to consider the previous marital relations of the missing party, his religious attitude, age, health, property relations with the surviving spouse, etc.

Should the bishop be unable to obtain moral certainty or should the case be extraordinary, appeal must be made to the Apostolic See (C. 8, X, qui filii sint legit., IV, 17; Cong. S. Off., 13, Mai, 1868, i.e. the "Instructio ad probandum obitum alicuius coniugis"; Sac. Cong. Inq., 18 Juli, 1900). Whoever, in spite of the certainty of an existing marriage, attempts to contract a second, commits an act juridically null and void, is guilty of the sin of bigamy, incurs the ecclesiastical penalty of infamy, and is excommunicated with a consequent refusal of the sacraments and Christian burial. Should it prove, however, that in fact the first marriage at the time of contracting the second, was really dissolved, then the second, despite bad faith, would be valid. Should the second marriage have been contracted in good faith, if only by one party, and it subsequently appear that the first spouse still lived, then the second marriage would not only be invalid but the parties to it must be separated by the ecclesiastical authorities, and the first marriage re-established. However, the second and invalid marriage would enjoy the advantage of being putative marriage (C. 8, X, qui filii sint legit., IV, 17). This second marriage, though illegal during the lifetime of the first spouse, may be validly contracted after his or her death; indeed, should the party who acted bona fide demand it, the guilty one is then bound to contract marriage validly with the petitioner.

Since monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage are founded on the natural law, this impediment of ligamen is binding also on non-Catholics and on the unbaptized. If an unbaptized person living in polygamy becomes a Christian, he must keep the wife he had first married and release the second, in case the first wife is converted with him. Otherwise, by virtue of the "Pauline privilege", the converted husband may choose that one of his wives who allows herself to be baptized (C. 8, X, de divort., IV, 19, Pius V, "Romani Pontificis", 2 Aug., 1571; Gregory XIII, "Populis ac nationibus", 25 Jan, 1585). Polygamy is likewise forbidden by the civil law, though it is much more indulgent than the Church in the dissolving of marriages and granting divorces, and often permits a new marriage where the first marriage still exists. In this matter Catholics must not follow the civil law where it conflicts with the law of the Church.

      Wernz, Jus decretalium, IV (Rome, 1904), 520 sqq.; Laurentius, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (Freiburg, 1908), n. 626 sqq.; Pauli, Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, LXXXVIII, 273 sqq.; Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1877-89).

Johannes Baptist SÄgmÜller

Lights

Upon the subject of the liturgical use of lights, as an adjunct of the services of the Church, something has already been said under such headings as ALTAR (IN LITURGY), sub-title Altar-Candles; BENEDICTION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT; CANDLES; CANDLESTICKS; LAMPS AND LAMPADARII. The present article will be concerned only with the more general aspect of the question, and in particular with the charge so often levelled against Catholicism of adopting wholesale the ceremonial practices of the pagan world.

How far the use of lights in the daytime as an adjunct of the Liturgy can be traced back to the second or third century a.d. is not quite easy to decide. On the one hand, there seems to be some evidence that the Christians themselves repudiated the practice. Although Tertullian ("Apol.", xlvi and xxxv; "De Idololat.", xv) does not make any direct reference to the use of lights in religious worship, still he speaks in strong terms of the uselessness of burning lamps in the daytime as an act of piety towards the emperors. This would be somewhat inconsistent, if the Christians themselves had been open to the same reproach. Moreover, several of the Fathers of the fourth century might seem to be more explicit in their condemnation of a display of lamps. For example, about the year 303, Lactantius writes: "They [the pagans] burn lights as to one dwelling in darkness. . . Is he to be thought in his right mind who offers for a gift the light of candles and wax tapers to the author and giver of light? . . . But their Gods, because they are of the earth, need light that they need not be in darkness" ("Institut. Div.", VI, ii). In like manner, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, towards the end of the same century, observes: "Let not our dwelling-place blaze with visible light and resound with minstrelsy, for this indeed is the custom of the Greek holy-month, but let us not honour God with these things and exalt the present season with unbecoming rites, but with purity of soul and cheerfulness of mind and with lamps which enlighten the whole body of the Church, i. e. with divine contemplations and thoughts" (Orat., v, 35). The rhetorical character of such passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences. It may well be that the writers are merely protesting against the illuminations which formed part of the ordinary religious cultus of the emperors, and wish to state forcibly the objections against a similar practice which was beginning to find favour among Christians. It is, at any rate certain that even earlier than this the liturgical use of lights must have been introduced. The decree of the Spanish Council of Illiberis, or Elvira (about a.d. 305), is too obscure to afford a firm basis for argument (see Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles", I, 212). Still this prohibition, "that candles be not lighted in a cemetery during the day, for the spirits of the saints ought not to be disquieted" (can. xxxiv), at least shows that the practice — which we know to have been long in use among pagans — of burning lights, for some symbolical or superstitious reason, even in the daytime, was being adopted among the Christians also. To discuss in detail the perplexing and seemingly inconsistent references of St. Jerome to the use of lights would not be possible here. But two facts stand out clearly:

• (1) that he admitted the existence of a pretty general custom of burning candles and lamps in honour of the martyrs, a custom which he apologizes for without unreservedly approving it; and
• (2) that the saint, though he denies that there is any general practice among the Christians of burning lights during the daytime, still admits at least some instances of a purely liturgical use of light.

Thus he says: "Apart from honouring the relics of martyrs, it is the custom, through all the Churches of the East, that when the gospels are to be read lights are kindled, though the sun is already shining, not, indeed, to dispel darkness, but to exhibit a token of joy . . . and that, under the figure of bodily light, that light may be set forth of which we read in the psalter 'thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths" (C. Vigilantium, vii). This testimony is particularly valuable because it so clearly refutes any exclusively utilitarian view of the use of lights in the churches.

From Eusebius, St. Paulinus of Nola, the "Peregrinatio Ætheriæ" (Pilgrimage of Ætheria), and other authorities, we have abundant evidence that the Christians of the fourth century, and probably earlier still, upon Easter eve and some other solemn festivals, made a great display of lamps and candles of all kinds. Moreover, this does not seem to have been confined to the nocturnal vigil itself, for St. Paulinus in describing the feast of St. Felix to whom his church was dedicated, tells us in verse how "the bright altars are crowned with lamps thickly set. Lights are burnt, odorous with waxed papyri. They shine by night and day; thus night is radiant with the brightness of the day, and the day itself, bright in heavenly beauty, shines yet more with light doubled by countless lamps" ("Poem.", xiv, "Nat." iii, in P. L., LXI, 467). Still this poetical language may very possibly mean no more than that in a rather dark church it was found desirable to keep the lamps burning even in daytime upon great festivals, when there was a large concourse of people. It tells us nothing of any use of lights which is liturgical in the stricter sense of the word. The same may be said of various references to the festal adornment of churches with lamps and candles which may be found in the writings of the Christian poet Prudentius (cf. P. L., LIX, 819, 829; and LX, 300). Still, when we find in the newly discovered "Testament of our Lord" (l. 19) an injunction regarding church buildings, that "all places should be lighted both for a type and also for reading", it seems clear that St. Jerome was not alone in attaching a mystical significance to the use of lights. Hence we may infer that before the days (about a.d. 475) of the liturgical homilist Narsai (see LAMPS AND LAMPADARII) the use of lamps and candles around the altar during the Liturgy had become universal.

It should be added that no great importance can be attached to the mention by St. Paulinus of Nola, of "a perpetual light" in the church ("continuum scyphus argenteus aptus ad usum"; cf. P. L., LXI, 539). This certainly cannot be assumed to have been intended as a mark of respect to the Blessed Sacrament reserved for the sick. In the days before the invention of matches the continuance of some source of fire from which a light could be readily obtained was a matter of great convenience. Such a perpetual light seems to have been usually kept up, then as now, in Jewish synagogues (cf. Ex., xxvii, 20; Lev., xxiv, 2), but it was only the later Talmudists who discovered in this a purpose of honouring the Torah, or Books of the Law, preserved in the Ark. The same utilitarian design probably underlay any Christian practice, which, after all, is not very widely attested, of keeping a light perpetually burning in the church.

But to return to the liturgical use of lights in the stricter sense, there are not wanting many considerations to suggest that, despite the lack of direct evidence, this practice is probably of very much older date than the fourth century. To begin with, the seven-branched "candlestick", or more accurately lamp-stand, was a permanent element in the Temple ritual at Jerusalem and more than one Jewish festival (e. g. the Dedication feast and that of Tabernacles), was marked by a profuse use of lights. Moreover, the Apocalypse (i, 12; iv, 5; xi, 4), in the prominence which it gives to the mention of candlesticks and lamps, is probably only echoing the more or less liturgical conceptions already current at the time. Again, the fact that the Liturgy was at first no doubt celebrated in the evening (cf. I Cor., xi, 21), as also the necessity that the faithful should often assemble by stealth (as in the catacombs) or in the early hours of the morning (cf. Pliny, "Epp", X, n. 97 — ante lucem convenire; and Tertullian, "De Cor.", iii — antelucanis cœtibus), render it highly probable that artificial light must have come to be regarded as an ordinary adjunct of the Liturgy. Hence the use of lamps and candles was probably continued even when not actually needed, just as, in more modern days, the bishop's bugia, which in the beginning served an entirely practical purpose, has come in time to be purely ceremonial. It is also noteworthy that early representations of the Last Supper nearly always give prominence to the lamp, while something of the same kind obtains in the first rude sketches of Christian altars. In any case, lamps and chandeliers are conspicuous amongst the earliest recorded presents to churches (see the "Liber Pontificalis", ed. Duchesne, passim; and cf. the inventory of Cirta, a.d. 303, in Morcelli, "Africa Christiana", II, 183; and Beissel, "Bilder aus der altchrist. Kunst", 247).

Both in ancient and modern times, the reproach has been leveled against the Church that in her ceremonial use of lights she has taken over without scruple the sensuous and often idolatrous practices of paganism. For this charge there is very little real justification. To begin with, it must be evident that such simple elements as light, music, rich attire, processions, ablutions, and lustrations, flowers, unguents, incense, etc., belong, as it were, to the common stock of all ceremonial, whether religious or secular. If there is to be any solemnity of external worship at all it must include some at least of these things, and whether we turn to the polytheistic ritual of ancient Greece and Rome, or to the nations of the far East, or to the comparatively isolated civilizations of the aborigines of Mexico and Peru, human striving after impressiveness is found to manifest itself in very similar ways. A multiplicity of lights is always in some measure joyous and decorative, and it is a principle taught by everyday experience that marks of respect which are shown at first with a strictly utilitarian purpose are regarded in the end as only the more honorific if they are continued when they are plainly superfluous. Thus an escort of torches or candle-bearers, which is almost a necessity in the dark, and is a convenience in the twilight, becomes a formality indicative of ceremonious respect if maintained in the full light of day. Again, since the use of lights was so familiar to Jewish ritual, there is no sufficient ground for regarding the Christian Church as in this respect imitative either of the religions of Greece and Rome or of the more oriental Mithra worship. At the same time, it seems probable enough that certain features of Christian ceremonial were directly borrowed from Roman secular usages. For example, the later custom that seven acolytes with candlesticks should precede the pope, when he made his solemn entry into the church, is no doubt to be traced to a privilege which was common under the Empire of escorting the great functionaries of the State with torches. This right is expressly recognised in the "Notitia Dignitatum", but it may also be found in embryo at an earlier date, when the Consul Duilius for his victory over the Carthaginians, in the third century before Christ, obtained the privilege of being escorted home by a torch and a flute player. But granting, as even so conservative an historian as Cardinal Baronius is fully prepared to grant, a certain amount of direct borrowing of pagan usages, this is no subject of reproach to the Catholic Church. "What", he says, "is to prevent profane things, when sanctified by the word of God, being transferred to sacred purposes? Of such pagan rites laudably adopted for the service of the Christian religion we have many examples. And with regard more especially to lamps and candles, of which we are now speaking, who can reasonably find fault if those same things which were once offered to idols are now consecrated to the honour of the martyrs? If those lamps which were kindled in the temples on Saturdays — not as though the gods needed light, as even Seneca points out (Ep. xv, 66), but as a mark of veneration — are now lighted in the honour of the Mother of God? If the candles which were formerly distributed at the Saturnalia are now identified with the feast of the Purification of our Lady? What, I ask, is there so surprising if holy bishops have allowed certain customs firmly rooted among pagan peoples, and so tenaciously adhered to by them that even after their conversion to Christianity they could not be induced to surrender them, to be transferred to the worship of the true God?" (Baronius, "Annales", ad ann. 58, n. 77).

With regard to the use of lights in direct connexion with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we find the whole system of portable lights elaborated in the earliest of the "Ordines Romani". Indeed, St. Jerome's plain reference, already quoted, to the carrying of lights at the Gospel, seems probably to take the practice back to at least three hundred years earlier, even if we may not appeal, as many authorities have done, to the words of the Acts of the Apostles (xx, 7-8): "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them. . . . And there were a great number of lamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled." It does not seem to have been customary to place lights upon the altar itself before the eleventh century, but the "Ordines Romani" and other documents make it clear that, many centuries before this, lights were carried in procession by acolytes (see ACOLYTE), and set down upon the ground or held in the hand while Mass was being offered and the Gospel read. A decree of the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage directs that in the ordination of an acolyte a candlestick is to be given him, but this collection of canons does not belong, as was once supposed, to the year 398, but to the time of St. Cæsarius of Arles (about a.d. 512). A little later, i. e. in 636, St. Isidore of Seville (Etymol., VII, xii, n. 29) speaks quite explicitly on the point: "Acolytes", he says, "in Greek, are called Ceroferarii in Latin, from their carrying wax candles when the Gospel is to be read or the sacrifice to be offered. For then lights are kindled by them, and carried, not to drive away darkness, as the sun is shining, but for a sign of joy, that under the form of material light may be represented that Light of which we read in the Gospel: That was the true light." It was only at a later date that various synodal decrees required the lighting of first one candle, and afterwards of two, during the time of the celebration of Mass.

The use of lights in baptism, a survival of which still remains in the candle given to the catechumen, with the words: "Receive this burning light and keep thy baptism so as to be without blame", etc., is also of great antiquity. It is probably to be connected in a very immediate way with the solemnities of the Easter vigil, when the font was blessed, and when, after careful preparation and a long series of "scrutinies", the catechumens were at last admitted to the reception of the Sacrament. Dom Morin (Revue Bénédictine, VIII, 20; IX, 392) has given excellent reason for believing that the ceremonial of the paschal candle may be traced back to at least the year 382 in the lifetime of St. Jerome. Moreover the term photisthentes (illuminati), so constantly applied to the newly baptized in early writings, most probably bears some reference to the illumination which, as we know from many sources, marked the night of Holy Saturday. Thus St. Ambrose (De Laps. Virg., v, 19), speaking of this occasion, mentions "the blazing light of the neophytes", and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his great "Sermon on Holy Baptism", tells the candidates that "the lamps which you will kindle are a symbol of the illumination with which we shall meet the Bridegroom, with the lamps of our faith shining, not carelessly lulled to sleep" (Orat., xl, 46; cf. xlv, 2).

Again, the pagan use of lights at funerals seems to have been taken over by the Church as a harmless piece of ceremonial to which a Christian colour might easily be given. The early evidence upon this point in the writings of the Fathers is peculiarly abundant, beginning with what Eusebius tells us of the lying in state of the body of the Emperor Constantine: "They lighted candles on golden stands around it, and afforded a wonderful spectacle to the beholders, such as never was seen under the sun since the earth was made" (Vita. Const., iv, 66). Similarly, St. Jerome tells us of the obsequies of St. Paula in 386: "She was borne to the grave by the hands of bishops, who even put their shoulders under the bier, while other pontiffs carried lamps and candles before her" (Ad Eustoch., ep. cviii, n. 29). So, again in the West, at the funeral of St. Germanus of Auxerre, "The number of lights beat back the rays of the sun, and maintained their brightness even through the day" (Constantius, "Vita S. Germani", II, 24).

It is also certain that, from a very early period, lamps and candles were burnt around the bodies, and then, by a natural transition, before the relics, of the martyrs. How far this was merely a development of the use of lights in funerals, or how far it sprang from the earlier pagan custom of displaying a number of lamps as a tribute of honour to the emperor or others, it is not easy to decide. The practice, as we have seen, was known to St. Jerome, and is with some reservation defended by him. This burning of lights before shrines, relics, and statues naturally assumed great developments in the Middle Ages. Bequests to various "lights" in the churches which the testator desired to benefit generally occupy a considerable space in medieval wills, more particularly in England.

Upon the symbolism of ecclesiastical lights much has been written by medieval liturgists from Amalarius downwards. That all such lights typify Jesus Christ, Who is the Light of the World, is a matter of general agreement, while the older text of the "Exultet" rendered familiar the thought that the wax produced by virgin bees was a figure of the human body which Christ derived from His immaculate Mother. To this it was natural to add that the wick was emblematic of Christ's human soul, while the flame represented His Godhead. But the medieval liturgists also abound in a variety of other symbolic expositions, which naturally are not always quite consistent with one another.

BÄUMER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Kerze; SCHROD, ibid., s. v. Licht; SCUDAMORE in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v.; BARONIUS, Annales ad ann., 58; THALHOFER, Liturgik, I (Freiburg, 1883), 666-83; MÜHLBAUER, Geschichte und Bedeutung der Wachslichter bei den kirchlichen Functionen(Augsburg, 1874); STALEY, Studies in Ceremonial (London, 1901), 169-94.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Ligugé

A Benedictine Abbey, in the Diocese of Poitiers, France, was founded about the year a.d. 360, by St. Martin of Tours. The miracles and reputation of the holy founder attracted a large number of disciples to the new monastery. When however, St. Martin became Bishop of Tours and established the monastery of Marmoutiers a short distance from that city, the fame of Ligugé declined considerably. Among St. Martin's successors as abbots of Ligugé may be mentioned St. Savin, who resigned the post of abbot to become a hermit, and Abbot Ursinus, during whose reign the monk Defensor compiled the well-known "Scintillarum Liber" printed m P. L., LXXXVIII. The Saracenic invasion, the wars of the dukes of Aquitame and the early Carlovingians, and lastly the Norman invasion were a series of disasters that almost destroyed the monastery. By the eleventh century it had sunk to the position of a dependent priory attached to the Abbey of Maillezais, and finally reached the lowest level as a benefice in commendam, One of the commendatory priors, Geoffrey d'Estissac, a great patron of literature and the friend of Rabelais, built the existing church, a graceful structure but smaller by far than the ancient basilica which it replaced. In 1607 Ligugé ceased to be a monastery and was annexed to the Jesuit college of Poitiers to which institution it served as a country house until the suppression of the society in 1762. At the French Revolution the buildings and lands were sold as national property, the church being used for some time as the Municipal Council chamber. Eventually when the upheaval of the Revolution had subsided, the building was constituted a parish church.

In 1849 the famous Mgr Pie, afterwards cardinal, became Bishop of Poitiers. This prelate was the intimate friend of Dom Prosper Guéranger, re-founder of the French Benedictine Congregation of monks, and in 1852 he established at Ligugé a colony of monks from Solesmes. In 1864 the priory was erected into an abbey by Pope Pius IX, and Dom Léon Bastide was appointed first abbot. When, in 1880, the monks were driven from their cloister as a result of the "Ferry laws", many of them retired under Dom Bourigaud, the successor of Dom Bastide, to the monastery of Silos in Spain which was saved from extinction by the recruits thus received. Some years later the buildings at Ligugé were sold to a syndicate, civil in its constitution, by which they were leased to the abbot and community who thus entered their monastery once more. Novices now came in considerable numbers and, in 1894, the ancient Abbey of St. Wandrille de Fontenelle in the Diocese of Rouen was repeopled by a colony from Ligugé. In 1902 the community were again driven out by the "Association Laws", and they are now settled in Belgium at Chevetoigne, in the Diocese of Namur. On Dom Bourigaud's resignation in 1907. Dom Léopold Gaugain was elected abbot, the community now numbers about forty choir monks and ten lay brothers.

Gallia Christiana, II (Paris, 1720), 1222; CHAMARD, St. Martin et son monastère de Ligugé (Paris, 1873); OLIM, Ligugé premier monastére des Gaules in Revue d'Aquitaine, I (1875), 467-478; BESSE, St. Martin's Abbey Ligugé, in Downside Review, XVIII (1899), 128-139).

G. ROGER HUDLESTON.

Lilienfeld

Lilienfeld, a Cistercian Abbey fifteen miles south of St. Polten, Lower Austria, was founded in 1202 by Leopold the Glorious, Margrave of Austria, the first monks being supplied from the monastery of Heiligen Kreus near Vienna. The early history of the foundation presents no exceptional features, but as time went on the monastery became one of the richest and most influential in the empire, the abbots not infrequently acting as councillors to the emperor. Perhaps the most remarkable in the whole long series was Matthew Kollweis (1650-1695) who, when the Turks advanced against Vienna, literally turned his monastery into a fortress, installing a garrison and giving shelter to a large number of fugitives. In 1789 Emperor Joseph II decreed the suppression of the abbey and the spoliation was actually begun. The archives, manuscripts, and valuables of all kinds were carried away to Vienna, the library was dispersed, and the monuments in the church mostly removed or destroyed. Luckily, however, Joseph II died before the ruin was completed and one of the first acts of his successor, Leopold II, was to reverse the decree suppressing Lilienfeld, which thus preserved its ancient territorial possessions. In 1810 a disastrous fire ravaged the abbey buildings, but the church, considered one of the finest in the empire, fortunately escaped damage. The ruined monastery was afterwards restored at great expense and is now a fine specimen of the Austrian type of abbey; vast, somewhat heavy in style and suggesting in its outward appearance the power and dignity of an institution which has survived from feudal times. In 1910 the community numbered forty-nine choir monks, the abbot being Dom Justin Panschab. The abbey belongs to the Austro-Hungarian Congregation Communis observantiœ in which the observance, both as regards spirit and tradition, is allied far more closely to that of the Black Monks of St. Benedict, than to the reform of Abbot de Rancé, commonly known as the Trappist Congregation.

JANAUSCHEK Origines Cistercienses I (Vienna, 1877), 212; HANTHALER, Fasti Campililienses (Linz, 1747-1754); BRUNNER, Cisterzienserbuch (Würzburg, 1881), 139-205; HANTHALER, Recensus diplomatico-genealogicus archivii Campililiensis, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1819-1820); PERTZ, Archiv., VI (1831), 185-186.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON.

Aloisius Lilius

Aloisius Lilius, principal author of the Gregorian Calendar, was a native of Cirò or Zirò in Calabria. His name was originally Aloigi Giglio, from which the Latinized form now used is derived. Montucla (Histoire des Mathématiques, I, 678) erroneously calls him a Veronese, and Delambre (Histoire de l'Astronomie moderne, 1812, I, 5 and 57) calls him Luigi Lilio Giraldi, mixing up Aloigi with Lilius Gregorius Giraldi, the author of a work "De Annis et Mensibus". Of Lilius's life nothing is known beyond the fact that he was professor of medicine at the University of Perugia as early as 1552. In that year he was recommended by Cardinal Marcello Cervini (afterwards Pope Marcellus II) for an increase of salary as an eminent professor and a man highly esteemed by the entire university. This date may explain why Lilius did not live to see his calendar introduced thirty years later. The statement in Poggendorff's "Handwörterbuch", that Lilius was a physician in Rome and that he died in 1576, is apparently not supported by recent researches. In that year, 1576, his manuscript on the reform of the calendar was presented to the Roman Curia by his brother Antonius, likewise doctor of arts and medicine. Antonius was probably many years younger, as he survived the reform, and owned the copyright of the new calendar, until, by retarding its introduction, he lost that privilege, and its printing became free. Mention is made of a Mgr Thomas Giglio, Bishop of Sora, as first prefect of the papal commissions for the reform. If he was a relative of the two brothers, he was not guilty of family favouritism, as he proved himself an obstruction to Aloigi's plans. Lilius's work cannot be understood without a knowledge of what was done before him and in what shape his reform was introduced.

GREGORIAN REFORM OF THE CALENDAR

From the Council of Nicæa to that of Constance

The reform of the calendar was from the start connected with general councils, viz. those of Nicæa (325), of Constance (1414-1418), of Basle (1431), the Fifth of the Lateran (1512-1517), and that of Trent (1545-1563). The double rule, ascribed to the first council, that the vernal equinox shall remain on 21 March, where it then was, and that Easter shall fall on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon, was not respected by all those that planned reforms, but was strictly adhered to in the Gregorian Calendar. It was well known, at the time of the Council of Nicæa, that both the Julian year and the lunar cyclo of Meton were too long; yet a remedy could not be adopted until the errors were more exactly determined. This state of knowledge lasted throughout the first twelve hundred years of our era, as is testified by the few representatives of that period: Gregory of Tours (544-595), Venerable Bede (c. 673-735), and Alcuin (735-804). Some progress was made during the thirteenth century. In the computus of Magister Chonrad (1200) the error of the calendar was again pointed out. A first approximation of its extent was almost simultaneously given by Robert Grosseteste (Greathead, 1175-1253), Chancellor of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln, and by the Scottish monk Joannes a Sacrobosco (Holywood or Halifax). According to the former one leap day should be omitted every 300 years; according to the latter 288 Julian years were just one day too long, and 19 Julian years were one and one-third hours shorter than the lunar cycle. While the latter error is estimated correctly, the other two numbers 300 anbd 288 should be replaced by 128. The Franciscan friar, Roger Bacon of Ilchester (1214-1294), basing his views on Grosseteste, recommended to the pope a series of reforms, the merits of which he did not decide. Campanus (between 1261 and 1264) made to Urban IV the specific proposition to replace the lunar cycle of 19 years by two others of 30 and 304 years. The most important step in the thirteenth century was made by the appearance, in 1252, of the astronomical tables of King Alphonsus X of Castile.

The fourteenth century is remarkable for an astronomical conference held at the papal court in Avignon. In 1344 Clement VI sent invitations to Joannes de Muris, a canon of Manières (Canton Bourges), who was held to be no mean astronomer, and to Firminus de Bellavalle (Beauval), a native of Amiens, and others. The result of the conference was a treatise written by the two authors just mentioned: "Epistola super reformatione antiqui Calendarii". It had four parts: the solar year, the lunar year, the Golden Number, Easter. A third author was the monk Joannes de Thermis. Whether he was a member of the same conference or not, certain it is that he was charged by Clement VI to write his "Tractatus de tempore celebrationis Paschalis". It appeared nine years after the conference (1354) and was dedicated to Innocent VI, successor to Clement VI. In the same century other treatises on the errors and the reform of the calendar are recorded: one of Magister Gordianus (between 1300 and 1320) and one of a Greek monk, Isaac Argyros (1372­3).

The Councils of Constance and Basle

The fifteenth century marks an epoch in the reform of the calendar by two scientific authorities, Pierre d'Ailly and Nicolas de Cusa, both cardinals. Pierre d'Ailly (1350-1425), Bishop of Cambrai and Chancellor of the Sorbonne, followed the views of Roger Bacon. After advising Pope John XXIII in 1412, he pointed out to the Council of Constance, in 1417, the great errors of the calendar. He suggested different remedies: first, to omit one leap day every 134 years, thereby correcting the solar year; second, to omit one day of the lunar cycle every 304 years; or third, to abandon all cyclical computation and follow astronomical observation. It must be noticed that the first and third proposition of Cardinal d'Ailly are reiterated in our own days (substituting for 134 the correct number 128). The first and second of d'Ailly's propositions were elaborated and again proposed by Cardinal de Cusa (1401-1446) to the Council of Basle. The error should be corrected by omitting 7 days in the solar cycle (passing, in 1439, from 24 May to 1 June) and 3 days in the lunar cycle. His "Reparatio Calendarii" furnished much information to subsequent reformers. He was the first to take into account differences of longitude for various meridians. The two councils wisely postponed the reform of the calendar to some future time. The fifteenth century was not to close, however, without considerable progress connected with the names of Zoestius, John of Gmund, George of Purbach, and John of Koenigsberg (Regiomontanus). A treatise on the reform of the calendar by Zoestius appeared after 1437. The first printed almanacs were issued by John of Gmund (d. 1442), dean and chancellor of the University of Vienna. His disciple was Purbach, afterwards professor of mathematics at the same university and teacher of John Müller, called Regiomontanus after his native place in Franken. The latter (1435-1476) continued the work of the chancellor in publishing calendars that served as models for a century to come. The Golden Numbers of the lunar cycle were retained, but the lunations were taken from observation. This combination made the errors of Easter more and more manifest. Regiomontanus was called to Rome by Sixtus IV, for the purpose of reforming the calendar, but died shortly after his arrival at the age of forty-one.

The Councils of the Lateran and of Trent

The two councils of the sixteenth century were finally to pave the way for the long desired reform. The efforts made at the Lateran Council are described by Marzi. From the twelve or more authors enumerated by him it will suffice to mention the two that exercised a decisive influence: Paul of Middleburg, who started the proceedings, and Copernicus, who brought them to a temporary conclusion. The life of the former is described by Baldi in Appendix I to Marzi. Paul born in 1445, died as Bishop of Fossombrone in 1534. He was called from Louvain to Italy by the Republic of Venice, became professor of mathematics at Padua, and physician and astrologer to the Duke of Urbino. Before the opening of the council in 1512 he asked Julius II to attend to the calendar. Leo X sent out briefs to Maximilian I, the princes, bishops, and universities, to obtain their opinion on the calendar, and appointed the Bishop of Fossombrone as president of the commission for the reform. The treatise which Paul of Middelburg laid before the council is entitled: "Paulina sive de recta Paschæ celebratione etc." (Fossombrone, 1513). He was against bringing the equinox back to 21 March, and opposed the idea of abandoning the lunar cycle or putting Easter on a fixed Sunday of the year. He proposed, however, a change in the cycle by reducing the seven embolismic months to five. Emperor Maximilian charged the Universities of Vienna, Tübingen, and Louvain, to express an opinion. Vienna supported the first and third propositions of Cardinal d'Ailly at the Council of Constance, viz. to correct the Julian intercalation by omitting a leap day every 134 years, and to abandon the lunar cycle. Tübingen was of the same opinion, and agreed with Bishop Paul in leaving the equinox where it was.

Copernicus had been asked by the papal commission in 1514 to state his views, and his decision was, that the motions of sun and moon were not yet sufficiently known to attempt a reform of the calendar. The commission was to make definite propositions in the tenth session of the council. Although this was postponed from 1514 to 1515, no conclusion was reached. After the Lateran Council considerable progress was made. Copernicus had promised to continue the observations of sun and moon and he did so for more than ten years longer. The results laid down in his immortal work "De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœ;lestium" (1543) enabled Erasmus Reinhold to compute the Prutenic Tables (Wittenberg, 1554), which were afterwards made the basis of the Gregorian reform. The principal writers at the time are the following: Albertus Pighius, magister at the University of Louvain, who dedicated to Leo X, in 1520, a treatise in which he supported Cardinal d'Ailly's intercalation, omitting a leap day every 134 years, but, on the other hand, recommended the retention of the lunar cycle. About the equinox he committed an error, reckoning it from the constellation of Aries and advising the omission of 16 days. The two Florentine monks, Joannes Lucidus and Joannes Maria de Tholosanis, may be mentioned in passing. The latter pleaded for cyclic reckoning but was opposed to changing the date of the equinox. During the Council of Trent a number of plans were written and proposed to the council and to the pope. Cardinal Marcellus Cervinus, president of the council, summoned to Trent the Veronese Girolamo Fracastoro, a physician and renowned astronomer, and had several conferences with him on the subject of the calendar. In 1548 Bartholomeus Caligarius, a priest in Padua, offered a memorandum to the Bishop of Bitonto, wherein he based his plans on Paul of Middelburg, Stoeffler, and Joannes Lucidus. The Spanish Franciscan Joannes Salon, addressed a proposition to Cardinal Gonzaga, first president of the council under Pius IV. An abridgment of it he offered, immediately after the council, in 1564, to Pius IV, and, on the advice of Sirleto, also to Gregory XIII, in 1577. His memorandum is remarkable for the reasons he puts forth against an immovable Easter, and for the advice that a leap day should be omitted by the pope on the occasion of general jubilees.

Other memoranda were that of Begninus, a canon of Reims, which was handed to Cardinal de Lorraine on his way to the council; that of Lucas Gauricus, who signed himself Episcopus Civitatensis, and based his "Calendarium Ecclesiasticum" of 1548 on Paul of Middelburg; that of the Spanish priest Don Miguel of Valencia, which was presented to Pius IV in 1564. More important than all these was a plan proposed by the Veronese mathematician Petrus Pitatus. Basing his ideas likewise on Paul of Middelburg he wanted the lunar cycle retained and the equinox restored to Cæsar's date, by the omission of fourteen days, which for two years should be taken from the seven months having 31 days each. His original idea, which took final effect in the Gregorian reform, was to correct the Julian intercalation of the solar year, not every 134 years, but by full centuries. No earlier writer seems to have called attention to the fact, that applying the rule of 134 years three times comes, within a small error, to the same thing as omitting three leap days in 400 years. His "Compendium" was published and offered to Pius IV in 1564. The Council of Trent was the first since that of Nicæa that took a positive step towards a reform of the calendar. In the last session, 4 December, 1563, it charged the pope to reform both Breviary and Missal, which included the perpetual calendar.

After the Council of Trent

Pius V published a Breviary (Rome, 1568), with a new perpetual calendar, which was faulty and soon discarded. Gregory XIII, the immediate successor of Pius V, charged Carolus Octavianus Laurus, lector of mathematics at the Sapienza, with working out a plan of reform. It was completed in 1575, and it again recommended the correction of the intercalations by full centuries. A certain Paolo Clarante also composed a calendarium and offered it to the pope for examination. In 1576 the famous manuscript of the late Aloisius Lilius was presented to the papal Curia by his brother Antonius.

Whether Antonius acted in response to the pope's request is not known. Certain it is that Aloisius Lilius commenced his work before the accession of Gregory XIII to the throne and even before the publication of the new Breviary, spending ten years on it. Gregory then organized a commission to decide upon the best plan of reform. During the many sessions the members of the commission changed several times. From the names of those who signed the report offered to Gregory XIII it may be inferred that its composition was intended to represent various nations, grades, and rites of the Church. Besides four Italians there was the French Auditor of the Rota Seraphinus Olivarius, the German Jesuit Christoph Clavius, the Spaniard Petrus Ciaconus, and the Syrian Patriarch Nehemet Alla. Religious Orders were represented by Clavius, by the celebrated Dominican friar Ignatius Dantes and, for a while, by the Benedictine monk Teofilus Martius. The hierarchy we find represented by Vincentius Laureus, Bishop of Mondovi, by the Patriarch of Antioch, and by Cardinal Sirleto. The laity was represented by Antonius Lilius, doctor of arts and medicine, and, as it seems, collaborator of his brother Aloisius in the reform. About the Spaniard Ciaconus or Chacon nothing seems to be known.

The first president of the commission, Bishop Giglio, did not succeed in securing a majority. He favoured the corrections suggested for Lilius's manuscript by the two professors of the Roman Sapienza, the mathematician Carolus Laurus and the professor of Greek, Giovanni Battista Gabio. The commission, however, condemned the corrections as false and addressed itself directly to Gregory XIII. Thomas Giglio, being promoted to the See of Piacenza in 1577, was superseded as president by the learned and pious Cardinal Sirleto, a native of Calabria like Lilius. Another disagreement was caused by the Sienese Teofilus Martius, who was mentioned above. He blamed the commission for the spirit of innovation and for lack of reverence towards the Council of Nicæa; he wanted the equinox restored to the older Roman date 24 or 25 March; he rejected the new cycle of Lilius, and wanted the old cycle corrected; he accepted neither the Alphonsine nor the Prutenic Tables and he desired a leap day to be omitted every 124 years or ten years sooner than the Alphonsine Tables required. Teofilus put his dissent on record in a "Treatise on the Reform of the Calendar" (after 1578) and in a "Short Narration of the Controversy in the Congregation of the Calendar". This would seem to show that he was a member of the commission; at least for a time, for he did not sign the report of the latter to the pope. It was probably owing to his objections that the new cycle of Epacts was changed at least twice and recommended by the commission in a third or even later form.

The opposition of the Sienese Teofilus against the innovation of the Epacts was supported by Alexander Piccolomini, coadjutor Bishop of Siena. If he was not a member of the commission, he was at least requested to express an opinion. He laid down his theories in a "Libellus on the new form of the ecclesiastical calendar" (Rome, 1578). He was influenced by the "Epitoma" of the Florentine Joannes Lucidus (1525). Underrating the exactness of the Alphonsine Tables he gave preference to Albategni's length of the year and advocated the correction of the Julian intercalation once in every hundred years (thinking the error to amount to one day in 106 years). Piccolomini's name is not among the eight that recommended the official report of the commission to Gregory XIII in 1580; they are: Sirleto, Ignatius, Laureus, Olivarius, Clavius, Ciaconus, Lilius, Dantes, all mentioned above. The last mentioned, usually called Ignazio Danti, was afterwards made Bishop of Alatri. His scientific reputation may be inferred from the praises given to him more than a hundred years later (1703) by Clement XI for his large solar instruments in Rome, Florence, and Bologna, which affirmed the correctness of the Gregorian equinox. The instruments consisted of meridian lines and gnomons. The former were usually strips of white marble inset in stone floors. The gnomon was sometimes replaced by a small opening in a wall which projected the image of the sun on the meridian line. An arrangement of this description is visible in the old Vatican Observatory, called the Tower of the Winds. It was on this line that, according to Gilii and Calandrelli, the error of ten days was demonstrated in the presence of Gregory XIII.

The manuscript of Lilius was never printed and has never been discovered. Its contents are known only from the manuscript report of the commission and from the "Compendium" of Ciaconus, which was printed by Clavius. The request of Charante, that his "Calendarium" be distributed together with the "Compendium", was not granted by the commission. The "Compendium" was sent out in 1577 to all Christian princes and renowned universitites, to invite approbation or criticism. With Lilius, it left open the questions, whether the equinox should be placed on 24 March or 21 March, following the old Roman Calendar or the Council of Nicæa; and if the latter (which seemed preferable), whether the ten days should be omitted at once, in some suitable month of 1582, or gradually by declaring all of the next forty years common years and thus completing the reform in 1620. That the error from the Nicæan regulation of the equinox had amounted to ten days, was sufficiently known from various observers, like Toscanelli, Danti, Copernicus (Calandrelli, "Opuscoli Astronomici", Rome, 1822, 30). The motions of sun and moon were taken from the Alphonsine Tables. Whether the Prutenic Tables of 1554 were at the time known to Lilius may be doubted. He could be no stranger, however, to Cardinal d"Ailly's "Exhortatio ad Concilium Constantiense", in which the Julian intercalation was shown to be one day in error every 134 years, or to the proposition of the Veronese mathematician Pitatus, who wanted the correction applied by a cycle of four centuries. Lilius considered fractions of centuries unfit for all cyclic or non- astronomical reckoning and used centurial corrections for both solar and lunar motions.

Lilius's masterpiece is the new "Nineteen Years' Cycle of Epacts", by which he kept the Nicæan Easter regulation apace with the astronomical moon. The old lunar cycle gave the lunations four or more days in error, and Easter could thus (by taking the Sunday after Luna XIV) fall on Luna XXVI, within a few days of the astronomical new moon. Lilius brought the new cycle of Epacts in harmony with the year by two equations so called, the solar and the lunar. The solar equation diminishes the epacts by a unit whenever a Julian leap day is omitted, as in 1900; the lunar equation increases the epacts by unity every 300 years, or (after seven repetitions, the eighth time) in 400 years. The former equation accounts for the error in the Julian year and the latter for the error in the Metonic cycle. The Greek cycle is longer than 19 years and the surplus amounts to one day in 310 years. This will explain the lunar equation, and also show that greater exactness could be reached by applying the interval of 400 years the tenth time. It may happen that the two equations cancel each other and leave the epacts unchanged, as happened in 1800. The new cycle of epacts, with the two equations, were joined to the "Compendium". Answers to the "Compendium" are on record from Emperor Rudolf, from the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal, from the Dukes of Ferrara, Mantua, Savoy, Tuscany, Urbino, from the Republics of Venice and Genoa, from the Universities or Academies of Paris, Vienna, Salamanca, Alcalá, Cologne, Louvain, from several bishops and a number of mathematicians.

The Bull "Inter Gravissimas"

The contents of the answers are not officially recorded, but in the Bull of Gregory they are called concordant. How the concordance is to be understood may be illustrated by the answers from Paris and from Florence. While the Sorbonne not only rejected the "Compendium" but condemned every change in the calendar, the king's Parlement fully adopted the reform proposed by Lilius. The Duke of Tuscany forwarded to the pope the judgments of several Florentine mathematicians, no two of which agreed among themselves, while he himself gave full approval to the Gregorian reform. The King of Portugal presented two professional answers without adding a judgment of his own. The emperor also confined himself to forwarding the reply from the University of Vienna. The answers from Savoy, Hungary, and Spain were in approbation of Lilius's plan. All the princes may have seen the necessity of a reform and desired it. This is confirmed by a letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State to Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, dated 16 June, 1582, in which the statement is made that the reform of the calendar was concluded with the approbation of all Catholic princes. The consent of the princes had more influence with the pope than the opinion of scientists. To bring about an agreement of the latter was utterly hopeless, and, in view of the labours of the papal commission, unnecessary. The variety of opinion, collected by Kaltenbrunner and Schmid, bears testimony to this, quite apart from the bitter polemics that followed the Gregorian reform and which does not concern us in this article.

The propositions made in answer to the "Compendium" may be summed up as follows. In regard to the solar year, the date of the equinox should be 25 March, where Julius Cæsar had put it -- this was the wish of the Humanists -- or on 24 March, where it was at the time of Christ's resurrection -- this was the proposal of Salamanca -- or 21 March, where the Council of Nicæa had put it, or finally should be left on 11 March, where it was at the time. Those who would not accept the correction of the Julian intercalation by full centuries wanted a leap day omitted as often as the error amounted to a full day -- by the Alphonsine Tables every 134 years -- or, as the theological faculty of the Sorbonne demanded, no correction at all. As to the lunar cycle, no university attempted an improvement on Lilius's epacts. Salamanca and Alcalá, as we know from a letter of Clavius to Moleto in Padua, fully approved Lilius's reform. Vienna rejected all cyclical computation, while the theological faculty of the Sorbonne pleaded for the retention of the old cycle, uncorrected. The answers from Louvain deserve special mention because of the full approval of Lilius's calendar by the famous astronomer Cornelius Gemma, while Zeelstius (1581) sided with the University of Vienna. The answers from Padua were peculiar. Macigni, in a letter to Sirleto (1580), accepted the idea of the Spanish Franciscan Salon and proposed that during general jubilees a number of mathematicians be called to Rome by the pope to decide upon the date of the equinox. Apparently the first to advocate an immovable Easter Sunday was Sperone Speroni, who calls himself a layman in mathematics. According to him Easter should be fixed on the Sunday nearest to the 25 March; or, as the Spaniard Franciscus Flussas Candalla proposed, on the Sunday nearest the equinox.

Thus, every imaginable proposition was made; only one idea was never mentioned, viz. the abandonment of the seven-day week. The answers delayed the publication of the papal Bull from 1581 to 1582, and some arrived even later. The consent of the Catholic princes on the one side and the variety of scientific opinions on the other left to the papal commission no alternative, but forced it to follow its own judgment. The final framing of the reform seems to have been in great part the work of Clavius; for he alone afterwards took up its defence and furnished full explanations ("Apologia", 1588; "Explicatio", 1603; see Clavius ). Sirleto writes of him that he was among the foremost workers in the reform (cum primis egregie laboravit), and Clement VIII says, in his Bull "Quæcumque" (17 March, 1603), that Clavius did signal services for the calendar. The papal commission decided, 17 March, 1580, that out of reverence for ecclesiastical tradition, the equinox should be restored to the decree of the Council of Nicæa. The majority, under the leadership of the Bishop of Mondovi, declared itself against astronomical lunations and for the cycle of Epacts. Lilius's century rule for the ommission of leap days was adopted, but his lunar cycle was modified. The Prutenic Tables were made the basis, and the epacts were all diminished by unity, in other words, Luna XIV was put one day later, to remove all danger of Easter ever being celebrated on the day of the astronomical full moon, as was forbidden by the old canons. It is known that the month of October, 1582, was to have twenty-one days (not twenty, as Montucla says) and the ten days should be expunged by passing from 4 October to 15 October. The reform, as recommended by the commission on 14 September, 1580, received papal sanction by the Bull "Inter Gravissimus", dated 24 February, 1581, and published on 1 March, 1582. The decrees of the Council of Nicæa were in this manner put on a cyclical basis that secured their correctness for nearly four thousand years, a space of time more than long enough for any human institution. The original task of the papal commission seems to have exceeded its strength and time. The dates of Easter were actually computed for the next three thousand years; the "Liber Novæ Rationis Restituendi Calendarii", which was to accompany the reform, was never written, and the Martyrology did not appear until 1588 under Sixtus V. In 1603, Clavius was the only surviving member of the papal commission. It was by command of Clement VIII that he composed his "Explanation of the new Calendar".

For the technical part of the Gregorian reform see Calendar, Reform of the ; Chronology .

      Clavius, Novi Calendarii Romani Apologia (Rome, 1588); Idem, Romani Calendarii a Gregorio XIII P. M. restituti Explicatio (Rome, 1603); Libri, Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques en Italie, IV (Halle, 1865); Kaltenbrunner, Die Vorgeschichte der Gregorianischen Kalenderreform in Sitzungsberichte der Akademie philos. histor. Klasse, LXXXII (Vienna, 1876), 289; Kaltenbrunner, Die Polemik über die Gregorianische Kalenderreform, ibidem, LXXXVII (1877), 485; Kaltenbrunner, Beitrage zur Geschicte der Gregorianische Kalenderreform, ibidem, XCVII (1880) I, 7; Schmid, Zur Geschichte der Gregorianischen Kalenderreform in Görresgesellschaft, Historisches Jahrbuch 1882 und 1884; Marzi, La questione della Riforma del Calendario nel Quinto Concilio Lateranense 1512-1517 (Florence, 1896); DÉprez, Ecole Francaise de Rome; Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire XIX (1899) 131.

J.G. Hagen

Lille

The ancient capital of Flanders, now the chief town of the DÈpartement du Nord in France. A very important religious centre ever since the eleventh century, Lille became in the nineteenth a great centre of industry. With a population of 12,818 in 1789, of 24,300 in 1821, of 140,000 in 1860, and of 211,000 in 1905, it is to-day the fourth city of France in population. (For the early history of Christianity at Lille, see CAMBRAI, ARCHDIOCESE OF.) The Legend according to which the giant Finard was killed in the seventh century, by Lideric, whose mother, Ermengarde, he held prisoner, and according to which Lideric founded the dynasty of the counts of Flanders, was invented in the thirteenth century. The first Count of Flanders, as a matter of fact, was Baldwin of the Iron Arm, in the ninth century (see FLANDERS), and nothing certain is known of Lille before the middle of the eleventh century. The city seems to have been founded about that time by Count Baldwin V, and in 1054 it was already so well fortified that Henry III, Emperor of Germany, did not dare to besiege it. In 1055 Baldwin V laid the foundation stone of the collegiate church of St. Peter, which was dedicated in 1066.

One of the oldest chronicles of Flanders says that the foundation of this collegiate church was the beginning of the prosperity of the town. St. Peters was served by forty canons and had very prosperous schools as early as the end of the eleventh century. About the same time Raimbert, a Nominalist, who taught philosophy in St. Peter's school, was in conflict with Odo, a Realist, afterwards Bishop of Carnbrai but at that time professor at the convent of Notre-Dame de Tournai. Raimbert's Nominalism, however, was never carried to the extremes which caused Boseclin's condemnation in 1092 Another teacher in St. Peter's school was the celebrated Gautier de Châtillon (twelfth century), the author of the Alexandreis a Latin epic on Alexander the Great which was used as a substitute for Virgil's work in some of the medieval schools. Connected with the same school about the same time were Alain de Lille surnamed the Universal Doctor (see ALAIN DE L'ISLE); Adam de la BassÈe, a canon of the collegiate church who composed beautiful liturgical chants; Lietbert, Abbot of Saint-Ruf, author of a great commentary on the Psalms, "Flores Psalmorum". St Thomas of Canterbury and St. Bernard of Clairvaux visited the collegiate church of Lille, and in it Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, held, in 1481, the first chapter of the Order of the Golden Fleece, founded by him in 1430 for the defence of Christendom against the Turks. In a neighbouring palace was held the famous "Feast of the Pheasant" (1453). in the midst of which Religion, mounted on an elephant which was led by a giant Saracen, entered the banquet hall to beg aid from the Knights of the Golden Fleece. Jean MiÈlot, a canon of St. Peter's at Lille, wrote for Philip the Good twenty-two works, including translations, ascetical works, and biographies. The most important of these works, "La Vie de sainte Catherine d'AlÈxandrie", was printed later. Miniatures of that period often represent this canon offering Philip a book. It was he who, after the "Væu du Faisan", translated a work of the Dominican Father Brochart, "Advis directif pour faire le passage doultre-mer", and a description of the Holy Land.

About this time the preacher Jean d'Eeckhout. another canon of Lille, author of two celebrated ascetical treatises, on the espousals of God the Father and the Virgin, and on the espousals of God the Son and the sinful soul, yielded to the prevalent impulse towards pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and died while on his pilgrimage, in 1472. Influenced by the same movement, Anseim and John Adorno, members of a distinguished Genoese family settled at Bruges, made a visit to the Holy Land of which the narrative is preserved in a manuscript at Lille. John Adorno, on his return, became a canon of Lille and devoted himself to spreading, throughout Flanders, the devotion to St. Catherine of Alexandria, whose relics he had seen on Mount Sinai — hence the large number of Flemish works of art having St. Catherine for their subject.

In the thirteenth century the statue of Note-Dame de la Trill, which stood in the collegiate church of St. Peter, drew thither many pilgrims. The reputed miracles of 14 June, 1254, are famous. It is not certain from what year of that same century the Confraternity of Note-Dame de la Trill dates; but it is historically certain that. in 1470 Margaret, Countess of Flanders, decreed that every year, on the first Sunday after Trinity Sunday and for the nine days following, processions commemorating these miracles should be held in the city. The fragment of the True Cross which is still preserved at St-Etienne, Lille, was given to the chapter of St. Peter's by the Flemish priest, Walter of Courtrai, who was chancellor of the Emperor Baldwin I at Constantinople. From the fourteenth to the sixteenth century, the collegiate church of St. Peter was annually the scene of the curious election of the "Bishop of Fools", on the Eve of the Epiphany, and, on the feast of the Holy Innocents, of the election by the choristers of a "Bishop of the Innocents", who was solemnly carried in procession. Another much frequented religious festival at Lille was that of the "Epinette" (little thorn), the solemnities of which began on Quinquagesima Sunday and lasted until Mid-Lent. The feast was instituted in the first half of the thirteenth century shortly after the convent of the Dominicans at Lille had received from the Countess Jeanne a fragment of the Crown of Thorns; it ceased in 1487, when the burghers began to find the expense too heavy. The veneration of the Mater Dolorosa originated in Flanders in the fifteenth century. The first treatise on this devotion, which dates from 1494, was the work of the Dominican Mieliel François, Bishop of Selimbria, and confessor of Philip the Fair, a native of Templemars, near Lille. The chapter of St. Peter's immediately combined this devotion with that of Notre Dame de la Treille, and erected in the church of St. Peter the stations of the Seven Dolours, to be made in the same manner as the Way of the Cross.

The collegiate church also originated some important charitable works. Among these were the Cour Gilson, a row of houses established by Canon Robert Gillesson in the sixteenth century, the rents of which were to be used for works of piety and charity, the orphanage of the Grange, founded in the sixteenth century by Canon Jean de Lacu; the "marriage burses", or dowries for poor girls, instituted by Canon Etienne RuÈlin in the sixteenth century; the "prebends of the poor", a fund instituted by Hangouard, dean of the chapter, to enable the aged poor to live with their children or kin without being a burden to them; and an apprenticeship fund for the benefit of young workmen, established by Provost Manare. Very modern ideas of assisting the poor were devised and carried out as early as the sixteenth century by the canons of St. Peter's and through the liberality of Jean de Lannoy, the collegiate scholasticus, a mont-de-piÈtÈ was established to lend money free of interest to the needy. The collegiate church, again, hospitably received the English refugees, when the persecution of Catholics was raging in England. Among its English canons were John Marshall (1534-68), Allen's auxiliary in the foundation of Douai. and Gilford (1554-1629), who, in 1603, at the peril of his life performed a mission in England for the Holy See, and who died Archbishop of Reims: David Kearney, who in 1603 became Archbishop of Cashel in Ireland, and suffered bitter persecution in that diocese. Until the sixteenth century the school of St. Peter's was the only one where Latin and the humanities were taught; the City then opened a school which was entrusted to Jesuits in 1592, and where the humanist John Silvius taught. The collegiate church of St. Peter disappeared with the Revolution.

After having in medieval and modern times followed the destinies of Flanders, which passed from the House of Burgundy to the House of Austria, the city of Lille became French when it was conquered by Louis XIV in 1667 and fortified by Vauban. In 1792 it heroically resisted the Austrians. During the nineteenth century two manufacturers of Lille, Philibert Vrau (1829---1905) and Camille Fron-Vrau (1831-1908) laboured to form among the numerous working men of the city a centre of Catholic activity. With the aid of the AbbÈ Bernard, Philibert Vrau founded, in 1863, the Lille Union of Prayer, the "Bulletin" of which gradually increased its circulation to 22,000; a 1866 he established the "Cercle de Lille", which for many years held the district Catholic Congress for the DÈpartement du Nord and the Pas de Calais, and in 1871 the lay association for building new churches in the suburbs. Philibert Vrau and Camille FÈron Vrau undertook to build a basilica for the statue of Notre Dame de la Treille, hoping that. the city of Lille would some day be detached from the Diocese of Cambrai and become the seat of a new diocese with Notre Dame de la Treille as its cathedral. In 1885 they established the Corporation of St. Nicholas for spinners and weavers, with an employers' and a working. men's council, and a co-operative fund supported by monthly assessments on both employers and employees.

The Catholic University of Lille, lastly, was the result of their continued and generous efforts. This scheme was presented by Philbert Vrau in 1873 at the Catholic Congress of the North; the AbbÈ Mortier, later Bishop of Gap, and the AbbÈ Dehaisnes, known for his writings on the history of Flanders, were pointed to report. on the question. In 1874, in the ancient ball of the Prefecture which had been rented for the purpose by Philibert Vrau, law courses were opened to the public. The passing of the law on the freedom of higher education (12 July, 1875) hastened the success of the foundation. On 18 Nov., 1875, a complete law course was organized; on 18 Jan., 1877, the four faculties of law sciences, letters, and medicine were inaugurated; on 22 Nov., 1879, the cornerstone of the university was laid. As early as 1878 it was ascertained that the hospital of St. Eugenia, attached to the faculty of medicine, had cared for as many as 2448 patients, and that the contributions received for the university already amounted to 6,473,263 francs (about $1,294,000). Philibert Vrau also took the initiative in establishing, in 1880, the only professedly Catholic commercial school in France. The school for higher industrial studies was established in 1885. As early as 1876 Philibert Vrau contemplated the foundation of a Catholic school of arts and crafts at Lille, but it was not until 1898 that the institute was inaugurated under Father Lacoutre, S.J. In 1894 there was added to the faculty of law a department of social and political science, and lectures are now given every year by the most distinguished Catholic savants of France. The system of political economy opposed to the intervention of the State in labour affairs — a system long favoured by the Catholic industriels of Lille — was gradually overthrown by the teaching given in this department, and Professor Duthoit's "Vers l‘organisation professionelle", published in the spring of 1910, finally confirmed the victory of Catholic social ideas at Lille.

In 1897, following the initiative taken by Cambridge and Oxford, the Catholic University of Lille established a "University Extension" for the organization of lectures by the university professors throughout the manufacturing centres in the vicinity of Lille. In 1898 the university organized higher education for the Catholic girls of Lille. In April, 1907, the Conseil GÈnÈral du Nord suggested the suppression by the state of the freedom of higher education and insisted upon ordinances preventing physicians coming from the Catholic faculty of Lille from attending paupers in the DÈpartement du Nord at the expense of the State. Before the creation of universities by the French Government, the Catholic University of Lille presented the first example of these institutions. As early as 1886, M. Lavisse, a professor at the Sorbonne, spoke in high terms of this impressive group of faculties, saying that in centralized France it was a distinguished honour to the University of Lille to have been incorporated in Flanders. The faculties of higher education which the State controlled at Douai were transferred to Lille in 1888 and raised, six years later, to the rank of a state university. Mgr Baunard resigned the rectorship of the Catholic University in Oct., 1908, and was succeeded by Mgr Margerin, who had distinguished himself in 1888 at Fournies by placing himself between the workmen and the fire of the soldiers. Among the noteworthy works of art possessed by the city of Lille is a wax head, preserved in the museum, purchased in Italy by Wicar during the Revolution; it is ascribed by this connoisseur to Raphael; Alexandre Duinas the younger attributed it to Leonardo da Vinci; Henry Thode claims that it was an antique modelled after the head of a young Roman girl whose remains were found in 1485; M. Franz Wickhoff, on the other hand, is inclined to regard it as the work of one of the pupils of Victor of Cortona (end of the seventeenth century or the beginning of the eighteenth), and is of opinion that it is the head of a virgin and martyr.

VAN HENDE, Histoire de Lille de 620 à 1804 (Lille, 1875); ROGIE, Les Oriqines du christianisme au pays de Lille (Lille, 1881); DEROBE, Histoire de Lille et de la Flandre Wallonne (4 vols., Lille, 1848-78); FLAMMERMONT, Lille et le Nord au moyen âge (Lille, 1888); HAUTCŒR, Documents liturqiques et nÈcrologiques de l'Èglis collÈgiale de S. Pierre de Lille, 1895); IDEM, Cartulaire l'Èglis collÈgiale de S. Pierre de Lille (2 vols., Lille, 1894); IDEM, Histoire de l'Èglis collÈgiale de du chapitre S. Pierre de Lille (3 vols., Lille, 1896-99); LEURIDAN, La Chatellerie de Lille (Lille, 1897); Lefebre, L'Evêque des Fous et la fête des Innocents à Lille du XIVe au XVIe siècle (Lille, 1902); BAUNARD, Philibert Vrau et los ævres de Lille (Paris, 1905); BAUNARD Vingt-cinq annÈes de rectorat (Paris, 1909); BAUDRILLART; l'Enseignement catholique dans la France contempornaine (Paris, 1910); WICKHOFF, Die Wachsbüstein in Lille (Berlin. 1910); BOUVY, Annales de la facultÈ des lettres de Bordeaux, April-June, 1901.

GEORGES GOYAU

Lillooet Indians

An important tribe of Salishan linguistic stock, in southern British Columbia, formerly holding a mountainous territory of about one hundred miles in length from north to south, including the river and lake of the same name, with Bridge River, Anderson, and Seton Lakes, and a part of Harrison Lake and extending on the north-east to beyond Fraser River. They are now settled upon reservations within the same territory, attached to Williams Lake and Fraser River agencies. They have several bands grouped in two main divisions distinguished by slight dialectic differences, and commonly known respectively as Upper (Williams Lake agency) and Lower (Fraser River agency). Their principal settlements are Fountain and Bridge River, of the Upper band; and Pemberton, and Skookumchuck, of the Lower band. From a population of perhaps four thousand souls a century ago they are now reduced by disease and former dissipation after the advent of the whites to about 1230, the most notable destruction having been the result of a small-pox visitation which swept all the tribes of the Fraser River country in 1862.

Lillooet, meaning "wild onion", the name by which they are commonly known, is properly the name of one of their former settlements near Pemberton, and is also a special designation of the lower division. They have no name for themselves as a tribe, but are known as Stlatlimuq to the neighbouring Shuswap and Thompson Indians, whom they closely resemble. Although it is known that the Lillooet and adjacent tribes had obtained some knowledge of the Catholic religion as early at least as 1810 from the Canadian employees of the North-West Fur Company, the beginning of civilization and Christianity in the tribe properly dates from the advent of Father Modeste Demers, who came out from Quebec in 1837, in company wtth Father Norbert Blanchet, and after several years of work in the Columbia region, in 1842 ascended the Fraser River to Stuart Lake, preaching and baptizing among all the tribes on the way. In 1845 the Jesuit Father John Nobili went over nearly the same ground on his way to the more northern DÈnÈ tribes. In 1847 the first Oblate missionaries in the Columbia region arrived at Fort Wallawalla, Washington, and in 1861 Father Charles Grandidier of that order was preaching to the Lillooet. In the same year the Oblate mission of Saint Mary's was established on Fraser River, thirty-five miles above New Westminster, and became the centre of mission work for the whole lower Fraser country. In 1863 the industrial school was added. The entire tribe of the Lillooet is now officially reported as Catholic, with the exception of about twenty individuals attached to the Anglican form. Twelve villages have churches, while a number of children are being educated at St. Mary's mission, under charge of the Oblate Fathers and the Sisters of Saint Anne. For all that concerns the primitive condition of the Lillooet our best authority is Teit. In habit and ceremonial they closely resembled the cognate Okanagan, Shuswap, and Thompson Indians, and a description of the one will answer fairly well for the others. They lived by fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild roots and berries. Salmon fishing was their most important industry, the fish being taken by spearing, by hook and line, by nets and by weirs, at favourite fishing stations, and dried in the sun or by smoking. Their ordinary hunting implement was a highly decorated flat bow, with sinew cord, and arrows tipped with stone, copper, bone, or beaver teeth. The principal game animals were the deer, caribou, bear, mountain goat, bighorn, and beaver, besides the porcupine for its quills. Traps, nooses, pitfalls, and deadfalls were used. Dogs were carefully trained for hunting, and were also a favourite food article. A great variety of roots was gathered, some of which were roasted in pits in the ground after the manner of camas. Berries, particularly service berries, were dried in large quantities, pressed into cakes, and used at home or traded to other tribes. Provisions were stored in cellars for winter supply or sale.

The winter house was sometimes a double-lined mat lodge, but more usually a semi-subterranean round structure, from eighteen to fifty feet in diameter, of logs lined with bark and covered with earth. Entrance was by a ladder through a hole in the roof, the projecting ends of the ladder and of the house posts being carved and painted with figures of the clan totem, in the style of the totem poles of the coast tribes. The ordinary summer dwelling was a rectangular communal structure of log framework and cedar boards, with bark roof, from thirty-five to seventy-five feet in length, with fire-places ranged along the centre to accommodate from four to eight families. The bed platform was next the wall. The furnishing consisted chiefly of baskets, bags, and mats. They were expert basket weavers, and basket making is still a principal industry in the tribe. Large closely-woven baskets were used for holding water in which to boil food by means of heated stones. Mats, blankets, and bags were woven from rushes, bark fibre, twisted strips of skin, and various kinds of animal hair, including that of a special breed of long-haired white dog now extinct. Knives, hammers, scrapers, etc., were of stone; bowls and dishes of wood. They were skilled in the making and use of canoes, both bark and dug-out, together with snowshoes for winter travel. Skins were dressed soft, but seldom smoked. Fire was obtained by means of the fire drill. Houses and much of their portable handiwork were adorned with native paint.

The dress was of skins, or fabrics woven from wool or bark fibre, and included caps, head bands, robes, shirts, belts, sashes, aprons, G-strings, leggings, and moccasins, with ornamentation of fringes, beads, feathers, porcupine quills, dentalium and abalone shells. Nose and ear pendants were worn by both sexes. The hair was cut across the forehead, and either hung loose or was bunched on top and behind. Young women braided their hair, and that of slaves was close cropped. The face was painted with symbolic designs and tattooing was common with both sexes. Head flattening was not practised, and was held in contempt. Of weapons, besides the bow they had stone knives, stone-bladed spears, and various kinds of clubs. Protective body armour of thin boards, rods, or heavy elk skin was used, but shields were unknown. Scalping or beheading was uncommon. Many villages and communal houses were in-closed by elaborate stockades. Captives were usually enslaved and sometimes sold to other tribes. They had many games, including dice, target games, throwing at hoops, wrestling, horse racing and the nearly universal Indian ball game. Some of these games had song accompaniment.

They had the clan system, but without marriage restriction or fixed rule of descent, the clan being frequently identical with the village community. There were hereditary village chiefs, each assisted by a council, but no tribal head chief. Most of the property of a deceased owner went to his widow and children, instead of being destroyed, as in some other tribes. There was a great number of dances and other ceremonials, including mask dances and the great gift distribution known as Potlatch among the tribes of the North-West coast. Children and young men at certain times were subjected to a whipping ordeal to test their fortitude. Menstrual women were rigorously secluded as in other tribes, and pregnancy, birth, and puberty were attended by elaborate rites and precautions. The puberty ritual for the young woman was especially severe, involving seclusion, fasting, prayer, and special training for a period of two years, during which time she was allowed to go out only at night, wandering through the forest masked and shaking a rattle, and sitting alone in the puberty lodge through the day, for the first month squatting in a hole with only her head above the surface. The puberty ordeal for the young man continued for as long a period, while for shaman candidates the tests and training extended over several years. Young men also fasted and prayed in solitary places to obtain visions of their guardian spirits. Marriage was preceded and accompanied by considerable ceremonial, including processions and giving of presents. Compulsion was not usual, but the girl was free to accept the suitor or not as she chose, and in some cases was herself the suitor or proposer. Polygamy was common. Widows and widowers were subjected to a long period of seclusion and purification. As in other tribes, twins were dreaded as uncanny, being believed to be the offspring, not of the husband, but of a grizzly bear and partaking of the bear nature. They were never buried in the ordinary way, but in death were laid away in tree tops in the remote forest.

The dead were usually buried in a sitting posture with best dress, weapons, and smaller personal belongings, in graves lined with grass and marked by circles of stones. In some cases a canoe was inverted over the grave. Among the Lower Lillooet the body was sometimes placed sitting upon the ground covered with a heap of stones, or deposited in a grave box, in front of which were set up wooden figures representing the deceased, and dressed in his clothes. Funeral songs were sung about the grave. His head pillow, together with some food, were burned near by. His dogs were killed and their bodies hung near the grave. If he owned slaves, one or more were buried with him, being either killed at the grave or buried alive. Children were made to jump four times over the corpse of the dead parent, in order that they might the sooner forget their loss. In Lillooet cosmogony the East was associated with light and life, the West with darkness and death. In the beginning the world was peopled with beings near akin to animals, many of whom were cannibals and evil magicians. These were changed to animals, birds, and fishes by supernatural beings, who became the gods of the tribe, chief among whom was Old Man, with his messenger Coyote, and his subordinate helpers, Sun, Moon, and others. The Raven brought death, daylight, and fire. The warm "Chinook wind" was the result of the marriage of Beaver and Glacier. Each clan had its own tradition of origin and there is a story of a whole tribe transformed into deer. The stars also were transformed beings, and thunder as usual was a bird. There were giants, but apparently no dwarfs, in their supernatural world. Sacred places were numerous, and sacrifice and propitiation ceremonies frequent, including a special rite by which the hunter asked pardon of the bear which he had killed. They had the same ceremonial feast at the beginning of the salmon fishing season which Father De Smet described as he had seen it among the Kutenai in 1845, as also a solemn consecration of the first, wild berries.

The spirit world was far in the West, over a weary and dusty trail by which the soul travelled until it crossed a log over a stream and reached the boundary of the Land of the Dead, standing up like a wall of rock, where, after passing the challenge of the sentinels, it entered, to find a pleasant land and a welcome from former friends, who spent their time dancing, gaming, and making clothes for the dead yet to follow. Children did not go to the spirit world, but were reborn on earth in the same family group and sometimes to the same mother. As usual the shaman was at once doctor, prophet, and master of rites. There seem to have been no secret societies. Colours had symbolic meaning, and four was a sacred number. Personal names were significant, and of four classes: hereditary family names, names derived from guardian spirits, dream names, and common nicknames.

The official report of the condition of the Lower bands in 1908 is repeated almost in the same terms for the Upper: "Their health has been fairly good through out the year. The sanitary condition of their villages is good, and many of them have been vaccinated from time to time. Their chief pursuits are hunting, fishing, packing, and farming. They also act as guides for mining and timber prospectors, and the women earn considerable money at basket making. Their dwellings are mostly all frame structures, and they have good barns and outbuildings. They have a considerable number of horses and cattle, which are well cared for during winter. They are fairly well supplied with farm implements, most of them owning what they have. They are industrious amid law abiding and are making some progress. They are temperate and moral."

H. H. BANCROFT, Hist. Brit. Columbia (San Francisco, 1887) Canadian Indian Reports, (Ottawa, annually); DAWSON, Notes on the Shuswa People of Brit. Col. in Proc. and Trans. Royal Soc. Can. for 1891, IX (Montreal 1892); HILL-TOUT, The Stlatlumh of Brit. Col. in Jour. Anthrop. Inst. Great Britain and Ireland, XXXV (London, 1905); MORICE, Catholic Church in Western Canada (Montreal. 1910); TEIT, The Liflooet Indians, memoir, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. (New York, 1906); see also INDIANS, AMERICAN.

JAMES MOONEY

Archdiocese of Lima

(Limana).

The city of Lima, in the Department of the same name, is the capital of the Republic of Peru, South America. After the conquest of the Incas in the sixteenth century, Pizarro, convinced of the necessity of a capital near the coast, chose about 600 feet above the sea level, on the right bank of the River Rimac (of which name Lima is probably a corruption), and the first stone of the cathedral in the wide plaza was laid by Pizarro, on 18 January 1535. Cuzco had been the Inca capital, and in 1534 Fray Valverde had been named Bishop of Cuzco. Lima continued to grow in importance, and in 1543 was made the see of a diocese which became an archdiocese in 1545. Its first bishop and archbishop was the Dominican Loaysa. He died in 1575 and was succeeded by St. Torribio Mogrovejo, who died of fever contracted in the forests where he was visiting and baptizing the Indians, whose language (Quichua) he had mastered. In 1551 the University of San Marcos, the first in the new world, was founded at Lima, and to this day it remains autonomous, and outside all Government influence. It is an important seat of learning, having eight faculties, including theology. In 1567 the Jesuits arrived at Lima, began founding schools and colleges, and introduced the printing press. It is of interest that the first book printed in the New World was a catechism issued from the Jesuit press at Juli on Lake Titicaca in 1577.

Owing to its commodious harbour at Callao, nine miles distant, the town of Lima developed rapidly and was the centre of the Spanish trade monopoly, which lasted until the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). Its domestic affairs followed the changing fortunes of the viceroys of Peru throughout the Colonial period (1542-1816). San Martin broke the Spanish power in 1821, and on 28 February, 1823, Riva Agüero entered upon office as first President of Peru, and took over the government of Lima.

During the war with Chile, Lima was assaulted and fell, 14 January, 1881; its national library was turned into a barrack, and many valuable books and manuscripts were destroyed or sold as waste paper. Works of art were carried off or broken by the victorious Chileans, who occupied the town for two years and nine months. After the evacuation Lima suffered from the political rivalries of Cáceres and Iglesias, and there was civil discord until the presidency of Nicolas de Piérola (1895), who in 1899 yielded the office to Eduardo Romaña, a Stonyhurst scholar, who held it until 1903. Everything now (1910) promises peace, political discussions are kept within bounds, and party government is carried on without bitterness or undue friction.

There are three ways of ways of reaching Lima from Europe or North America:

• by sailing to Colon, crossing the Isthmus of Panama, and taking a boat from Panama to Callao;
• via the Straits of Magellan;
• by going to the river port of Iquitos, 2500 miles up the Amazon from the Atlantic, whence by steamer and rail, the journey to Lima is about 1200 miles.

The trade with Lima and Callao is largely in the hands of British merchants. The main exports are sugar, cotton, olives, wool, and tobacco. The city is built in parallel and cross streets, with a central plaza of which the cathedral occupies one side, and the various government buildings extend along another. At various times it has been damaged by earthquakes, the most serious being that of 1746, when Callao was swept away by a tidal wave, and Lima was almost reduced to ruins. The public buildings are handsome, and include the House of Congress and the Exposition Park. Spanish architecture predominates, and a walk through the streets is like a chapter in stone from old Spain. Among the monuments are the statue of Columbus, the statue of Bolivar, the "Second of May" monument (commemorating the defeat of the Spaniards in 1866), and the Bolognesi monument. The population is variously computed at between 140,000 and 150,000. The press is ably represented by two daily papers, the "Comercio" and the "Prensa". Education is free and obligatory and the public exercise of religion other than the Catholic, while allowed by courtesy, is not recognized by law.

The cathedral, dedicated to St. John the Evangelist, was begun when Pizarro founded Lima; it took ninety years to build, and was consecrated in 1625. It suffered considerably from the earthquake of 1746, and in the restoration which followed the two great towers were added. It is a handsome structure with five naves and ten sides chapels, one of which contains the remains of Pizarro. Its artistic treasures are valuable, and its high altar is adorned with a painting by Murillo. Other churches of note in the town of San Francisco, Santo Domingo, La Merced, and San Augustin. San Pedro and San Pablo formerly belonged to the Jesuits; Santo Domingo was built by Pizarro, and contains relics of the True Cross. There are, moreover, twelve convents, including Santa Rosa, where the body of Saint Rose, Lima's patron saint, is preserved. In all there are sixty-six religious houses or establishments in the town.

The archdiocese includes the Department of Lima, having an area of 13,310 square miles and a population of 250,000. At the present time its suffragan sees are Arequipa, Cuzco, Puno, Huánuco, Ayacucho, Huaraz, Trujillo, and Chachapoyas. The last Spanish archbishop was Bartholomé de las Heras, who was expelled by San Martin, in 1821. He returned to Spain, where he died at the age of eighty, in 1823. The See of Lima remained vacant until June, 1834, when a native archbishop was installed. The present archbishop, Pedro Manuel Garcia Naranjo, was born at Lima, 29 April, 1838, and was appointed 19 December, 1907

J.C. GREY

Limbo

(Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").

In literary usage the name is sometimes applied in a wider and more general sense to any place or state of restraint, confinement, or exclusion, and is practically equivalent to "prison" (see, e.g., Milton, "Paradise Lost," III, 495; Butler, "Hudibras," part II, canto i, and other English classics). The not unnatural transition from the theological to the literary usage is exemplified in Shakespeare, "Henry VIII," act v, sc. 3. In this article we shall deal only with the theological meaning and connotation of the word.

I. LIMBUS PATRUM

Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is

• that their condition is one of happiness,
• that it is temporary, and
• that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.

In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. In Matt. 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet "with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven" (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15), and in Matt. 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) and in Christ's words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Eph. 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ "also descended first into the lower parts of the earth," and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that "being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit," Christ went and "preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah" (I Pet 3:18-20).

It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were "in prison," as St. Peter says; but, as Christ's own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.

II. LIMBUS INFANTIUM

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see "Baptism," subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom. 5:12 sqq). On the other hand, it is clear form Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq, II Cor. 5:10; see also "Apocatastasis"). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.

1. Pre-Augustinian Tradition

There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:

It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]

Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment. And, for the West, Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiater teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.

2. Teaching of St. Augustine

In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (De peccat. meritis I, xxi; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.

3. Post-Augustinian Teaching

After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm (d. 1109), who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of the inherited sin (De conceptu virginali). On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics. Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, popularized it (Sent. II, xxxiii, 5), and it acquired a certain degree of official authority from the letter of Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles, which soon found its way into the "Corpus Juris." Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores). It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness.

No reason can be given -- so argued the Angelic Doctor -- for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense), since the latter in reality is the more grievous penalty, and is more opposed to the mitissima poena which St. Augustine was willing to admit (De Malo, V, art. iii). Hence he expressly denies that they suffer from any "interior affliction", in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae -- "In Sent.", II, 33, q. ii, a.2). At first ("In Sent.", loc. cit.), St. Thomas held this absence of subjective suffering to be compatible with a consciousness of objective loss or privation, the resignation of such souls to the ways of God's providence being so perfect that a knowledge of what they had lost through no fault of their own does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the natural goods they possess. Afterwards, however, he adopted the much simpler psychological explanation which denies that these souls have any knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul (De Malo loc. cit.). It should be added that in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity.

The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumbpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching -- for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (II Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity. At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the true historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.

Besides the professed advocates of Augustinianism, the principal theologians who belonged to the first party were Bellarmine, Petavius, and Bossuet, and the chief ground of their opposition to the previously prevalent Scholastic view was that its acceptance seemed to compromise the very principle of the authority of tradition. As students of history, they felt bound to admit that, in excluding unbaptized children from any place or state even of natural happiness and condemning them to the fire of Hell, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage, and later African Fathers, like Fulgentius (De fide ad Petrum, 27), intended to teach no mere private opinion, but a doctrine of Catholic Faith; nor could they be satisfied with what Scholastics, like St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, said in reply to this difficulty, namely that St. Augustine had simply been guilty of exaggeration ("respondit Bonaventura dicens quod Augustinus excessive loquitur de illis poenis, sicut frequenter faciunt sancti" -- Scots, In Sent., II, xxxiii, 2). Neither could they accept the explanation which even some modern theologians continue to repeat: that the Pelagian doctrine condemned by St. Augustine as a heresy (see e.g., De anima et ejus orig., II, 17) consisted in claiming supernatural, as opposed to natural, happiness for those dying in original sin (see Bellarmine, De amiss. gratiae, vi, 1; Petavius, De Deo, IX, xi; De Rubeis, De Peccat. Orig., xxx, lxxii). Moreover, there was the teaching of the Council of Florence, that "the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."

It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively. Hence he names Catharinus and some others as revivers of the Pelagian error, as though their teaching differed in substance from the general teaching of the School, and tries in a milder way to refute what he concedes to be the view of St. Thomas (op. cit., vi-vii). He himself adopts a view which is substantially that of Abelard mentioned above; but he is obliged to do violence to the text of St. Augustine and other Fathers in his attempt to explain them in conformity with this view, and to contradict the principle he elsewhere insists upon that "original sin does not destroy the natural but only the supernatural order." (op. cit., iv). Petavius, on the other hand, did not try to explain away the obvious meaning of St. Augustine and his followers, but, in conformity with that teaching, condemned unbaptized children to the sensible pains of Hell, maintaining also that this was a doctrine of the Council of Florence. Neither of these theologians, however, succeeded in winning a large following or in turning the current of Catholic opinion from the channel into which St. Thomas had directed it. Besides Natalis Alexander (De peccat. et virtut, I, i, 12), and Estius (In Sent., II, xxxv, 7), Bellarmine's chief supporter was Bossuet, who vainly tried to induce Innocent XII to condemn certain propositions which he extracted from a posthumous work of Cardinal Sfrondati and in which the lenient scholastic view is affirmed. Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated "as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children's limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire"; and this, taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one thereby necessarily postulates a middle place or state, involving neither guilt nor penalty, between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, is condemned by the pope as being "false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools" (Denz. 526). This condemnation was practically the death-knell of extreme Augustinianism, while the mitigate Augustinianism of Bellarmine and Bossuet had already been rejected by the bulk of Catholic theologians. Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught -- that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order. It is true, on the other hand, that some Catholic theologians have stood out for some kind of compromise with Augustinianism, on the ground that nature itself was wounded and weakened, or, at least that certain natural rights (including the right to perfect felicity) were lost in consequence of the Fall. But these have granted for the most part that the children's limbo implies exemption, not only from the pain of sense, but from any positive spiritual anguish for the loss of the beatific vision; and not a few have been willing to admit a certain degree of natural happiness in limbo. What has been chiefly in dispute is whether this happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have affirmed.

As to the difficulties against this view which possessed such weight in the eyes of the eminent theologians we have mentioned, it is to be observed:

• we must not confound St. Augustine's private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church; and
• if allowance be made for the confusion introduced into the Pelagian controversy by the want of a clear and explicit conception of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order one can easily understand why St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage were practically bound to condemn the locus medius of the Pelagians. St. Augustine himself was inclined to deny this distinction altogether, although the Greek Fathers had already developed it pretty fully, and although some of the Pelagians had a glimmering of it (see Coelestius in August., De Peccat. Orig., v), they based their claim to natural happiness for unbaptized children on a denial of the Fall and original sin, and identified this state of happiness with the "life eternal" of the New Testament.
• Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage (the authenticity of which cannot be reasonably doubted) acquired the force of an ecumenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei," he speaks of "locum illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."
• Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.

PATRICK J. TONER

Pol de Limbourg

A French miniaturist. With his two brothers, he flourished at Paris at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century. It is believed that their family name was Malouel, or Malwel, and that they were nephews of that Jean Malouel who was employed at Dipu, at the Court of the Duke of Burgundy, and whose "Vie de St. Denis", in the Louvre, was painted for the Chartreuse of Champmol and was finished by Henri de Bellechose. The surname de Limbourg makes it appear that they came from the region which borders on the country of Van Eyck and was in those days dependent on the Duchy of Burgundy. But it is probable that they came to Paris at an early age, and that it is they who are meant by Guillebert de Metz in his "Description de Paris", when he speaks of the "trois freres enluminers". They must, therefore, have been already famous at the date of this book (about 1395), although it is impossible to ascribe to them with certainty any work previous to 1416. At the latter date they worked for the Duc de Berry (brother of the Duke of Burgundy and uncle of Charles VI) on the decoration of a manuscript which is still extant and which forms part of the library of the Musee Conde. This famous book is universally celebrated under the name of the "Tres Riches Heures" of Chantilly (sometimes called the Book of Hours of the Duc de Berry).

Of the two hundred and odd paintings which adorn the "Très Riches Heures" only the first half are due to the Limbourg brothers; the rest were done fifty or sixty years later by a pupil of Fouquet (q. v.) named Jean Colomb (brother of Michel Colomb, the sculptor of the famous tomb of Nantes and of the Solesmes "Saints"). Even in the first half of the "Heures" it is impossible to determine the share contributed by any one of the three Lirnbourg brothers. Judging by the account given in the records, Pol must have been the eldest, and head of the atelier. This being so, he was probably the originator of the designs, or themes, and his pupils were restricted to executmg them after the copy set by him. At any rate, the designer, whoever he may have been, was one of the greatest artists of the Renaissance. It is a moot question whether his art was learned in Italy: on the one hand Italianisms abound in the "Tres Riches Heures" — it would be easy to point out twenty examples of Florentine or Sienese imitations; the buildings in more than one scene strikingly recall the architecture of Giotto and the taste of the Roman marmorari; the "Presentation in the Temple" is an exact reproduction of the composition of Taddeo Gaddi; there is a plan of Rome identical with one on the celling of a hall of the public palace at Siena. But such coincidences are not conclusive that the artist of the "Tres Riches Heures" travelled through Italy. Communication between the two countries was frequent; Paris was already cosmopolitan in the fourteenth century, and what was called the ouvraige de Rome or ouvraige de Lombardie was well known there. Besides, on more than one point the Limbourgs were far in advance of contemporary Italy. From the time of Charles V there had arisen in Paris an elegant naturalism of which numerous traces appear in the work of these three brothers. In the matter of drawing, the "Adam and Eve in Paradise", and still more the study of an "Astrologic Man", are examples of the nude not to be paralleled in Italy earlier than the date of the Carmine chapel (1428), nor in Flanders before that of Van Eyck's retable (1432). Other pages offer studies of contemporary costume or of animals which were not surpassed by Gentile da Fabriano, whose "Adoration of the Magi" dates from 1423. The "Coronation of the Virgin" discovers a beauty of design and a purity of sentiment which perhaps Beato Angelico himself never equalled, while for genre and the portrayal of contemporary manners, whether peasant or noble, the early pages of the manuscript are examples of an art until then without precedent and as exquisite as anything produced in later ages.

It had been usual to place at the beginning of a Book of Hours a calendar giving the principal feasts, the lunations, etc. A similar calendar was generally carved on the porch of a cathedral (see Mâle, "L'Art religieux en France au XIIIe siècle"). The months are represented in these calendars by the signs of the zodiac above a small bas-relief showing the characteristic occupations of the several seasons — for August, e.g., the harvest; for September, the vintage. These sculptures, of a classic, almost Greek, style of art, naturally did not admit of more than one or two figures, with a landscape rather suggested than expressed. The calendars of the Books of Hours were still thus conceived in the fourteenth century. For this wholly ideal conception of things Pol de Limbourg substituted one wholly naturalistic. He made the subject over anew and, retaining only the poetic theme, introduced a thousand novel developments, depicting, instead of the abstract conception of the seasons, their real, concrete aspects. Thus it is that the "Tres Riches Heures" embodies in its calendar (the month of November is by Jean Colomb) a new theory of aesthetics and constitutes the definite beginning of modern landscape art.

An innovation fraught with such important consequences for the art of painting naturally prompts the question: Whence did the idea originate? In reply, Henri Bouchat suggests this ingenious theory: It will be noticed that each of these landscapes represents one of the dwellings or châteaux of the Duc de Berry — the Louvre, Mehung-sur-Yèvre, Vincennes, etc. Each of these landscapes is made to harmonize with one of the signs of the zodiac — called the "houses" of the sun. Hence it may he conjectured that the prince himself commanded this ambitious parallel. So, too, under Louis XIV, the tapestry of "The Months" woven by the Gobelins after the cartoons of Le Brun, represents the various chateaux of the roi soleil. But whatever the origin of the idea, the Limbourgs retain the merit of having, in its execution, given the earliest and some of the most perfect models of modern landscape art. The happiness rarely accorded an artist, of having created a genre, belongs to them more than to any others. Moreover, of all the secrets of this new art — even the resources of atmosphere and of chiaroscuro — they had, if not the developed instinct, at least some presentiment. The poetry of each season, its colour, its gaiety or melancholy, the transparency of the spring air, the winter torpor of nature, are all suggested. The work of the Limbourg brothers was epoch-making, a century later it was still being imitated, and the Flemish artists of the celebrated Grimani Breviary in the Library of St. Mark confined themselves to copying it, while they modernized it and made it dull. It has elsewhere been said (see EYCK, HUBERT AND JAN VAN) how great is the historical importance of this admirable manuscript; but, even if it did not possess in this respect a value impossible to overestimate — even if we could not trace in it the beginnings of all Northern painting, from the Maître de la Flémalle to Jean Fouquet — it would still be, with its extraordinary variety of scenes and its perfect style, one of the most precious monuments of the art of painting.

RENAN, Discours sur l'etat des arts en France au XIVe siecle (Paris, 1862); MANTZ,. La Peinture en France du IXe au XVIe siecle (Paris, s. d.); COURAJON, Lecons professees a l'ecole du Louvre, II (1901); DEHAISNES, Histoire de l'Art dans la Flandre, l'Artois et le Hainaut (3 vols., 4., Lille. 1886), DE CHAMPEAUX AND GAUCHERY, Les Travaux d'art executes pour le duc de Berry (Paris, 1894); GUILLEBERT DE METZ, Description de Paris sous Charles VI, Published by LE ROULX DE LlNCY AND TISSERAND in Paris et ses historiens aux XlVe et XVe siecles; DELISLE, Les l'ivres d'Heures du duc de Beny (Paris, 1884); DVORAK, Das Ratsel der Bruder van Eyck (Vienna, 1904) DURIEU, Les Tres Riches Heures du duc de Berry (Paris, 1904) Les Belles Heures du duc de Berry in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1906), Les Debuts des Van Eyck in Gaz des Beaux-A. (1903).

LOUIS GILLET

Limburg

(Limburgensis)

Diocese in the Kingdom of Prussia, suffragan of Freiburg.

I. HISTORY

This diocese dates from the end of the eighteenth century. The city of Limburg then belonged to the Elector of Trier, but the north-eastern part of the present diocese lay outside of any diocesan territory, having been under Protestant rulers since the Peace of Westphalia. It was administered in spiritual matters from Trier, through the ecclesiastical authorities at Coblenz. When the latter city fell into the hands of the French (1794), the administrator, Archdeacon Joseph Ludwig Beck, was given ecclesiastical jurisdiction over that part of the Diocese of Trier which lay on the right bank of the Rhine, the seat of his administration being Limburg. When, in 1801, the left bank of the Rhine came into the possession of the French, the three rural deaneries of the Archdiocese of Trier on the right bank still continued to exist, but in 1803 passed to the princes of Nassau-Weilburg, who allowed the vicariate-general at Limburg to continue, but diverted various ecclesiastical revenues and, in the city of Limburg, suppressed the collegiate chapter which had existed since the tenth century. In 1802 the last Archbishop of Trier, Klemens Wenceslaus, appointed Beck sole vicar-general for what remained of the archdiocese, and after the death of the archbishop (1812) Beck was confirmed in this position by the pope (1813). His ecclesiastical administration was carried on under the most difficult circumstances, in spite of which he did not fail to provide for a well-trained priesthood, and to encourage learning and virtue among his clergy. Upon his death (3 February, 1816), the primate, Dalberg, in his capacity as metropolitan and nearest bishop, appointed Hubert Anton Corden, pastor of Limburg, to be administrator and director of the vicariate (15 December, 1816). Pius VII appointed him, 8 July, 1818, vicar Apostolic for the Archdiocese of Trier. Prussia did not recognize the new vicariate, and forbade Corden to administer the parishes which were under Prussian rule. A separate Diocese of Limburg was the only possible solution of the difficulty. Long negotiations, begun in 1818 at Frankfort-on-the-Main, were carried on between Rome and the Governments interested, with the result that the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine was established in 1821, and, as a part of it, the Diocese of Limburg. The Bull, Provida solersque, establishing the new diocese, was issued 16 August, 1821, but, on account of a dispute between the pope and the Governments concerned, the See of Limburg was not filled for five years. The first bishop was Jacob Brand, parish priest of Wieskirchen (b. 29 January, 1776, at Mespellbrunn in Franconia), proposed by the Government, confirmed by the pope, and consecrated 21 October, 1827.

The new diocese consisted of the fifty-seven parishes of the Duchy of Nassau that had formerly been under the Archbishop of Mainz and in 1821 had been placed under the vicar Apostolic Corden, the free imperial city of Frankfort-on-the-Main, fifty-one parishes of the former Archdiocese of Trier, and twenty-five parishes in which no episcopal jurisdiction had been exercised since the Peace of Westphalia. In 1828 the diocese was divided into fifteen deaneries. The former collegiate and parish church of St. George, at Limburg, which since the French Revolution had been in a dilapidated condition, became the cathedral. The endowment was, as Pius VIII himself expressed it, a "deplorable" one, and amounted only to 21,606 gulden for both the bishop and the entire cathedral chapter. This endowment was administered by the secular Government, as was also the Catholic central fund (Zentralkirchenfonds) for the diocese, over which the bishop had no control whatever. The position of the first bishop, little worthy of his rank, suffered from the ecclesiastical laws of Nassau in which he had too easily acquiesced before his appointment. In truth he was only a paid dependent upon the nod of the Government, put in charge of the purely religious affairs of the Catholics of this territory. He issued a number of excellent ordinances during his brief term of office. Having himself been a teacher, he devoted special and enlightened care to the founding of an ecclesiastical seminary, which was opened in 1829 in a former Franciscan monastery granted for the purpose by the Government. He prepared the way for a special theological seminary, but did not live to see it established, dying in 1835. The second bishop, Johann Wilhelm Bausch (1835-40), was likewise unable to secure from the Government any appreciable measure of freedom. Any attempt to control the central diocesan fund brought upon him and the cathedral chapter a sharp rebuke.

In the appointment of the third bishop, Peter Joseph Blum (1842-84), the diocese gained a man who, aided by the changed conditions of the times, was able to carry on a successful contest for greater liberty in the administration of his see. He cared for the religious quickening of his diocese by the introduction and zealous fostering of general confession, of religious brotherhoods, and a Christian press, the dissemination of good books, and the practice of spiritual exercises, which he succeeded in establishing after some opposition from the Government. The year of the Revolution, 1848, brought to the Catholic Church some freedom from the system of state guardianship until then in force, and permitted for the first time the holding of popular missions, which the bishop introduced as early as 1850. In that year also, he obtained possession of the former Franciscan monastery of Bornhofen, a much-frequented pilgrimage, and there founded a house of Redemptorists, in spite of government opposition. The first house of the Poor Handmaids of Christ was founded in 1850 at Dernbach; it gradually developed into a large mother-house with numerous branches. In 1855 followed the house of the Brothers of Mercy at Montabaur; in 1862, the diocesan protectory of Marienstatt; in 1850, the hospital of the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul at Limburg, etc. Gradually the bishop replaced the old undenominational schools with Catholic schools which he obtained permission to establish. In 1851 a Catholic normal school was founded at Montabaur; in 1852 a college for boys was opened at Hadamar, and in 1872 another at Montabaur. From 1851 the bishop had an eight years' struggle with the Government in regard to the filling of vacant parishes; it ended by the establishment in principle of the bishop's right to independent administration of the diocese, and to the appointment and training of the clergy.

The political independence of the Duchy of Nassau and of the imperial free city of Frankfort-on-the-Main came to an end in the German war of 1866, after which both were incorporated in the Kingdom of Prussia. New religious houses, missions, and exercises were made possible by the introduction into the new territory of the same legal freedom of action as the Catholic Church then enjoyed in Prussia. These favourable circumstances did not last long. The Kulturkampf, beginning in 1872, destroyed at Limburg the greater part of what had been created by long years of work. Several institutions were closed by the expulsion of the Redemptorists, Jesuits, Poor Handmaids of Christ, the English Ladies, etc., while the Old-Catholic legislation transferred a number of Catholic churches to this new sect. By the Sperrgesetz, the clergy of Limburg found themselves deprived of salaries, while the bishop, after suffering fines and distraints for filling parishes without giving to the Government the newly prescribed notification, was, in 1876, expelled from office by the civil authority, and exiled. He administered his diocese, as well as possible, from Haid, in Bohemia, where Prince von Lšwenstein generously granted him an asylum. It was not until 1883 that he was able to return to Limburg.

The spirit of Bishop Blum lived in his successors, Johann Christian Roos, who, after a short episcopate (1885-86), was raised to the archiepiscopal See of Freiburg, and Karl Klein (1886-98), dean of the cathedral chapter, appointed by the pope. Dr. Klein had been for many years the trusted vicar-general of Bishop Blum. During his episcopate the former Cistercian Abbey of Marienstatt was restored (1888) by Cistercians from Mehrerau, near Constance. The same bishop also founded a Schola Gregoriana to provide music for the cathedral, built a new seminary, and made zealous efforts to repair the damage caused by the Kulturkampf. He was succeeded by Dominikus Willi, first abbot of the new Marienstatt.

II. STATISTICS

The Diocese of Limburg includes the Prussian civil district of Wiesbaden in the Province of Hesse-Nassau, with the exception of that part of the city of Frankfort-on-the-Main which belongs to the Diocese of Fulda and four towns in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. There are, taken altogether, 413,000 Catholic inhabitants. The diocese is divided into fifteen deaneries and the commissariat of Frankfort-on-the-Main (q.v.); it contains 210 parishes and cures of souls, 29 benefices, 38 endowed and 49 non-endowed chaplaincies, 48 other positions in the administration and the schools, and, at the close of 1909, there were 368 secular priests. The cathedral chapter consists of a dean, 5 canons, 1 honorary canon, and 2 cathedral vicars. The bishop is elected by the cathedral chapter from a number of candidates who must be approved by the ruler of Prussia; the members are appointed alternately by the bishop and the chapter itself. The institutions of the diocese are: the theological seminary at Limburg, with 18 students; the colleges for boys at Hadamar and Montabaur, each having about 100 pupils; the St. Joseph school for boys at Marienhausen; the asylum for idiots at Aulhausen; the Schola Gregoriana and the diocesan museum at Limburg.

The monasteries for men in the diocese are: the Cistercian Abbey of Marienstatt, originally founded in 1215, suppressed in 1803, re-established in 1888, now (1910) numbering 32 fathers and 15 brothers; 3 Franciscan monasteries (Mariental, Bornhofen, and Kelkheim), with 17 fathers and 20 lay brothers; 1 Capuchin monastery at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 5 fathers and 3 brothers; the chief house of the Mission Society of the Pallottini at Limburg, 13 fathers, 57 scholastics, and 90 lay brothers; the chief house of the Brothers of Mercy at Montabaur and 5 other monastic houses, 105 professed brothers and 30 novices. The female orders and congregations in the diocese are: the Congregation of St. Vincent de Paul, 1 house, 12 sisters; the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ, 1 mother-house and 86 dependent houses, 940 sisters; the Association of the Sisters of Divine Providence of Mainz, 6 houses, 36 sisters; the Poor Sisters of St. Francis, 1 house, 21 sisters; the Sisters of the Christian Schools of Mercy, 3 houses, 27 sisters; Ursulines, 3 houses, 80 sisters; English Ladies, 2 houses, 48 sisters; Sisters of Charity of the Good Shepherd, 1 house, 32 sisters; Servants of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 2 houses, 8 sisters; the Pallottine Nuns, a mother-house at Limburg, 65 sisters; the Benedictine Nuns, 1 abbey (St. Hildegard, at Eibingen), 30 sisters; Benedictine Nuns of the Perpetual Adoration, 1 house, 29 sisters; Alexian Nuns, 1 house, 7 sisters.

The diocese has about 35 societies for boys and young men; 18 journeymen's unions; about 60 work-men's unions; 10 merchants' associations; 7 societies for servants; the Bonifatiusverein; a society for the support of priests; the St. Raphael Society; the Marian Society for the protection of girls, etc. There are 20 charitable institutions under religious administration (orphanages, working-girls' homes, hospitals, etc.).

The most important church of the diocese is the cathedral at Limburg. It is in the transition style between Romanesque and Gothic, and was built in the first third of the thirteenth century, consecrated in 1235, and completely restored 1871-78. The celebrated treasure of the cathedral, containing costly reliquaries of the Byzantine period, etc., is kept in the church of the Franciscans. Other churches of the diocese worthy of special notice are: the Kaiserdom of St. Bartholomew at Frankfort-on-the-Main, formerly a place of pilgrimage, and the church where the German emperors were crowned (see FRANKFORT-ON-THE-MAIN), the Romanesque church of the former monastery of Augustinian Canons at Dietkirchen near Limburg, the oldest church of the diocese (ninth century), the Gothic pilgrimage church of Bornhofen (fifteenth century); the church of Eltville (fourteenth century), the pilgrimage church of Kiedrich (early fourteenth century), Rudesheim (1391-1400), the pilgrimage church of St. Martin at Lorch (end of thirteenth century), the abbey churches of Marienstatt and Eibingen, and the Romanesque-Gothic Church of the former Premonstratensian monastery of Arnstein-on-the-Lahn, etc.

BAHL, BeitrŠge zur Geschichte Limburgs (Limburg, 1889, 1890); IBACH, Der Dom zu Limburg (Limburg, 1879); LUTHMER, Die Bau- und KunstdenkmŠler des Regierungsbezirks Wiesbaden (3 vols., Frankfort, 1902-07); HÖHLER, Geschichte des Bestums Limburg mit besonderer Rucksichtnahme auf das Leben und Wirken des dritten Bischofs Peter Joseph Blum (Limburg, 1908); Schematismus der Dišcese Limburg (Limburg, 1907; supplementary vol., 1910).

JOSEPH LINS

Limerick

(LIMERICENSIS)

Diocese in Ireland; includes the greater part of the County of Limerick and a small portion of Clare, and has an area, approximately, of about 500,000 acres. It corresponds with the ancient territory of Hy Fidhgheinte. St. Patrick visited the district, and was followed in the work of converting the natives by St. Senan, who lived in the sixth century and who was at one time Abbot of Scattery Island. In the same century lived St. Munchin, the patron of the diocese, who established a monastery and school at Mungret. This school became so famous that at one time it had 1,500 students. An offshoot from Mungret was a hermitage at Kill-Munchin, near Limerick. Thither St. Munchin retired, and there he spent his closing years, and, no doubt, from this hermitage and from Mungret the spiritual needs of the surrounding district were supplied. But as yet there was no city of Limerick, and no diocese till after the Danes came. Quick to discern the advantageous position of the place for trade and commerce, they settled there in the ninth century, and from this as their stronghold they oppressed the natives around and plundered the religious establishments along the Shannon. They were severely punished in the end of the tenth century by Brian Boroihme, who expelled them from the city, and they were readmitted only as subjects and tributaries of the kings of Thomond. Gradually they became Christians, though they still disliked the Irish, and had their bishops at Limerick consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and subject to him.

It is said there was a Bishop of Limerick about 1050, but his name and acts are unknown. We do know, however, that there was a bishop at Limerick about 1100, a remarkable man, Gillebert by name. Educated at Bangor, he had been abbot there, and then, having travelled abroad, he met Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, at Rouen. Perhaps it was through Anselm's influence that he became Bishop of Limerick and also Apostolic delegate. Probably it was under Anselm's advice that he endeavoured to introduce unity of liturgy in the Irish Church, instead of the bewildering diversity of Offices and Masses which prevailed. He presided at the Synod of Rathbreasail (1118), where the number and limits of the Irish dioceses were determined, when Limerick itself, freed from the jurisdiction of Canterbury, was made subject to Cashel as the metropolitan See of Munster. Gillebert resigned his position as papal delegate in 1139 and in the following year died. His immediate successors in the See of Limerick were all Danes; then came Donat O'Brien, of the royal House of Thomond. During his episcopate (1179-1207) the cathedral of St. Mary was built, a cathedral chapter was set up, and Scattery Island was united to Limerick. Meantime the city of Limerick, alternately ruled by native and Anglo-Norman, was in 1199 taken possession of by de Burgh, who soon ruled with the power of an independent prince. Under Anglo-Norman rule English influences prevailed, and for two centuries the bishops appointed were English, or of English descent. During that period the privileges of the diocesan chapter were enlarged, and the diocese was divided into deaneries. One bishop of Limerick, in 1351, ruled Ireland for a short period as lord deputy; and another had a serious quarrel with the Archbishop of Cashel, whom he drove out of Limerick by force. This militant prelate resigned his see in 1400 and was succeeded by a very able man, Cornelius O'Dea, a descendant of one of the ancient Dalcassian chiefs. His mitre and crosier, both beautifully ornamented, still exist. His successors, like his predecessors, were of the Anglo-Irish stock; nor did anything noteworthy occur during their rule until the Reformation, and then, though a Limerick priest, William Casey, accepted from Edward VI the position of Protestant bishop, both Irish and Anglo-Irish united in rejecting the new doctrines.

During the wars of Elizabeth the diocese suffered much, nor did any city rejoice more sincerely than Limerick at the death of the queen. The city was again prominent in the wars of the seventeenth century. The nuncio was present in its cathedral, in 1646, when a Te Deum was sung for the victory of Benburb; and when the city was captured, in 1651, by Ireton, after a most heroic defence, one of those specially excluded from mercy was the Catholic bishop. He managed, however, to escape, and died at Brussels, in 1654. For nearly twenty years subsequently Limerick had no bishop; and then came the partial toleration under Charles II and the fleeting triumph under James II, followed by the Jacobite war, which, in Ireland, was mainly a war of religion. The Treaty of Limerick, which ended the war and was supposed to have secured toleration for the Catholics, was soon shamefully broken, and in the eighteenth century Limerick—city and diocese—experienced to the full the horrors of the penal laws. From 1702 to 1720 there was no bishop, but after that date the episcopal succession was regularly maintained. Shut out from every position of honour or emolument, the Catholics were prohibited from dwelling within the city, unless registered, and as late as 1744 there was no Catholic church within the city walls. Gradually, however, the old religion gained ground. The Catholics, defying the law, settled in Limerick and soon outnumbered the Protestants, and being free to engage in trade, they amassed wealth and built churches. In 1805, when the bishop, Dr. Young, undertook the building of a diocesan college, he had no difficulty in getting sufficient funds for the purpose. Dr. Young was one of those who refused to subscribe to the episcopal resolution of 1799 favouring the veto, and he denounced the project in 1808, when it was sought to have it revived, His successor, Dr. Tuohy, was equally vigorous (1814) in condemnation of the letter of Monsignor Quarantotti. One of Dr. Tuohy's most notable acts was to introduce the Christian Brothers into the city. He died in 1828, and was succeeded by Dr. Ryan, who died in 1864. The long episcopate of the latter was marked by the erection of many churches, including the cathedral of St. John, the foundation-stone of which was laid in 1856. Convents, also, were multiplied, and where, in 1825, there was but one convent for women throughout the whole diocese, at Dr. Ryan's death there were in Limerick City alone five convents, these including the Good Shepherd, Presentation, and Mercy orders. And the good work of building churches, convents, and schools was carried on with equal energy by Dr. Ryan's successor, Dr. Butler (1864-86).

The present bishop is Dr. Edward Thomas O'Dwyer, born in 1842, educated at Maynooth, ordained priest in 1867, and consecrated bishop in 1886, an eloquent and fearless man, always listened to with respect on public questions. Among eminent persons connected with the diocese may be named the poets Gerald Griffin, Sir Aubrey de Vere, Bart., and his son Sir Aubrey Thomas de Vere, the second baronet. In 1910 the diocese contained 48 parishes, 46 parish priests, 2 administrators, 60 curates, 7 professors, 115 secular and 54 regular clergy, 94 district churches, 12 convents with 144 religious living in community, 4 monastic houses with 38 religious living in community. In 1901 the Catholic population of the diocese was 111,170.

LENIHAN, History of Limerick (Dublin, 1866); BEGLEY, History of the Diocese of Limerick (Dublin, 1906); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); MacCAFFREY, The Black Book of Limerick (Dublin. 1907); Irish Catholic Directory (1910).

E.A. D'ALTON

Limoges

(LEMOVICENSIS).

Diocese comprising the Departments of Haute Vienne and Creuse in France. After the Concordat of 1801, the See of Limoges lost twenty-four parishes from the district of Nontron which were annexed to the Diocese of Perigueux, and forty-four from the district of Confolens, transferred to the Diocese of Angoulême; but until 1822 it included the entire ancient Diocese of Tulle, when the latter was reorganized.

Gregory of Tours names St. Martial, who founded the Church of Limoges, as one of the seven bishops sent from Rome to Gaul in the middle of the third century. An anonymous life of St. Martial (Vita primitiva), discovered and published by Abbe Arbellot, represents him as sent to Gaul by St. Peter. A great deal of controversy has arisen over the date of this biography. The discovery in the library at Carlsruhe of a manuscript copy written at Reichenau by a monk, Regimbertus, who died in 846, indubitably places the original before that date. From the fact that it is in rhythmical prose, Mgr Bellet thinks it belongs to the seventh century. Père de Smedt and Mgr Duchesne question this conclusion and maintain that the "Vita primitiva" is much later than Gregory of Tours. M. de Lasteyrie gives 800 as the date of its origin. In addition to the manuscript already cited, the Abbey of St. Martial at the beginning of the eleventh century possessed a circumstantial life of its patron saint, according to which, and to the cycle of later legends derived from it, St. Martial was one of the seventy-two disciples who witnessed the Passion and Ascension of Our Lord, was present on the first Pentecost and at the martydom of St. Stephen. after which he followed St. Peter to Antioch and to Rome, and was sent to Gaul by the Prince of the Apostles, who assigned Austriclinium and Alpinian to accompany him. The three were welcomed at Tulle and turned away from Ahun. They set out towards Limoges, where, on the site of the present cathedral, St. Martial erected a shrine in honour of St. Stephen. A pagan priest, Aurelian, wished to throw St. Martial into prison, but was struck dead, then brought to life, baptized, ordained, and later consecrated bishop by the saint. Aurelian is the patron of the guild of butchers in Limoges. Forty years after the Ascension, Our Lord appeared to Martial, and announced to him the approach of death. The churches of Limoges celebrate this event on 16 June. After labouring for twenty-eight years as a missionary in Gaul, the saint died at the age of fifty-nine, surrounded by his converts of Poitou, Berri, Auvergne, and Aquitaine.

The writer of this "Life" pretends to be Aurelian, St. Martial's disciple and successor in the See of Limoges. Mgr Duchesne thinks it not unlikely that the real authorship of this "apocryphal and lying" work should be attributed to the chronicler AdhÈmar de Chabannes, noted for his fabrications; but M. de Lasteyrie is of opinion that it was written ahout 955, before the birth of AdhÈmar. Be that as it may, this "Vita Aureliana" played an important part at the beginning of the eleventh century, when the Abbot Hugh (1019-1025) brought before several councils the question of the Apostolic date of St. Martial's mission. Before the Carlovingian periot there is no trace of the story that St. Martial was sent to Gaul by St. Peter. It did not spread until the eleventh century and was revived in the seventeenth by the Carmelite Bonaventure de Saint-Amable, in his voluminous "Histoire de St. Martial". Mgr Duchesne and M. de Lasteyrie assert that it cannot be maintained against the direct testimony of St. Gregory of Tours, who places the origin of the Church of Limoges about the year 250. The most distinguished bishops of Limoges are: St. Roricius (d. 507), who built the monastery and church of St. Augustine at Limoges; St. Roricius II (d. about 553), who built the church of St-Pierre-du-Queyroix and the Basilica of St. Junianus at Limoges; St. FerrÈol (d. 597), the friend of St. Yrieix; St. Lupus, or Loup (613-629); St. Sacerdos (Sardon), Abbot of Calabrum, afterwards bishop; St. Cessa (740-761), who led the people of Limoges against the Saracens under Charles Martel; Cardinal Jean du Bellay (1541-1545). The ecelesiastics who served the crypt of St. Martial organized themselves into a monastery in 848, and built a church beside that of St.-Pierre-du-SÈpulchre which overhung the crypt. This new church, which they called St-Sauveur, was demolished in 1021, and was replaced in 1028 by a larger edifice in Auvergnat style. Urban II came in person to reconsecrate it in 1095. In the thirteenth century the chapel of St. Benedict arose beside the old church of St-Pierre-du-SÈpulchre. It was also called the church of the Grand Confraternity of St. Martial. The different organizations which were grouped around it, anticipated and solved many important sociological questions.

Limoges, in the Middle Ages, comprised two towns: one called the "City", the other the "Chateau" or "Castle". The government of the "Castle" belonged at first to the Abbots of St. Martial who claimed to have received it from Louis the Pious. Later, the viscounts of Limoges claimed this authority, and constant friction existed until the beginning of the thirteenth century, when, owing to the new communal activity, consuls were appointed, to whose authority the abbots were forced to submit (1212). After two intervals during which the English kings imposed their rule, Charles V in 1371 united the "Castle" with the royal demesne, and thus ended the political rule of the Abbey of St. Martial. Until the end of the old regime, however, the abbots of St. Martial exercised direct jurisdiction over the Combes quarter of the city. In 1534, Abbot Matthieu Jouviond, finding that the monastic spirit had almost totally died out in the abbey, thought best to change it into a collegiate church, and in 1535 the king and the pope gave their consent. It was suppressed in 1791, and early in the nineteenth century even the buildings had disappeared. In the thirteenth century, the Abbey of St. Martial, possessed the finest library (450 volumes) in France after that of Cluny (570 volumes). Some have been lost, but 200 of them were bought by Louis XV in 1730, and to-day are one of the most valuable collections in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. Most of these manuscripts, ornamented with beautiful miniatures, were written in the abbey itself. M. Emile Molinier and M. Rupin admit a relation between these miniatures of St. Martial and the earliest Limoges enamels, but M. de Lasteyrie disputes this theory. The Franciscans settled at Limoges in 1223. According to the chronicle of Pierre Coral, rector of St. Martin of Limoges, St. Anthony of Padua established a convent there in 1226 and departed in the first months of 1227. On the night of Holy Thursday, it is said, he was preaching in the church of St. Pierre du Queyroix, when he stopped for a moment and remained silent. At the same instant he appeared in the choir of the Franciscan monastery and read a lesson. It was doubtless at Châteauneuf in the territory of Limoges that took place the celebrated apparition of the Infant Jesus to St. Anthony.

The diocese specially honours the following: St. Sylvanus, a native of Ahun, niartyr; St. Adorator disciple of St. Ambrose, suffered martyrdom at Lupersac; St. Victorianus, an Irish hermit; St. Vaast, a native of the diocese who became Bishop of Arras and baptized Clovis (fifth-sixth century); St. Psal modius, a native of Britain, died a hermit at Eymoutiers; St. Yrieix, d. in 591, chancellor to Theodebert King of Austrasia, and founder of the monastery of Attanum (the town of St. Yrieix is named after him); St. Etienne de Muret (1046-1126), who together with Guillaume d'Uriel, Bishop of Limoges, founded the famous Benedictine monastery of Grandmont. Mention must also be made of the following who were natives of Limoges: Bernard Guidonis (1261-1313), born at La Roche d'Abeille, Bishop of Lodève and a celebrated canonist; the Aubusson family, one of whom, Pierre d'Aubusson (1483-1503), was Grand Master of the Order of Jerusalem, and one of the defenders of Rhodes; Marc Antoine Muret, called the "Orator of the Popes" (1526-1596). Three popes came from the Diocese of Limoges: Pierre Roger, born at Maulinont, elected pope in 1342 as Clement VI, died in 1352; Etienne Albert, or d'Albret, born near Pompadour, elevated to the papacy in 1352 as Innocent VI, died in 1362; Pierre Roger de Beau-fort, nephew of Clement VI, also born at Maulmont. As Gregory XI he reigned from 1871 till 1378. Maurice Bourdin, Archbishop of Prague, antipope for a brief space in 1118, under the name of Gregory VIII, also belonged to this diocese. St. Peter Damian came to Limoges in 1062 as papal legate, to compel the monks to accept the supremacy of the Order of Cluny.

The Council of Limoges, held in 1031, is noted not only for its decision with regard to St. Martial's mission, but because, at the instigation of Abbot Odolric, it proclaimed the "Truce of God" and threatened with general excommunication those feudal lords who would not swear to maintain it. It was at the priory of Bourganeuf in this diocese that Pierre d'Aubusson received Zizin, son of Mohammed II, after he had been defeated in 1483 by his brother, Bajazet II. The Gothic cathedral of St-Etienne, begun in 1273, was noted for a fine rood loft built in 1534; the church of St-Pierre-du-Queyroix, begun in the twelfth century, and that of St-Michel-des-Lions, begun in 1364, are worthy of notice. In 994, when the district was devastated by a plague (mal des ardents), the epidemic ceased immediately after a procession ordered by Bishop Hilduin, on the Mont de la Joie, which overlooks the city. The Church of Limoges celebrates this event on 12 November. The principal pilgrimages of the diocese are those of: Saint ValtÈric (hermit) at Saint-Vaubry (sixth century); Our Lady of Sauvagnac at St-Leger-la-Montagne (twelfth century); Notre-Dame-du-Pont, near St-Junien (fourteenth century), twice visited by Louis XI; NotreDame-d'Arliguet, at Aixe-sur-Vienne (end of the sixteenth century); Notre-Dame-des-Places, at Crozant (since 1664).

Before the Associations Law of 1901, there were in the Diocese of Limoges, Jesuits, Franciscans, Marists, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, and Sulpicians. The principal congregations of women which originated here are the Sisters of the Incarnation founded in 1639, contemplatives and teachers. They were restored in 1807 at Azerables, and have houses in Texas and Mexico. The Sisters of St. Alexis, nursing sisters, founded at Limoges in 1659. The Sisters of St. Joseph, founded at Dorat in February, 1841, by Elizabeth Dupleix, who, with other pious women, had visited the prisons at Lyons since 1805. The Congregation of Our Saviour and that of the Blessed Virgin, a nursing and teaching congregation. founded at la Souterraine in 1835 by JosÈphine du Bourg. The Sisters of the Good Shepherd (called Marie ThÈrèe nuns) nursing sisters and teachers; their mother-house is at Limoges. The religious orders maintained in this diocese at the close of the nineteenth century 19 nurseries; 1 home for sick children, 2 orphanages for boys, 14 for girls, 1 for both sexes, 5 work rooms (ouvroirs), 4 reformatories, 28 hospitals, 26 houses to care for the sick at their homes, 2 houses of retreat, 1 asylum for the insane. At the end of the concordat period the Diocese of Limoges contained 679,584 inhabitants; 70 canonical parishes; 404 succursal parishes, and 35 curacies supported by the Government.

GEORGES GOYAU

Limyra

Limyra, a titular see of Lycia, was a small city on the southern coast of Lycia, on the Limyrus, and twenty stadia from the mouth of this river. It is mentioned by Strabo (XIV, 666), Ptolemy (V, 3, 6), and several Latin authors. Nothing, however, is known of its history except that Caius Cæsar, adopted son of Augustus, died there (Veilleius Paterculus, II, 102).

Limyra is mentioned in the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as a suffragan of Myra. Six bishops are known: Diotimus, mentioned by St. Basil (ep. ccxviii); Lupicinus, present at the Council of Constantinople, 381; Stephen, at Chalcedon (451); Theodore, at Constantinople (553); Leo, at Nicæa (787); Nicephorus, at Constantinople (879).

The ruins of Limyra are to be seen three or four miles east of the village of Fineka, in the sanjak of Adalia, Vilayet of Konia; they consist of a theatre, tombs, Sarcophagi, bas-reliefs, Greek and Lycian inscriptions, etc.

LEQUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 971; LEAKE, Asia Minor (London 1893), 186; FELLOWS, Journal of an Excursion in Asia Minor (London, 1859), 214; IDEM, Account of Discoveries in Lycia (London, 1852), 205 sq.; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, s. v.; TEXIER, Asie mineure (Paris,1862), 694.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Thomas Linacre

English physician and clergyman, founder of the Royal College of Physicians, London, b. at Canterbury about 1460; d. in London, 20 October, 1524. Nothing is known of his parents, but they seem to have been poor and obscure. His preliminary education was obtained at the monastery school of Christ Church, Canterbury, then presided over by the famous William Selling, the first great student of the "new learning" in England. Through Selling's influence Linacre entered All Souls College, Oxford, about 1480, and in 1484 was elected fellow. He distinguished himself in Greek under Cornelio Vitelli. When Selling was sent to Rome as ambassador by Henry VII, Linacre accompanied him, obtaining an introduction to Lorenzo de' Medici, who welcomed him into his own household as a fellow-student of his sons, of whom one was later to become Pope Leo X. Here under Politian in Latin, and Demetrius Chalcondylas in Greek, Linacre obtained a knowledge of these languages which made him one of the foremost humanistic scholars in England. During ten years in Italy, Linacre also studied medicine at Vicenza under Nicholas Leonicenus, a famous physician of the time, and received his degree of M.D. at Padua. Returned to England, Linacre became, after years of distinguished practice, the royal physician to Henry VIII and the regular medical attendant of Cardinal Wolsey, Archbishop Warham, Primate of England, Fox, Bishop of Winchester, and many of the highest nobility of the country. He was also the intimate friend of Sir Thomas More, Erasmus, and Dean Colet. After some eleven years of a life which brought him constantly in contact with the great nobles and the best scholars of England, he resigned his position as physician to the king in 1520 to become a priest. He devoted the fortune which had come to him from his medical practice to the foundation of chairs in Greek medicine at both Oxford and Cambridge, and to the establishment of the Royal College of Physicians. This institution was for the regulation of the practice of medicine, which had fallen into disrepute in consequence of the great increase of irregular practitioners. After Linacre obtained his charter, no one except a regular physician could practice in and around London. The constitution of the college, drawn up by Linacre, and still in force, is a standing monument of his far-seeing judgment. The college is an honoured English institution and the oldest of its kind in the world. Linacre's contributions to medicine consist mainly of his translations of Galen's works from Greek into Latin. Erasmus said Linacre's Latin was better than Galen's Greek. He published the "Methodus Medendi", "De Sanitate Tuenda", "De Symptomatum Differentiis et Causis", and "De Pulsuum Usu". Linacre was greatly respected by his contemporaries; Johnson, his biographer, says, "He seems to have had no enemies", and his reputation has lasted to the present day.

JOHNSON, Life of Thomas Linacre (London, 1835); MURRAY, Lives of British Physicians (London, 1830); The Roll of the College of Physicians; WALSH, Catholic Churchmen in Science (Philadelphia, 1906); PAYNE, in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1885), s. v.

JAMES J. WALSH

Linares

[Or MONTEREY or NUEVO LEÓN; ARCHDIOCESE OF (DE LINARES)]

In 1777, at the request of Charles III of Spain, Pius VII erected the episcopal See of Linares as suffragan of the Archdiocese of Mexico. Its first bishop was Fra Antonio di Gesu, O.E.M. For reasons of ecclesiastical administration the see was raised to archiepiscopal rank by Leo XIII, 23 June, 1891, with San Luis Potosi, Saltillo, and Tamaulipas, or Ciudad de Victoria, as suffragans. Monterey, the cathedral town and residence of the archbishop, is the capital of the State of Nuevo León, Mexico. It is situated about 1600 feet above sea-level, and in 1900 it had a population of 62,266, ranking as sixth city in the republic. Its streets are handsome, well paved and clean, and the suburbs are famous for the beauty of their gardens and orchards. The principal buildings include the fine cathedral, a spacious seminary, schools of law and medicine, and elaborate public schools where education is free and compulsory, as it is throughout the republic, though the law on this head cannot always be enforced. Owing to improved railway facilities the trade of Monterey is very active, as it lies in the heart of a rich agricultural district, and the neighbourhood abounds in silver mines and metalliferous ores. The town was founded by the Spaniards in 1581 and long bore the name of León. In September, 1846, during the war between the United States and Mexico, General Taylor with 6700 men assaulted Monterey, which was defended by General Ampudia and 10,000 Mexicans. It capitulated on 24 September, and the battle of Monterey is famous owing to the very liberal terms of capitulation granted by General Taylor.

The town of Linares from which the archdiocese derives its ecclesiastical name is situated on the left hank of the River Tigris about fifty miles from Monterey. The population of the archdiocese is 327,937, and includes the whole of the State of Nuevo León, an area of 23,592 sq. miles.

The chapter consists of a dean and four canons: there are eighty secular priests, and seventy-five churches: the seminary contains twenty students. The present archbishop is Rt. Rev. Leopold Ruiz y Flórez, born at Amealco in the Diocese of Queretaro, 13 November, 1865, appointed to León 1 October, 1900, and transferred to Monterey 14 September, 1907. He succeeded Archbishop Garefa Zambrano, a native of Monterey who had occupied the see from 19 April, 1900. The See of Linares was originally in the hands of the Friars Minor, and among the members of that order who succeeded its first bishop, Fray Antonio de Jesús, were Fray R.J. Verger (1782-1791); Andrew Ambrose de Llanos y Valdes (1791-1801); Prima Feliciano Mann di Tamaros (1801-1817); Jos. Ign. de Aranciva (1817-1831); José de Jesús (1831-1848). In the archdiocese there is 1 college with 50 students; 2 schools under the care of the Brothers of Mary with 250 boys; 2 schools (Christian Brothers), 400 pupils; 3 academies (Sisters of the Incarnate Word), 230 pupils; 2 academies (Salesian Sisters), 190 pupils; 1 academy, the Religious of the Sacred heart, 30 pupils; 7 parochial schools; 2 orphan asylums; 1 hospital; 1 home for the aged. Population practically all Catholic.

J.C. GREY

Lincoln

(LINCOLNIENSIS)

Suffragan of Dubuque, erected 2 August, 1887, to include that part of the State of Nebraska, U.S.A., south of the Platte River; area 23,844 square miles. There were about 17,000 Catholics in the section of Nebraska out of which the diocese was formed, organized in 27 parishes attended by 28 secular and 3 regular priests. Added to these were 38 missions with churches, 40 stations without churches, and 1 chapel. The Jesuits and Benedictines had representatives working among the clergy, and Benedictine Nuns and Sisters of the Holy Child took charge of the three schools established, in which about 290 children were enrolled. The Rev. Thomas Bonacum, rector of the Church of the Holy Name, St. Louis, Missouri, was appointed the first bishop, consecrated 30 November, 1887, and took formal possession of the see on 21 December following. He was born near Thurles, County Tipperary, Ireland, 29 January, 1847, and emigrated in infancy with his parents to the United States settling at St. Louis. He studied at St. Vincent's College, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and at the University of Würzburg, Bavaria, after which he was ordained priest at St. Louis, 18 June, 1870. He attended the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore as theologian for Archbishop Kendrick, and was named by the fathers of that council as the first Bishop of the Diocese of Belleville which it was proposed to erect in Southern Illinois. The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda deferred action on the proposal of the Plenary Council, and in the meantime Father Bonacum was appointed to the Bishopric of Lincoln Nebraska, by Apostolic letters under date of 9 August, 1887.

Statistics [1910]

Religious communities in the diocese — Men: Lazarists, Benedictines, Franciscans, Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Women: Sisters of Charity, Ursuline Sisters, Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic, Sisters of St. Benedict, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Sisters of Loretto, Sisters of St. Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, Bernardine Sisters, Felician Sisters. Priests, 77 (regulars, 11); churches, with resident priests, 64; missions with churches, 72 stations, 34; chapels, 5; academies for girls, 5; pupils 400; parish schools, 27; pupils, 2235; hospitals, 8; Orphanage, 1. Catholic population, 37,200.

Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1888-1910); Church Progress, and The Western Watchman (St. Louis), contemporary files; National Cycl. of Am. Biog. (New York, 1904).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Lincoln

ANCIENT DIOCESE OF LINCOLN (LINCOLNIENSIS).

This see was founded by St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 678, when he removed the Lindiswaras of Lincolnshire from the Diocese of Lindisfarne. The original seat of the bishop was at Sidnacester, now Stow (eleven miles north-west of Lincoln), and for almost two hundred years the episcopal succession was there maintained, till in 870 the Northmen burnt the church of St. Mary at Stow, and for eighty years there was no bishop. About the middle of the tenth century the See of Sidnacester was united to the Mercian See of Leicester, and the bishop's seat was fixed at Dorchester-on-Thames. But this was situate in the extreme corner of what was the largest diocese in England, so that the first Norman bishop, Remigius of FÈcamp, decided after the Council of 1072, which ordered all bishops to fix their sees in walled towns, to build his cathedral at Lincoln, a city already ancient and populous. On the top of the steep hill the cathedral and Norman castle of Lincoln rose side by side. In 1075 Remigius signed himself ""Episcopus Lincolnensis", so that the transfer took place at once. The diocese then comprised no fewer than ten counties: Lincoln, Northampton, Rutland, Leicester, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford, Buckingham, Oxford, and Hertford. A striking part of the Norman church still remains in the three deep arches of the west front of the cathedral. It was so solid an edifice that during the civil wars between Stephen and Matilda it was used as a fortress, but it was ultimately captured and plundered. In 1185 the cathedral suffered much damage in the great earthquake, and when in the following year St. Hugh was made Bishop of Lincoln he found it necessary to commence building again from the foundations. It was a momentous decision, as it resulted in the first English Gothic building and introduced the architecture of the pointed arch. The saint had completed the whole eastern portion of the church by the time of his death in 1200. Of his work the transepts alone remain. The nave was built during the next half century, when the great scholar Robert Grosseteste was bishop. His pontificate was marked by many reforms in the monasteries of the diocese and in the cathedral itself. In 1255 St. Hugh's choir was pulled down to make way for the splendid "Angel Choir" which was designed to hold his shrine, and is one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture. On 6 Oct., 1280, the translation took place in the presence of King Edward I and nearly all the English hierarchy. During the fourteenth century the three towers were raised to their present height, and the cathedral attained its present form, one of the finest and most remarkable in England. At the Reformation the shrine of St. Hugh was destroyed (6 June 1540).

In 1536 the Diocese of Lincoln was the scene of the "Pilgrimage of Grace", an armed protest against the religious changes which was followed by numerous executions. The reformer, Bishop Holbeach plundered the cathedral during the reign of Edward VI, and the restored Catholic Bishops under Mary had little to time repair the damage. The line of bishops of Lincoln, which had included two saints, three cardinals, six chancellors (marked below *), was brought to a worthy close by Thomas Watson, who died a prisoner for the Faith at Wisbech Castle on 27 Sept., 1584, being the last survivor on English soil of the ancient Catholic hierarchy. The following is the complete list of bishops: Remigius de FÈcamp, 1067; *Robert Bloet, 1094; *Alexander, 1123; Robert de Chesney, 1148; vacancy, 1168; *Walter de Coutances, 1173; vacancy, 1184; St. Hugh of Lincoln, 1186; William de Blois, 1201 (cons. 1203); vacancy, 1206; *Hugh de Wells, 1209; Robert Grosseteste, 1235; Henry de Lexinton, 1253; Richard de Gravesend, 1258; Oliver Sutton, 1280; John de Dalderby (popularly regarded as a saint), 1300; Henry Burghersh, 1320; Thomas Bek, 1341; John Gynwell, 1347; John Bokyngham, 1363; Henry Beaufort (Cardinal), 1398; Philip Repyngdon Cardinal), 1405; Richard Fleming, 1420; William Gray, 1431; William of Alnwick, 1436; Marmaduke Lumley, 1450; vacancy, 1451; John Chadworth, 1452; *Thomas Rotherham (Scot), 1472; *John Russell, 1480; William Smyth, 1496; Thomas Wolsey (Cardinal), 1514; William Atwater 1514; John Longland, 1521; Henry Holbeach, 1547 (schismatic); John Taylor, 1552 (schismatic); John White, 1554; Thomas Watson, 1557. The diocese included the counties of Lincoln, Leicester, Huntindon, Bedford, Buckingham. and part of Hertfordshire and was divided into six archdeaconries: Lincoln, Leicester, Bedford, Buckingham, Huntingdon, and Stow. From the diocese three other sees have been formed: Ely, under Henry I; Oxford and Peterborough, under Henry VIII--yet the Anglican diocese is today the largest in England. The arms of the see were: gules, two lions passant gardant or, in a chief azure Our Lady sitting with her Babe, crown and sceptre of the second.

GODWIN, De præsulibus Angliæ (London, 1743): ALLEN, History of the County of Lincoln (London. 1834): DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. VI, pt. III (London, 1846); WINKLE, Cathedral Churches of England and Wales (London, 1860); LUARD, Roberti Grossteste Epistolæ, Rolls Series (London, 1861); WALCOT, Memorials of Lincoln (London, 1866); IDEM, English Ministers (London, 1879); WHITE, History of Lincolnshire (London, 1872); Archæologia, LIII (London, 1892), i (inventories); WORDSWORTH, Notes on Mediæval Services with Index of Lincoln ceremonies (London, 1898); VENABLES AND PERRY, Lincoln in Diocesan Histories Series (London, 1880); IDEM, Lincoln Cathedral (London, 1898): BRADSHAW, Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral (London, 1892-7); KENDRICK, Lincoln, the Cathedral and See (London, 1898); FAIRBAIRNS, Cathedrals of England and Wales (London, 1907).

EDWIN BURTON

William Damasus Lindanus

(VAN LINDA)

Bishop of Ruremonde and of Ghent, b. at Dordrecht, in 1525; d. at Ghent, 2 November, 1588; he was the son of Damasus van der Lint. He studied philosophy and theology at Louvain, and having during this time applied himself also to Greek and Hebrew, went to Paris to perfect himself in these languages. In 1552 he won the licenciate at Louvain, and the same year was ordained to the priesthood. Two years later, he was appointed professor of Sacred Scripture at the University of Dillingen. In 1556, he took the doctor's degree at Louvain, and was appointed vicar-general to the Bishop of Utrecht and dean of the chapter at The Hague. Soon afterwards he became a royal counsellor and inquisitor in Friesland. In 1562, Philip II designated Lindanus for the newly erected See of Ruremonde, and the following year, on 4 April, he was consecrated in Brussels by Granvelle. He was not, however, able to enter his diocese until 11 May, 1569. Throughout the Low Countries the erection of this bishopric had caused displeasure, especially in the country of Guelders, of which Ruremonde was a part: where every act of the royal authority excited defiance. The heretics, moreover, were dissatisfied with the appointment of Lindanus, who was a staunch defender of the Faith. The new bishop began at once to reform his diocese, assisted in person at the Provincial Synods of Mechlin and of Louvain (1570, 1573) and carried out the laws and regulations of the Council of Trent.

In 1572, he was obliged to flee for several months from Ruremonde to the South of the Low Countries; on his return to his see, he defended vigorously the properties of the Church against the civil authorities. In 1573, a violent conflict broke out between himself and the Duke of Alba; and the heretics obliged him to flee on several occasions. In 1578, he journeyed to Rome and to Madrid in order to obtain justice against the chapter of Maestricht, which had refused to execute the regulations concerning the episcopal endowment, as well as to confer with the Holy Father and the king upon the measures necessary for the safeguarding of the Faith in the Low Countries. Returning to Ruremonde, with the help of Philip II, he founded the royal seminary or college at Louvain, for the education of young clerics. Lindanus went to Rome again in 1584 to treat of the interests of his diocese and of the state of the Church in the Low Countries and in Germany, and he insisted particularly upon the urgent necessity of replying in a scientific way to the Centuriators of Magdeburg. His work in Ruremonde was now brought to a close by his elevation to the See of Ghent, where he began his new episcopal duties on 22 July, 1588, and where three months later, he passed away. Among his numerous works the following are especially worthy of mention: "De optimo scripturas interpretandi genere" (Cologne, 1558); "Panoplia evangelica" (Cologne, 1560); " Stromatum libri III pro defensione Concilii Tridentini (Cologne, 1575); "Missa apostolica" (Antwerp, 1589), and in a more popular form, the dialogues, "Dubitantius" and "Ruwardius" (Cologne, 1562-3). He edited also the academic discourses of Ruard Tapperus (1577-78), and he wrote many works in Dutch for the instruction of his flock, in order to keep them from Protestantism and to refute the Confession of Antwerp of 1566.

HAVENSIUS, De erectione novoram in Belgio episcapatuurn (Cologne, 1609); KUIPPENBERG, Historia ecclesiastica docatus Gelriæ (Brussels, 1719); HOLLIN, Histoire chronologique des Èvèques de Gand (Ghent, 1772); LAMY in Annuaire de l'universitÈ catholique de Lauvain (1860), 98; CLAESSENS, ibid. (1871), 299; WELTERS in Publications de la SaciÈtÈ historique et archÈologique dans le duchÈ de Limbourg, XXVII (Maestricht, 1890), 225; BROM, ibid., XXIX (1892), 277; VAN VEEN, ibid., XLIV (1908), 149; THUS in De Katholiek, CXXV (Leyden and Utrecht, 1904), 435.

H. DE JONGH

Justin Timotheus Balthasar, Freiherr von Linde

Hessian jurist and stateman, b. in the village of Brilon, Westphalia, 7 Aug., 1797; d. at Bonn during the night of 8-9 June, 1870. His father, who was barrister, died when Justin was only three years old; this occurrence, and the fact that the widow had to support four children in war times, darkened in a measure the youth of the unusually talented boy. After he had completed his gymnasium studies at Arnsber (1816), he devoted himself with great zeal and success to the study of jurisprudence at the universities of Munster, Gottingen, and Bonn. In the last-mentioned he received the doctorate (1820), and qualified in 1821 as university tutor. Two years later he was called to Giessen, where, as extraordinary (1823), and subsequently as ordinary professor of law (1824-9) attracted numbers of students, and became distinguished through his learned publications. In 1829 he was called to Darmstadt, as ministerial counsel (Ministerialrat), and was later (1832) named director of Board of Education. The year 1833 found him Chancellor of the University of Giessen. Soon after (1836) he was named privy councillor, and 1839 brought a patent of nobility. After repeated requests, he was permitted to retire with a pension in 1847. In 1848 he was a member of the Frankfort Parliament and in 1850 of the Parliament of Erfurt, and from the latter year he acted as Prince Lichtenstein's ambassador to German Diet — from 1863 he also represented the elder line of Reuss and Hesse-Homburg — until its dissolution in 1866. The wreck of his political ideals, espoused by him with great warmth, was not without effect upon Linde's mind and temper. His former most inexhaustible capacity for work was broken, as well as his wonderful cheerfulness. He withdrew most entirely to his country seat, Dreys, and during a visit to one of his sons at Bonn he was carried away by a stroke of apoplexy in 1870.

In his younger days he was, in politics, friendly to Prussia (cf. his "Rede uber den Geburtstag des Konigs von Preussen", Soest, 1816), and in religion somewhat Josephinistic. Gradually, however, he developed into a strong particularist, as well as a zealous champion of the rights and claims of the Church, although he did not succeed in winning the entire confidence of the strict Catholic party. To Linde is due the establishment of the Catholic theological faculty in the University of Giessen, in which many excellent men laboured — among others the well-known ecclesiastical historian Riflel (q.v.), who later quarrelled with Linde. For the erection of a church in the same place especial thanks are due to him. His orthodoxy is unquestionable. Linde's numerous official reports have still to be collected from the archives; most of his pamphlets are forgotten, although many are of permanent value. The best collection of his intellectual productions is given by Schulte in the "Allgemeine deutsche Biographie", s.v. "Linde" (XVIII, 671). The most important and extensive of these works are: "Abhandlungen aus dem Civilprozess" (2 vols., Bonn, 1823-9); "Lehrbuch des deutschen gemeinen Civilprozesses" (7th ed., Bonn, 1850); "Archiv fur das öffentliche Recht des deutschen Bundes" (4 vols., Giessen, 1850-63).

In addition to the works mentioned in the text, consult LINDE in Kirchenlex. s.v.; Short notices are also found in the encyclopedias of BROCKHAUS, PIERER, etc.

PIUS WITTMAN

Wilhelm Lindemann

A Catholic historian of German literature, b. at Schonnebeck near Essen, 17 December, 1828; d. at Niederkruechten near Erkelenz (Rhine Province) 20 December, 1879. He attended the gymnasium at Essen; studied theology at Bonn from 1848 to 1851, and was ordained in Cologne, 2 September, 1852. He was rector of the municipal high school of Heinsberg from 1853 to 1860, then parish-priest at Rheinbreitbach, and later at Venrath from 1863 to 1866, when he became pastor of Nieder-Kruechten, and so remained till his death. From 1870 to 1879 he served as a member of the Prussian Diet as one of the Centre Party. His principal literary work is the "Geschichte der Deutschen Literatur", which first appeared in 1866 (eighth edition, Freiburg, 1905). This was the first exhaustive treatise made of the history of German literature from a Catholic point of view, and was an effort on the part of the author to bring out into greater prominence Catholic poets and thinkers who therefore had either failed of recognition or had been treated with hostility. It is a notable work. The author modelled it on Vilmar's widely read and meritorious "History of Literature". Connected to a certain extent, as authorities, with his history of literature, is the "Bibliothek deutscher Klassiker" (1868-71) containing selections from Goethe, Schiller. Lessing, Herder, from writers of the Romantic school and poets of later times. To these are to be added his "Blumenstrauss von Geistlichen Gedichten des deutschen Mittelaters" (1874), and a collection of religious poems "Für die Pilgerreise" (1877). Besides these Lindemann produced two biographical works, the one on Angelus Silesius (1876) and the other on Geiler von Kaysersberg, from the French by Dacheux (1877), both of which appear in the "Sammlung historischer Bildnisse" 3rd series, vol. VIII, and 4th series, vol. II. Lindemann was also a contributor to the periodicals. The University of Würzburg recognized his literary achivements by conferring on him, in 1872, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. As a man he was simple and unassuming, with an amiable manner and a spontaneous flow of humour, a genuine son of the Rhineland.

HULSKAMP, Literarischer Handweiser (1880), 30; Germania (24 December, 1879), supplement; REUSCH in Allgem. Deursche Biog. XVIII, 680.

KLEMENS LÖFFLER

Ancient Diocese and Monastery of Lindisfarne

(Lindisfarnensis).

The island of Lindisfarne lies some two miles off the Northumberland coast, nine and one-half miles southeast of the border-town of Berwick. Its length is about three miles and its breadth about one and one-half. At low water it is joined to the mainland. Twice each day it is accessible by means of a three-mile track from Beal across the sands. The wet and plashy road is indicated by wooden posts. This island is now usually called Holy Island, a designation dating back to the eleventh century. Lindisfarne is famous for being the mother-church and religious capital of Northumbria, for here St. Aidan, a Columban monk-bishop from Iona, founded his see in 635. The resemblance of Lindisfarne to the island whence St. Aidan came has obtained for it the title of the Iona of England. Aidan's mission was started at the request of King Oswald, who had been educated by the Celtic monk, and who then resided on the mainland at the royal fortress of Bamborough. Holy Isle became the center of great missionary activity and also the episcopal seat of sixteen successive bishops. The influence of these spiritual leaders was considerable, owing in great measure to the patronage afforded by kings such as St. Oswald. Not only did St. Aidan fix his see here, but he also established a monastic community, thus conforming himself, as Bede says, to the practice of St. Augustine at Canterbury (Hist. eccl., IV, xxvii). From this monastery were founded all the churches between Edinburgh and the Humber, as well as several others in the great midland district and in the country of the East Angles. Among the holy and famous men educated in Lindisfarne were St. Ceadda (Chad) of Lichfield and his brothers Cedd, Cynibill, Caelin, also St. Egbert, St. Edilhun, St. Ethelwin, St. Oswy the King, and the four bishops of the Middle Angles: Diuma, Cellach, Trumhere, and Jaruman. Bishop Eata was one of the native Northumbrian boys whom Aidan had taken to Lindisfarne "to be instructed in Christ". St. Adamnan visited the monastery, and St. Wilfrid received his early training there. The original buildings were probably of wood. We gain some notion of their unpretending character from the fact that St. Finan, Aidan's successor, found it necessary to reconstruct the church so as to make it more worthy of the see. This he did after the Irish fashion, using hewn oak with a roof of reeds. A later bishop, Eadbert, removed the reeds and substituted sheets of lead. This modest structure was dedicated by Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury in honour of St. Peter, and within it, on the right side of the altar, reposed the body of St. Aidan. Portions of this primitive cathedral existed in 1082, when they disappeared to make room for a more elaborate and lasting edifice. Owing probably to a desire to guard against irregularities, such as had taken place at Coldingham, entrance to the church was not permitted to women. For the latter a special church was provided, called the Green Church form its situation in a green meadow. This exclusion of women was for a time observed at Durham.

Lindisfarne owes much of its glory to St. Cuthbert, who ruled its church for two years, and whose incorrupt body was there venerated during two centuries. In 793 the Danes invaded the island, pillaged the church, and slaughtered or drowned the monks. In 875 they returned, bent on further destruction, but the monks had fled, bearing with them St. Cuthbert's shrine. This took place during the episcopate of Bishop Eardulf, who was the last to rule the see of Lindisfarne. The half ruined church, however, gave temporary shelter to the relics of St. Cuthbert at the time when William the Conqueror was engaged in subduing Northumbria, but the see was never re-established there. It was fixed for a time at Chester-le-Street by Eardulf, and in 995 transferred to Durham. Here it remained till the change of religion in the sixteenth century. The Anglican succession, however, still continues. When the hierarchy was restored to England by Pius IX in 1850, this venerable Catholic bishopric was refounded under the title of Hexham and Newcastle.

The ecclesiastical ruins on Holy Island date from the eleventh century. By a charter of 1082 Bishop Carileph bestowed the church of Lindisfarne on the Benedictines, whom he had brought to Durham from Wearmouth and Jarrow; and for them he began the Norman church the remains of which still exist. His successor, Bishop Flambard, completed the work, the architect being a monk from Durham named "XX"dward. The succession of priors and monks was always appointed by the mother-church of Durham, and their yearly accounts were rendered to the same parent-house. From these statements, still extant, we gather that in its best days the priory income was equal to about 1200 pounds of present money. During the priorate of Thomas Sparke (1536) the house was dissolved, and at his death, in 1571, the property passed into the hands of the Dean and Chapter of Durham. Since 1613 the site of the priory has belonged to the crown. The church, under the invocation of St. Cuthbert, was a copy of Durham Cathedral on a small scale. The similarity is especially observable in the voluted and chevroned columns of the nave. Its length was 150 feet. The tower was still standing in 1728. A pilgrimage, consisting of 3000 persons, crossed the sands to Holy Island in 1887 -- the twelfth centenary of St. Cuthbert's death. The following is a list of the Bishops of Lindisfarne, with dates of accession:

1. Aidan, 635;
2. Finan, 652;
3. Colman, 661;
4. Tuda, 664;
   (For fourteen years Lindisfarne was included in Diocese of York under Chad and Wilfrid.)
5. Eata, 678;
6. Cutbert, 685;
7. Eadbert, 688;
8. Eadfrid, 698;
9. Ethelwold, 724;
10. Cynewulf, 740;
11. Higbald, 780;
12. Egbert, 803;
13. Heathored, 821;
14. Ecgred, 830;
15. Eanbert, 845;
16. Eardulf, 854.

The book called the "Lindisfarne Gospels" ("St. Cuthbert's Gospels" or the "Durham Book") is still preserved in the British Museum Library (Cotton manuscript, Nero D. iv). This copy must not be confounded with a small copy of St. John's Gospel found in St. Cuthbert's coffin in 1104, and now at Stonyhurst. The former was written at Lindisfarne by Eadfrid "in honour of St. Cuthbert" about 700. It consists of 258 leaves of thick vellum, 13 1/2 X 9 7/8 inches, and contains the Four Gospels in the Latin of St. Jerome's Version, written in double columns with an interlinear Saxon gloss -- the earliest form of the Gospels in English. It also contains St. Jerome's Epistle to Pope Damasus, his Prefaces, the Eusebian Canons, arguments of each Gospel, and "Capitula", or headings of the lessons. The glossator, Aldred, states that the ornamentation was the work of Ethelwold (724-740), and that the precious metal cover was made by Bilfrid (Billfrith) the anchorite. It is written in a splendid uncial hand, and adorned with intricate patterns, consisting of interlaced ribbons, spiral lines, and geometrical knots, terminating sometimes in heads of birds and beasts. The intervening spaces are filled with red dots in various designs. Before each Gospel is a representation of the Evangelist. A table of festivals with special lessons seems to indicate that this manuscript was copied from one used at a church in Naples. (For a fuller treatment of the origin of the manuscript, see Dom Chapman's "Early History of the Vulgate Gospels", where he gives a slightly different view of the subject.) The book remained at Lindisfarne till the flight of the monks, about 878, when it was carried away together with the relics. During the attempted passage to Ireland, it fell into the sea, but was miracuously recovered after four days. In 995 it was brought to Durham, and afterwards replaced in Lindisfarne, when the church there was rebuilt. For the space of 100 years it was lost sight of. In 1623 it was in the possession of Robert Bowyer, clerk to the House of Commons. He disposed of it to Sir Robert Cotton, whence it passed to the British Museum. Traces of its immersion in the sea have been detected by experts. Its present precious binding was a gift of Bishop Maltby. The codex was edited by Stevenson and Waring (1854-65), and by Skeat (1887).

COLUMBA EDMONDS

Benedictine Abbey of Lindores

On the River Tay, near Newburgh, Fifeshire, Scotland, founded by David, Earl of Huntingdon, younger brother of King William the Lion, about 1191. Boece (Chronicles of Scotland) gives 1178 as the date, but his romantic story of the foundation (adopted by Walter Scott in "The Talisman") is quite uncorroborated, and almost certainly fictitious. The monks were Tironensian Benedictines, brought from Kelso; Guido, Prior of Kelso, was the first abbot, and practically completed the extensive buildings. The church, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and St. Andrew, was 195 feet long, with transepts 110 feet long. Earl David richly endowed the abbey, making over to it the ten parish churches which were in his gift, as well as tithes and other sources of revenue, and asking nothing in return "save only prayers for the weal of the soul". The monks, by the foundation charter, were to be free of all secular and military service, and they gradually acquired extensive powers and jurisdiction over the people living on their property. Other churches were granted by the Leslies and subsequent benefactors to the abbey, which had finally as many as twenty-two belonging to it. Dowden, in his introduction to the Lindores chartulary, gives details of these endowments, as well as of the privileges granted to the abbey by successive popes: these do not seem to have differed from those enjoyed by other great monasteries. Edward I of England, John de Baliol, David II, and James III were among the monarchs who visited Lindores at different times. David, Duke of Rothesay, who perished mysteriously at Falkland Palace, not far off, was buried at Lindores in 1402. Twenty-one abbots ruled the monastery from its foundation to its suppression. Lindores was the first of the great Scottish abbeys to suffer violence from the Protestant mob, being sacked and the monks expelled by the populace of Dundee in 1543. Knox describes a similar scene in 1559: "The abbey of Lindores we reformed; their altars overthrew we; their idols, vestments of idolatrie and mass-books we burnt in their presence, and commanded them to cast away their monkish habits". The last abbot was the learned and pious John Leslie, afterwards Bishop of Ross (d. 1596). The abbey was created a temporal lordship in 1600 in favour of Patrick Leslie, in whose family it remained till 1741. It now belongs to the Hays of Leys. The fragments of the buildings which remain are mostly of the twelfth century; they include the groined archway of the principal entrance, and part of the chancel walls and of the western tower of the church.

Chartulary of the Abbey of Lindores, ed. DOWDEN from the Caprington MS., with introduction and appendixes (Edinburgh, Scot. Hist. Soc., 1903). The volume published by the Abbotsford Club (1841, incorrectly called Chartularies of Balmerino and Lindores, is really a sixteenth-century transcript of miscellaneous documents relating to these abbeys. See also LAING, Lindores Abbey and its burgh of Newburgh (Edinburgh, 1876); GORDON, Monasticon, III (Glasgow, 1868), 539-550; DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, VI (London, 1830), 1150. DOWDEN, op. cit. gives some interesting reproductions of ancient seals of the Chapter and various Abbots of Lindores.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

St. Anne Line

English martyr, d. 27 Feb., 1601. She was the daughter of William Heigham of Dunmow, Essex, a gentleman of means and an ardent Calvinist, and when she and her brother announced their intention of becoming Catholics both were disowned and disinherited. Anne married Roger Line, a convert like herself, and shortly after their marriage he was apprehended for attending Mass. After a brief confinement he was released and permitted to go into exile in Flanders, where he died in 1594. When Father John Gerard established a house of refuge for priests in London, Mrs. Line was placed in charge. After Father Gerard's escape from the Tower in 1597, as the authorities were beginning to suspect her assistance, she removed to another house, which she made a rallying point for neighbouring Catholics. On Candlemas Day, 1601, Father Francis Page, S.J. was about to celebrate Mass in her apartments, when priest-catchers broke into the rooms. Father Page quickly unvested, and mingled with the others, but the altar prepared for the ceremony was all the evidence needed for the arrest of Mrs. Line. She was tried at the Old Bailey 26 Feb., 1601, and indicted under the Act of 27 Eliz. for harbouring a priest, though this could not be proved. The next day she was led to the gallows, and bravely proclaiming her faith, achieved the martyrdom for which she had prayed. Her fate was shared by two priests, [Bl.] Mark Barkworth, O.S.B., and Roger Filcock, S.J., who were executed at the same time.

Roger Filcock had long been Mrs. Line's friend and frequently her confessor. Entering the English College at Reims in 1588, he was sent with the others in 1590 to colonize the seminary of St. Albans at Valladolid, and, after completing his course there, was ordained and sent on the English mission. Father Garnett kept him on probation for two years to try his mettle before admitting him to the Society of Jesus, and finding him zealous and brave, finally allowed him to enter. He was just about to cross to the Continent for his novitiate when he was arrested on suspicion of being a priest and executed after a travesty of a trial.

[ Note: In 1970, Anne Line was canonized by Pope Paul VI among the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feast day is kept on 25 October.]

MORRIS, Life of Fr. John Gerard; CHALLONER, Memoirs, I, 396; FOLEY, Records S.J. I, 405; VII, 254; Douay Diaries, p. 219, 280; Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. Rutland Coll. Belvoir Castle, I, 370; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.

STANLEY J. QUINN

John Lingard

English priest and historian b. at Winchester, 5 February, 1771; d. at Hornby, 17 July, 1851. He was the son of Lincolnshire yeomen, John Lingard and Elizabeth Rennell, whom poverty and persecution had driven to migrate from their native Claxby, first to London, where they met again and married, then, after a short return to their old, home, to Winchester, where he was born. He inherited from a stock winnowed and strengthened by the ceaseless oppression of two centuries the silent stubborn, almost sullen longing for the conversion of his native land, that is so intimate a characteristic of the pre-Emancipation Catholic.

The first step towards realizing this longing was taken in 1779, when the Rev. James Nolan, Milner's predecessor at Winchester, arranged with Bishop Challoner the first preliminaries for his reception at Douai. These were concluded by Milner himself three years later, and Lingard "entered the doors of Duoai on the afternoon of 30 September, 1782". His career there was remarkably brilliant: only at one examination in the whole of his course did he fail to lead his class, and at the end of his course in philososophy he was retained as professor of one of the lower humanity schools. Shortly before the final catostrophe when the French Revolution brought upon the house he escaped to England, in charge of two brothers named Oliveira and of William, afterwards Lord Stourton. For nearly a year, he took charge of the latter's education at his father's residence, till, in May, 1794 Bishop William Gibson asked him to aid in caring for a section of the Douai refugees who were assembled first at Tudhoe, then at Pontop and Crook Hall-all places within a few miles of Durham. Nominally he held the chair of philosophy; practically, besides the duties of vice-president to the Rev. Thomas Eyre, he undertook in addition those of prefect of studies, procurator, and of professor of church history. It was in this last subject that he first found the true bent of his genius. The result was his "History of the Anglo-Saxon Church", a development of conversations and informal lectures round the winter evening fire. Its success suggested two further literary schemes: a history of the Anglo-Norman Church and a school epitome of the history of England, of which the former was finally abandoned about 1814, and the latter about the same time began to expand into his life's work. It had been impossible for him to accomplish anything during the interval, except in the way of gathering materials. The labours antecedent to and consequent upon the removal to Ushaw, in 1808; the post of vice-president which he held there; and the sole charge of the house which devolved upon him on Eyre's death, in May, 1810, effectually deprived him of leisure. He found time, however, for a few controversial works, the titles of which will be found at the end of this article.

In 1811 the Rev. John Gillow was appointed President of Ushaw, and Lingard, refusing the corresponding position at Maynooth, which was offered him by Bishop Moylan, retired in September to Hornby, a country mission about eight miles from Lancaster. Various controversial publications (one of which, "A Review of Certain Anti-Catholic Publications", earned him the formal thanks of the Board of Catholics of Great Britain) were the first fruits of his leisure here. The "History", however, still in the form of an abridgement for schools, formed his principal occupation. By the end of 1815 he had "buried Henry VII and was returning to revise." But the revision proved a rewriting, and the work began to exceed the bounds of a school-book. Two years more were devoted to the examination and comparison of original authorities, for Lingard's new method of history — practically unheard of till then — insisted on tracing every statement back to its original author. He journeyed to Rome in the spring of 1817, partly to consult authorities in the Vatican archives, partly as the confidential agent of Bishop Poynter; and in this capacity he successfully concluded negotiations for the reconstitution and reopening of the English College at Rome. This was by no means the first or the last of similar delicate commissions with which he was entrusted Throughout his life he was in the confidence of the English bishops; he exhorted, he restrained, he advised, he was their authority on procedure, he drafted their letters to Rome; indeed, the most notable fact in his career, next to his power of writing history, was the part which he took in making it, in Catholic England during the first half of the nineteenth century.

In the winter after his return from Rome he was ready to think of publication, and the first three volumes extending to the death of Henry VII, were finally purchased by Mawman of London for 1000 guineas. These were published in May, 1819, and met with speedy and surprising success not only among English Catholics, but among scholars of every nationality and belief. A fourth volume was called for as soon as it could be prepared, and a second edition of all four was found necessary before three years were out. A growing enthusiasm greeted each successive volume till the work was brought to what proved its ultimate conclusion — the revolution of 1688 — by the eighth volume, which appeared in 1830. Meanwhile, a third edition had appeared in England; two translations had been published in France (one with a continuation to the nineteenth century, revised and corrected by Lingard himself); another had appeared in German, and yet another, in Italian, was printed by the Propaganda Press. Honours from every part of Europe confirmed the general appreciation of the "History". Lingard's triple doctorate from Pius VII in 1821, his associate-ship of the Royal Society of Literature, and many other similar honours were finally crowned, in 1839, by a grant from the Privy Purse of £300 and his election as a corresponding member of the French Academy. It had also been generally, if not universally, believed — till Cardinal Wiseman first traversed the tradition nearly forty years later, in his "Last Four Popes" — that Leo XII, in a consistory of 2 October, 1826 had created Lingard cardinal in petto, deferring the promulgation of the honour till the completion of the "History" should leave him free to come to Rome. A somewhat heated controversy between Tierney and Wiseman followed the publication of the "Last Four Popes", and for a matter in which certainty is now as then, almost impossible, Tierney seems to have had the better of the argument. Perhaps Lingard's own opinion is more likely to be right than any other, and, though he affected to despise the rumour in the autumn of 1826, we find him before the end of the year asking and receiving advice on the advisability of allowing the offer to be made. Towards the end of his life he seems to have had no hesitation at all about the question. "He made me cardinal", is his unqualified assertion to a friend in a letter of 22 August, 1850.

Of course the "History" was criticized, but the very sources of the criticism showed how successfully Lingard had attained his ideal of unbiased accuracy. Milner attacked the tone of the work in "The Orthodox Journal", but the disagreement was rather one of method than of anything else; Milner would have converted England by the heavy bombardment of hard-hitting controversy; Lingard realized that his only chance of reaching the audience he desired lay in a sober, unimpassioned statement of incontrovertible fact. Dr. John Allen, then Master of Dulwich School, reached the other pole of criticism, and accused him of prejudiced distortion and suppression of facts in his account of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. It was the only attack of which Lingard ever took formal notice, and the publication of Salviani's secret dispatches a few years later scarcely added anything to the weight of his triumphant "Vindication". Indeed his essential accuracy on any leading point has seldom, if ever, been called in question; and the mass of historical material that has flooded our libraries since his death has left unshaken not only his statements of facts, but even their conjectural restorations, which at times, prophetwise, he allowed himself to make. Hence his work has lost little of its value, and, sixty years after its author's last revision still holds its place as the standard authority on many of the periods of which it treats. The twenty years of life that still remained to him, he spent in revision of his two principal works: "The Anglo-Saxon Church", which was practically rewritten in 1846, and the "History", of which every succeeding edition (five were published in his lifetime) bore evidence of his unfailing zeal for impartial accuracy; in the composition of many smaller works and essays, some of which, like his "New Translation of the Four Gospels", have scarcely met with the recognition that their scholarship and literary merits deserve; and in untiring vigilance for the interests of the Church in England. His researches at home and abroad had brought him into touch with friends in every part of Western Europe, and only his extraordinary energy and vitality could have coped with the ensuing correspondence, which would have crushed most other men. He suffered too from a complication of maladies that forbade him to travel more than a few miles from home, yet, even in his isolation at Hornby, he was to the end a centre of spiritual and intellectual activity, a living force which still employed its every energy for the one ambition it had always held — the advancement of Catholic, the conversion of Protestant, England. In 1849 he said farewell to his books and to their readers in his pathetic preface to the fifth edition of the "History", and two years later he died. He had always preserved an active interest in the college at Ushaw, in whose beginnings he had played so prominent a part. His solid prudence was always at its service; the profits of his writings were devoted to aiding its resources; he even once found himself, by the death of his co-trustees, its sole owner. In its cemetery cloister, therefore, by his own wish, he was buried, by the side of its bishops and presidents, and Ushaw still remains the shrine of his body and of his memory.

His published works include: "Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church" (Newcastle, 1806 and 1810; London, 1846); "Letters on Catholic Loyalty" (Newcastle, 1807); "Remarks on a Charge . . . by Shute, Bishop of Durham" (London, 1807); "Vindication of the 'Remarks'" (Newcastle, 1807); "General Vindication of the 'Remarks': Replies to Le Mesurier, and Faber; and Observations on . . . Method of interpreting the Apocalypse" (Newcastle, 1808; Dublin, 1808); "Remarks on . . the Grounds on which the Church of England separated from Rome, reconsidered by Shute, Bishop of Durham" (London, 1809) (these last four tracts have been collected and republished several times); "Introduction to Talbot's Protestant Apology for the Catholic Church" (Dublin, 1809); "Preface to Ward's Errata to the Protestant Bible" (Dublin, 1810, 1841); "Documents to ascertain Sentiments of British Catholics in former Ages, respecting the Power of the Popes" (London, 1812); "Review of Certain Anti-Catholic Publications" (London, 1813); "Examination of Certain Opinions advanced by Dr. Burgess, Bishop of St. David's" (Manchester, 1813); "Strictures on Dr. Marsh's Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome" (London, 1815); "Observations on the Laws in Foreign States relative to their Roman Catholic Subjects" (London, 1817, 1851); "History of England to the Accession of William and Mary" (London, 1819-30; 2nd ed., 1823-30; 3rd ed., 1825-30; 4th ed., 1837-39; 5th ed., 1849-51; 6th ed., 1854-55; 7th ed. 1883); "Charters granted . . to the Burgesses of Preston" (Preston, 1821); "Supplementum ad Breviarium et Missale Romanum, adjectis officiis Sanctorum Angliæ" (London, 1823); "Vindication of certain Passages in the Fourth and Fifth Volumes of the History of England" (London, 1826, 4 editions 1827); "Collection of Tracts" (London, 1826); "Remarks on the 'St. Cuthbert' of the Rev. James Raine" (Newcastle, 1828); "Manual of Prayers for Sundays and Holidays" (Lancaster, 1833); "New Version of the Four Gospels" (London, 1836, 1846, 1851); "The Widow Woolfrey versus the Vicar of Carisbrooke". (London, 1839); "Is the Bible the only Rule?" (Lancaster, 1839, 1887); "Catechetical Instructions". (London, 1840); "Did the Church of England Reform Herself?" (Dublin Review, VIII, 1840); "The Ancient Church of England and the Liturgy of the Anglican Church" (Dub. Rev., XI, 1841); "Journal on a Tour to Rome and Naples in 1817" (Ushaw Magazine XVII, 1907).

GILLOW, Bibl. Dct. Eng. Cath., s. v.; TIERNEY, Memoir (London, 1855); Reply to Wiseman (London, 1858); WISEMAN, Recollections of the Last Four Popes (London, 1855); IDEM, Reply to Tierney (London, 1858); BONNEY, The Making of Lingard's History (Ushaw Mag., XIX, 1909); BRADY, Annals of the English Hierarchy, III (Rome, 1877); BUTLER, Records and Recollections of Ushaw (Preston, 1889); C. BUTLER, Historical Memoirs, IV (London, 1822); HUGHES, John Lingard (Lancaster, 1907);HUSENBETH, Life of Milner (Dublin 1862); LAING, Ushaw Centenary Memorial (Newcastle, 1895); Dublin Review, XII, 295; Orthodox Journal, VII, 228, 266, 302, etc.; Tablet, XII, 466, 473, 484; Ushaw Mag., XI, 196; XVI, 1-29; Historical Collections, MSS. and Correspondence preserved at Ushaw College.

EDWIN BONNEY

Linoe

A titular see of Bithynia Secunda, known only from the "Notitiae Episcopatuum" which mention it as late as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as a suffragan of Nicaea. The Emperor Justinian must have raised it to the rank of a city. It is probably the modern town of Biledjik, a station on the Hnidar-Pasha railway to Konia, with 10,000 inhabitants, 7000 of whom are Mussulmans, and 3000 Armenians, 600 of the Iatter being Catholics. It is an important centre for the cultivation of the silk-worm. Lequien (Oriens christianus, I, 657) mentions four bishops of Linoe: Anastasius, who attended the Council of Constantinople (692); Leo, at Nicea (787), Basil and Cyril, the one of Partisan of St. Ignatius, the other of Photius, at Constantinople (879).

RAMSAY, Asia Minor (London, 1890), 15, 183.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Pope St. Linus

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitiones". But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain.

The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis" from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr.

Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion. As St. Peter was certainly buried at the foot of the Vatican Hill, it is quite possible that the earliest bishops of the Roman Church also were interred there. There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints. According to Torrigio ("Le sacre grotte Vaticane", Viterbo, 1618, 53) when the present confession was constructed in St. Peter's (1615), sarcophagi were found, and among them was one which bore the word Linus. The explanation given by Severano of this discovery ("Memorie delle sette chiese di Roma", Rome, 1630, 120) is that probably these sarcophagi contained the remains of the first Roman bishops, and that the one bearing that inscription was Linus's burial place. This assertion was repeated later on by different writers. But from a manuscript of Torrigio's we see that on the sarcophagus in question there were other letters beside the word Linus, so that they rather belonged to some other name (such as Aquilinus, Anullinus). The place of the discovery of the tomb is a proof that it could not be the tomb of Linus (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae", II, 23-7).

The feast of St. Linus is now celebrated on 23 September. This is also the date given in the "Liber Pontificalis". An epistle on the martyrdom of the Apostles St. Peter and Paul was at a later period attributed to St. Linus, and supposedly was sent by him to the Eastern Churches. It is apocryphal and of later date than the history of the martyrdom of the two Apostles, by some attributed to Marcellus, which is also apocryphal ("Acta Apostolorum apocrypha", ed. Lipsius and Bonnet, I, ed; Leipzig, 1891, XIV sqq., 1 sqq.).

LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers; St. Clement of Rome, I (London, 1890), 201 sqq.; HARNACK, Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, II: Die Chronologie I (Leipzig, 1897), 70; Acta SS. September, VI, 539 sqq., Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 121: cf. Introduction, lxix; DE SMEDT, Dissertationes selectae in primam aetatem hist. eccl., I, 300 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Linz

Diocese of Linz (Linciensis).

Suffragan of the Archdiocese of Vienna.

I. HISTORY

In the early Middle Ages the greater part of the territory of the present Diocese of Linz was subject to the bishops of Lauriacum (Lorch); at a later date it formed part of the great Diocese of Passau, which extended from the Isar to the Leitha. The Prince-Bishop of Passau personally administered the upper part or Upper Austria, while an auxiliary bishop, having his residence at Vienna and called the Official, administered for him the eastern part or Lower Austria. To do away with the political influence in his territories of the bishops of Passau, who were also princes of the Empire, Joseph II decided to found two new dioceses. These were Linz and St. Pölten, which in a certain measure were to renew the old Lauriacum, and the emperor only awaited the death of Cardinal Firmian, then Bishop of Passau, to carry out his plans. The cardinal's eyes were scarcely closed (d. 13 March, 1783), before the emperor on 16 March seized all the landed property of the Diocese of Passau in his territories. On the same day he appointed the former Official for Passau at Vienna, Count von Herberstein, first Bishop of Linz. It was the intention of the emperor that the new bishop should at once assume his office. Against these acts of the emperor the cathedral chapter of Passau sent, first, an appeal to the emperor himself, which naturally was rejected; then an appeal to the Imperial Diet at Ratisbon, from which body, however, help could scarcely be expected. Assistance offered by Prussia was refused by Cardinal Firmian's successor, Bishop Auersperg, an adherent of Josephinism. The Bishop of Passau and the majority of his cathedral chapter finally yielded in order to save the secular property of the diocese. By an agreement of 4 July, 1784, the confiscation of all the properties and rights belonging to the Diocese of Passau in Austria was annulled, and the tithes and revenues were restored to it. In return Passau gave up its diocesan rights and authority in Austria, including the provostship of Ardagger, and bound itself to pay 400,000 gulden ($900,000) -- afterwards reduced by the emperor to one-half -- toward the equipment of the new diocese. There was nothing left for Pope Pius VI to do but to give his consent, even though unwillingly, to the emperor's despotic act. The papal sanction of the agreement between Vienna and Passau was issued on 8 November, 1784, and on 28 January, 1785, appeared the Bull of Erection, "Romanus Pontifex".

The first bishop (1785-8), Ernest Johann Nepomuk, Imperial Count von Herberstein, formerly titular Bishop of Eucarpia, had been the Official of the Prince-Bishop of Passau and Vicar-General of Lower Austria. The appointment was confirmed by the pope on 14 February, 1785, and the bishop was enthroned on 1 May 1785. By order of the emperor the cathedral chapter was to consist of a vicar-general, a provost, a dean, a custos, and thirteen simple ecclesiastics; the members were appointed by the emperor, before the approval of the pope was received. The Bull of Erection assigned the ancient parish church of Linz as the cathedral, but the former church of the Jesuits was, without notification to the Papal See of the substitution, at once chosen in its place; it was not until 1841 that the change was sanctioned by a Bull. In 1789 the endowment of the diocese was fixed at 12,000 gulden ($4,800), to which were added the revenues from the property of several suppressed monasteries. The territorial limits of the diocese corresponded to those of the crownland of Upper Austria with the addition of several parishes of Salzburg, to the separation of which the Archbishop of Salzburg gave his consent in 1786. At the time of its foundation, the diocese included 26 deaneries with 404 parishes.

The new diocese, like the whole of Austria at that time, suffered much from the numerous, often precipitate and reckless, ordinances of the government officials, who interfered in almost all domains of Church life and often subjected bishop, clergy, and laity to petty regulations. As early as 1785 the Viennese ecclesiastical order of services was made obligatory, "in accordance with which all musical litanies, novenas, octaves, the ancient touching devotions, also processions, vespers, and similar ceremonies, were done away with." Numerous churches and chapels were closed and put to secular uses; the greater part of the old religious foundations and monasteries were suppressed as early as 1784. In all these innovations the Bishop of Linz and his chapter aided and supported the government much too willingly. Not only in secular matters did the bishop ask for the assistance of the provincial government at Linz, he also sought to obtain the approbation of the civil authorities for the statutes of his chapter, as well as for the episcopal and consistorial seals. Nevertheless there could be no durable peace with the bureaucratic civil authorities, and Herberstein was repeatedly obliged to complain to the emperor of the tutelage in which the Church was kept, but the complaints bore little fruit.

The next bishop, Joseph Anton Gall (1788-1807), had been of great service to the Austrian school system as cathedral scholasticus and chief supervisor of the normal schools. He was an adherent of Josephinism, and permitted the chancellor of the consistory, George Rechberger, a layman and Josephinist, to exercise great influence over the ecclesiastical administration of his diocese. Ecclesiastical conditions became more satisfactory during his episcopate, but much of the credit for this is due to Emperors Leopold II and Francis II who repealed many over-hasty reforms of Joseph II. The general seminaries introduced in 1783 were set aside, and the training of the clergy was again made the care of the bishops. Bishop Gall, therefore, exerted himself for years to establish a theological institute for his diocese; it was opened in 1794. Another permanent service of the bishop was the founding of a seminary for priests; for this he bought in 1804 a house out of his own means, and made the institution heir to all his property. The third Bishop of Linz, Sigismund von Hohenwart (1809-25), had been a cathedral canon of Gurk and Vicar-General of Klagenfurt. He was appointed by the emperor on 10 January, 1809, but the appointment did not receive papal approbation until December, 1814, on account of the imprisonment of the pope. The bishop took energetic measures against the visionary followers of Pöschl and Boos, who were then numerous in Upper Austria. His successor was the Benedictine Gregor Thomas Ziegler (1827-52), formerly Bishop of Tarnov. Although the Church throughout Austria at this date was still dependent to a very great degree on the government in ecclesiastical matters, the bishop knew how to revive and strengthen the ecclesiastical spirit in his clergy and people. Of great importance was the introduction of the Jesuits and their settlement on the Freinberg near Linz, which was accomplished by means of the vigorous and generous aid of Archduke Maximilian of Este, and the foundation of numerous other religious establishments (Franciscans, Salesians, Sisters of Mercy, etc.).

The Revolution of 1848 not only increased political liberty, but also gave to the Church greater independence in its own province, and the bishop at once made use of the regained freedom to revive popular missions, which had been discontinued since the reign of Maria Theresa. In 1850 at his instance a ten day's mission was held by the Redemptorists, at which the number of communicants was reckoned at 50,000. In the same year the diocesan theological institute was placed entirely under episcopal supervision, and an examination of candidates for the position of parish priests was established; in October for the first time examinations were held by prosynodal examiners. The session of the Third German Catholic Congress, held at Linz in 1850, also strengthened the Church in the diocese. A great development of religious life in the diocese resulted from the restored liberties of the Church. Much of the credit for this growth is due to the vigorous and unwearied labours of the fifth bishop, the great Franz-Josef Rudigier (1853-84). His deep religious faith and his pre-eminently Catholic principles, as well as his unyielding will, made him for many years the intellectual leader of the Austrian Catholics in their struggle with Liberalism. Austrian Liberalism, antagonistic to the Church, controlled for decades the destinies of the country. The bishop was the zealous friend and promoter of every expression of religious life: Christian schools, religious associations, the building of churches, the Catholic press, the founding of houses of the religious orders and congregations, which greatly increased during his episcopate. Ever memorable is the manly stand he took on behalf of the Concordat of 1855. This Concordat was bitterly antagonized and much calumniated by the Liberals, and was annulled by the government in 1868 and 1870 without consultation with the Holy See.

Equally memorable is his struggle against what are called the "Interconfessional" laws of 25 May, 1868, which were hostile to the Church, and to the marriage and school laws. The bishop's opposition to these ordinances led to judicial proceedings against him and to a fine, which was, however, at once remitted by the emperor. His defence of the rights of the Church in regard to the Christian schools had for result that the Liberal parliamentary majority in 1869 confiscated the lands forming the endowment of the diocese, and withheld them until the downfall of Liberalism in 1883. The great bishop left a lasting memorial in the cathedral of the Immaculate Conception at Linz, for which he prepared the way by founding in 1855 an association for building the cathedral. His successor, Ernst Maria Müller, had only a short episcopate (1885-8). In the next bishop, Franz Maria Doppelbauer (1889-1908), the diocese received a truly apostolic head, whose influence extended far beyond his own sphere of work. He was a vigorous patron and promoter of every Catholic interest in Austria. As a true modern bishop he gave special encouragement to Catholic associations and the Catholic press, which, even during his earliest years on the mission, he had done much to encourage, establishing personally a newspaper. He founded at Urfahr a magnificent seminary for boys, the Petrinum, as a fine training-ground for the future clergy. The completion of the cathedral (consecrated May, 1905) was also due to his energetic efforts. The present bishop is Rudolf Hittmair, who has written the history of the suppression of the monasteries in Austria by Joseph II. He was born 24 July, 1859; appointed bishop 17 March, 1909; consecrated 1 May, 1909.

II. STATISTICS

The Diocese of Linz includes the Duchy of Upper Austria and some townships in Lower Austria. The Duchy of Upper Austria has an area of nearly 4625 square miles; the population is 840,900. According to the census of 1900, it possessed 810,246 inhabitants, of whom 790,270 were Catholics, 18,373 Protestants, 1280 Jews. The Diocese of Linz is divided into 34 deaneries, and, at the beginning of 1910, included 419 parishes, 1 Expositur, 48 benefices, 718 secular priests, 479 regulars, 561 Catholic schools, and 813,541 souls (20,506 non-Catholics) of pure German descent. The bishop is appointed by the emperor. The cathedral chapter consists of a mitred provost, who is appointed by the pope, a dean, a scholasticus, five canons (one appointed by the bishop, the others by the emperor), and six honorary canons. The ecclesiastical schools and institutions for training and education in the diocese are: the seminary for priests in connexion with the diocesan theological school (7 professors, 84 students), the aforesaid episcopal seminary for boys (Collegium Petrinum), connected with the episcopal private gymnasium at Urfahr on the bank of the Danube and opposite Linz (18 professors and teachers, 8 prefects, 365 pupils), and 3 preparatory seminaries for boys.

The male orders in the diocese are: 2 monasteries of Canons Regular of St. Augustine at St. Florian and Reichersberg, with (in 1910) 114 fathers, 12 clerics, 6 lay brothers, and a theological school of the order at St. Florian; 1 monastery of Præmonstratensian Canons at Schlägl, 42 fathers, 3 clerics, 1 brother; 2 Benedictine abbeys at Kremsmünster and Lambach, 112 fathers, 10 clerics, 12 brothers; 2 Cistercian abbeys, Schlierbach and Wilhering, 60 fathers, 10 clerics, 1 lay brother; 7 Franciscan monasteries, 33 fathers, 31 brothers; 4 Capuchin monasteries, 33 fathers, 20 brothers; 1 monastery of the Discalced Carmelites, 10 fathers, 4 clerics, 8 brothers; 1 monastery of the Brothers of Mercy, 1 father, 19 brothers; 3 houses of the Jesuits, 45 fathers, 14 brothers; 2 houses of the Redemptorists, 14 fathers, 16 brothers; 2 houses of the Congregation of Mary (Brothers of Mary), 5 fathers, 50 brothers; 1 mission-house of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, 5 fathers, 2 clerics, 3 brothers; 1 house of the Society of the Divine Saviour (Salvatorians), 5 fathers, 20 brothers; 1 institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, 4 brothers. Total: 479 priests, 41 clerics, 205 brothers. The female orders and congregations have numerous houses in the diocese; the members devote themselves mainly to the training and education of girls in boarding-schools, day schools, orphan asylums, etc., and also to nursing the sick: Ursulines, 58 sisters; Sisters of St. Elizabeth, 46 sisters; Discalced Carmelites, 39 sisters in 2 houses; Salesian Nuns, 38 sisters; Redemptorists, 41 sisters; Ladies of Charity of the Good Shepherd, 53; Sisters of Charity of St.Vincent de Paul, 297 in 17 houses; Sisters of Mercy of St. Charles Borromeo, 111 in 44 houses; Sisters of the Holy Cross, 637 in 79 houses; School Sisters of the Third Order of St.Francis, 377 in 39 institutes; School Sisters of Notre Dame, 24 in 2 houses; Sisters of the Third Order of Mount Carmel, 153 in 26 institutes; Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, 25 sisters; Sisters of the Congregation of Christian Charity, 18 sisters. Total: 186 houses with 1917 sisters.

Religious life is in general in a flourishing condition; there are numerous religious associations and brotherhoods. The Piusverein, with its headquarters at Linz, has for its special object the encouragement of the Catholic press. The most important church in the diocese is the new Gothic cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, built from the plans of the Cologne architect, Vincenz Statz. It was begun in 1862 and consecrated in 1905; the tower, 443 feet high, was finished in 1902. The old cathedral, originally the church of the Jesuits, was built in the Barocco style between 1669 and 1682. There are several old collegiate churches (St. Florian, Kremsmünster, Mondsee, Lambach, Garsten, Reichersberg, Wilhering, etc.), originally built in the Romanesque period and nearly all rebuilt in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Barocco style. The most important churches in the Barocco style of architecture are the collegiate churches of St. Florian (1636-1745), and of Baumgartenberg (rebuilt 1684-1718). The most important buildings of the Gothic period are the parish church at Steyr (begun in 1443), with a tower 263 feet high, and the church of the hospital at Braunau on the Inn (1439-92), with a tower 300 feet high. A work of sculpture celebrated in the history of art is the high altar at St. Wolfgang carved by Michael Pacher in 1481.

PILLWEIN, Gesch., Geogr. u. Statistik des Erzherzogtums Oesterreich ob der Enns (5 vols., Linz, 1827-39); Urkundenbuch des Landes ob der Enns (9 vols., Linz, 1852-1906); HITTMAIR, Gesch. des Bistums Linz (Linz, 1885); Die Oesterreich-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild, VI: Oberösterreich und Salzburg (Vienna, 1889); KOLB, Marianisches Oberösterreich (Linz, 1889); HITTMAIR, Der josephinische Klostersturm im Lande ob der Enns (Freiburg, 1907); PACHINGER, Das Linzer Bistum (Linz, 1907); RETTENBACHER, Das bischöfliche Priesterseminar der Diöcese Linz (Linz, 1907); Archiv für Gesch. des Bistums Linz (Linz, 1904--), supplement to the diocesan newspaper; Schematismus der Geistlichkeit der Diöcese Linz für 1910 (Linz, 1910).

JOSEPH LINS

Lippe

One of the Confederate States of the German Empire. The occasional use of the designation "Lippe Detmold" so called after the chief town, to distinguish it from Schaumberg Lippe, is legally inaccurate. It comprises 469 sq. miles and consists of a larger division lying between the Prussian Provinces of Westphalia and Hanover, including the ancient Countships of Lippe, Schwatonberg, and Sternberg and, in addition, of the three exclaves of Grevenhagen, Lipperode, and Cappel, lying in Prussian territory. The principality originated as an immediate suzerainty of the twelfth century, belonging to the lords of Lippe who, in 1529, were counts of the empire. In 1807, by taking part in the Rhenish Confederation the country achieved independence and at the same time became a principality. Since 1815 it had belonged to the German Confederation. In the German War of 1866 Lippe sided with Prussia and became a part of the North German Confederation, and in 1871 of the German Empire. A contest for the throne which had lasted for years was finally settled in 1905, since when Leopold IV (b. 1871) has been reigning prince. In the census of 1 December, 1905, the returns showed 145,577 inhabitants of whom 5,481 were Catholics; 139,127 Protestants; 229 other Christians; 735 Jews, and five members of other religions. The Catholics increased from 2.4% to 3.8% of the population between 1871 and 1905.

From the time of the Reformation the greater part of the country has belonged to the Diocese of Paderborn, smaller portions to Minden and Cologne. The Reformation obtained its first foothold in Lemgo, at that time the most important town in the principality. The ruler, Simon V, in vain endeavoured to suppress the new doctrines. His son and successor, Bernard VIII (1536-63), a minor, was educated a Lutheran. He forced a Lutheran ritual upon the country in 1538. Simon VI (1563-1613) confirmed the reformed doctrines (Calvinism) in 1605, which ever since then have prevailed in the country. Only the city of Lemgo remained Lutheran, in spite of a struggle carried on for ten years with great bitterness between the princes and the city. During the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, the number of Calvinists, even in Lemgo, has exceeded that of the Lutherans. After the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 by which religious matters were settled, the establishment of the Reformation in Lippe was substantially accomplished. In spite of the axiom "cujus regio, ejus religio", and of much persecution and many struggles, there remained a small number of Catholics in Lippe all through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, notably a convent at Falkenhagen established in 1228 and belonging first to the Cistercians, then to the Williamites, and since 1432 to the Knights of the Cross. It was confiscated in 1596, though its possessions fell to the Paderborn Jesuits and only after the Papal suppression of the order, to the reigning house. With the assistance of the Jesuits, particularly Father Tönnemann, the confessor of Charles IV, the reigning count in 1720 obtained the rank of prince, but he did not assume this title because the exchequer could not defray the dues, notwithstanding the fact that, through Father Tönnemann's exertions, they were reduced from 20,000 to 5773 gulden. The letters patent granting the princely title were not redeemed until 1789.

A Catholic community grew up in Lemgo in the eighteenth century. Here in 1774 the Catholics were given the right to practise their religion privately, and in 1786 openly, though under many restrictions. After 1672, when the Catholics of the neighhouing Countship of Ravensburg, which had belonged since 1609 to Brandenburg-Prussia, received their right to public worship, the Franciscans from Bielefeld took charge of the Catholics in Lippe, though able to perform religious duties only in secret. Nominally the Catholics (as well as Lutherans) were allowed free practice of their religion and given full political and civil rights, through their country's participation in the Rhenish (1807) and the German (1815) Confederations. As a matter of fact, the situation remained unchanged. The control of livings exercised by the Calvinists continued in force. In 1821 the Papal Bull "De salute animarum", made over to the See of Paderborn the Lippian parishes of Cappel, Lipperode, and Lippstadt, which had previously belonged to Cologne without producing any ensuing ageement with the State. As a result of this Bull, the Bishop of Paderborn continued as he had formerly done, in spite of numerous protests from the Government, to interest himself in all the Catholics of the country, whose number had greatly increased through immigration.

In the sovereign edict of 9 March, 1854, owing in no small degree to the fairmindedness of the first cabinet minister, Laurenz Hannibal Fischer, the Catholic Church was placed on an equality with the state Calvinist religion. The Lutherans obtained the same status on 15 March, 1854. The diocesan rights of the bishops of Paderborn were recognized. The bishop presented the livings, though the sovereign could reject an unacceptable cand0idate. The parish priest was obloged to take the oath of allegiance to the prince and his dynasty. In mixed marriages the religion in which children were to be educated was settled by agreement between the parents. Should nothing be discussed or decided in the marriage settlements, the children without regard to sex must be brought up in the father's faith. In order to elucidate this measure beyond doubt, the State passed the ordinance of 7 October, 1857, which decreed that ante-nuptial agreements or promises were, from a legal standpoint, null and void. The mixed marriages have resulted in a larger number of Protestant than of Catholic children. In other respects the legislation concerning marriage corresponds throughout to that in the civil code of German Empire. With regard to sepulture, Catholics are free to use the general cemeteries or open special ones for themselves. If Catholics have obtained right of sepulture in a non-Catholic cemetery, the use of the liturgy of their Church is permitted, but if they have not this right notice must be given to the evangelical ministers, and permission obtained. To the five parishes of Detmold, with the subordinate parishes of Horn, Cappel (founded in 784 by Charlemagne), Falkenhagen, Lemgo, and Schwalenberg, were added in 1888, the three parishes of Lage, Lipperode, and Salzuflen. The entire eight were united in 1892 to the deanery of Detmold, presided over by ten priests.

Over and above its obligations to the parish of Falkenhagen, which are based on civil claims, the State pays 300 marks additional salary from the treasury of the confiscated monasteries and institutions to the Catholic rector at Lemgo only. Catholic church property is regulated by the civil code of the German Empire, and the Lippian common law. The only religious community is that of St. Elizabeth's Institute in Detmold, a combined sewing school and protectory conducted by the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (from Paderborn). Concerning orders and congregations there is no provision made by the State. However, article 13 of the edict of 1854 provides that all cases of doubt concerning the application of the said edict or any conflicts over the bounds of episcopal authority, shall be determined by the definitions of the Prussian Constitution of 31 January, 1850. The Catholic schools are private, but the State furnishes half of the salaries and pensions of the teachers. The people of the eight Catholic school districts are exempt from payment of school assessments (Law of 30 Deccember, 1904). Two free Catholic schools (Falkenhagen and Grevenhagen) enjoy the privileges of public primary schools. That of Cappel is a public school, attended by members of different Churches, yet Catholic in character as long as the majority of the inhabitants of the school district are Catholics.

FALKMANN, Beitriäge zur Geschichte des Fürstentums Lippe (Lemgo and Detmold, 1847-1902); SCHWANOLD, Das Fürstentum Lippe, das Land und seine Bewohner (Detmold, 1899); WOKER, Geschichte der norddeutschen Franziskaner-Mission (Freiburg, 1880), 614 sqq., 627 sqq.; GEMMEKE, Geschichte der katholischen Pfarreien in Lippe (Paderborn, 1895); FREISEN, Staat und katholische Kirche in den deutschen Bundesstaaten, I Stuttgart 1906), 1-282.

HERMANN SACHER

Filippino Lippi

Italian painter, son of Filippo Lippi, b. at Prato, in 1458; d. at Florence 18 April, 1515. His father, leaving him an orphan at the age of ten, confided him to the care of Fra Diamante, his best pupil and his friend, who placed the boy in Botticelli's studio. The earliest Works of Filippino now extant are the panels of a cassone, or marriage chest, at Casa Torrigiani, representing the history of Esther. He was only twenty years old when he painted the picture of the "Vision of St. Bernard", preserved at the Badia of Florence, which is perhaps the most charming of all Florentine altarpieces (1480). It is an exquisite song of youth and love. The chaste beauty of the Virgin, her hands of lilylike purity, the tenderly impassioned countenance of the saint, the very realistic and manly portrait of the donor (Francesco del Pugliese), the vast and strange landscape where the apparition takes place — all form an absolutely novel harmony in Florentine painting, and one which Leonardo da Vinci in his "Virgin of the Rocks" did little more than embellish, without allowing the beholder to lose sight of the model.

Having become famous through this picture, the young master was commissioned to complete in the Carmelite church the famous frescoes of the Brancacci chapel, before which the genius of his father had awakened, and which had been interrupted for more than fifty years. On the two pilasters of the entrance he painted the "Visit of St. Paul to St. Peter in Prison" and the "Deliverance of St. Peter"; on the left wall the "Resurrection of the Emperor's Son" (one group of which composition had already been sketched by Masaccio); finally, on the right wall, "Sts. Peter and Paul before the Proconsul" and the "Crucifixion of St. Peter". With marvellous suppleness the young artist adapted himself to the style of this grandiose cycle, and composed in the same tone a continuation not unworthy of the beginning, and in harmony with the grave and classic genius of Masaccio. But he sought this harmony only in the general outlines, and (like his father, in the "Death of St. Stephen") he introduced into scenes from the Acts of the Apostles a gallery of contemporary costumes and portraits. Among these portraits Vasari mentions Soderini, P. Cuicciardini (father of the historian), Francesco del Pugliese, the poet Luigi Pulci, Sandro Botticelli, Antonio Pollaijuolo, and, lastly, the author himself.

The young master was of a nervous, mobile, impressionable temperament, susceptible to every influence, as well as marvellously gifted and an artist to his finger tips; his face showed lively intelligence; his genius was hospitable to all types of beauty, however diverse, welcoming all with a strange, youthful ardour. Still, his later work never equalled the happy grace of his earliest efforts. His picture painted in 1485 for the altar of the Signory, the "Virgin between Sts. John the Baptist, Victor, Bernard, and Zanobi" (Uffizi, shows an exaltation of tone and a metallic dryness beyond the most glaring and the sharpest of Botticelli's works. Shortly afterwards Filippino went to Rome to paint, at the Minerva, the frescoes of the "Life of St. Thomas Aquinas" (1487-93). This work is very powerful, and enough has not been said of Raphael's indebtedness to it for his first ideas for the "School of Athens" and the "Disputa". These frescoes mark an important period in the artist's development. At Rome the antique inspired him, not as an historian, a humanist, or a scholar, but as a painter and a poet who discovered in it new elements of delight. The antique appeared to him as an inexhaustible source of the picturesque: the rich ornamentation with its foliage, garlands, masks, trophies, was like a new toy in his hands, he even enriched it still more with whatever he could find of Oriental luxury — Moorish, Chinese. "It is marvellous", writes Vasari, to see the strange fancies which he has expressed in his painting. He was always introducing vases, foot-gear, temple-ornaments, head-dresses, strange trappings, armour, trophies, scimitars, swords, togas, cloaks, and an array of things so various and so beautiful that we owe him to-day a great and eternal obligation for all the beauty and ornamentation that he thus added to our art."

To these antique influences were soon added those of German engraving, so widespread at that time. The trace of them is visible in the "Adoration of the Magi" (Uffizi), painted in 1495 for the Convent of Scopeto. This is an astonishing picture, full of confusion and oddities, eccentric, disjointed in composition, and crowded with admirable trifles and accessories. Of all Filippino's works it is perhaps the most hybrid and composite. At Prato, however, he sometimes recovered momentarily a pure inspiration as in the "Virgin with Four Saints", a fresco in a niche at the market corner (1498); it is one of his simplest and most delightful figures. His last important work was the decoration of the Strozzi chapel at Sta. Maria Novella, completed in 1502, which shows on the ceiling figures of patriarchs, and on both walls episodes from the lives of St. John and St. Philip. Nowhere else is the strange, theatrical character of his imagination so strongly shown as in this composition, in which there is, nevertheless, much of grace, movement, and lyricism. In the scene "St. Philip forcing an exorcized demon to enter the idol of Mars", the Apostle uses so commanding a gesture that Raphael has reproduced it in his "Preaching of St. Paul". Here the brilliant and fantastic architecture suggests some dream city or magic temple. Its glitter and profusion of ornament, its waving lines and undulating surfaces, foreshadow the style of Bernini and Borromini; and yet some of the patriarchs, such as the Adam and Jacob, possess an ascetic and meditative grandeur which foreshadow the Prophets of the Sistine Chapel, while some of the female figures are the closest approach to the "St. Anne and the Virgin" of Leonardo.

Filippino had no pupils of distinction. It cannot even be said that he founded a tradition; he himself was too much dominated by the influence of others. But of the generation immediately preceding the great works of Michelangelo and Leonardo, of that restless and subtile, complex and nervous generation of Botticelli and Cosimo Roselli, lie is perhaps the most varied, the most gifted, and the most lovable.

VASARI, ed. MILANESI, Vite, II, III (Florence, 1878); CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Hist. of Painting in Italy (London, 1864-66); RUMOH, Italienische Forschunqen, II (Leipzig, --); MÜNTZ, Hist. de l'art italien pendant la Renaissance (Paris, --); GOONCHENS, L'age d'Or (Paris, 1891) PEPINO, Archivio storico dell'arte (Florence 1889); LAFENESTRE, La Peintire italienne (Paris).

LOUIS GILLET

Filippo Lippi

Italian painter, b. at Florence about 1406; d. at Spoleto, 9 October, 1469. Left an orphan at the age of two he was cared for by an aunt who being too poor to rear him placed him at the age of eight in the neighbouring Carmelite convet, where he was educated. At the age of fifteen he received the habit, and at sixteen pronounced his vows (1421). At this time Masolino and Masaccio undertook in the Carmelite church those frescoes of the Brancacci chapel (1423-28), which brought about a revolution in the Florentine school. This event decided Lippi's vocation. Perhaps he even worked in the Brancacci chapel under the direction of the two masters but nothing remains of the cameo frescoes which he executed in the cloister.

A life of adventure was about to begin for the young Carmelite. Vasari's account of a journey to Ancona, during which, in the course of a sea-trip, he was seized by Barbary pirates and held captive for two years, is assuredly nothing but a romance. It is not likely that he was at Padua in 1434; on the contrary everything proves that at that date he was not absent from Florence, where he had already acquired a great reputation. Cosmo de' Medici commanded him to paint for his private oratory the charming "Madonna" of the Uffizi, and for his wife's the "Nativity" of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. In 1438 he painted the retable of San Spirito, now at the Louvre, and the "Coronation of the Blessed Virgin", ordered by Charles Marsuppini, and preserved at Rome in the Lateran museum. In 1441 he painted a variation of the same subject at the Academy of Florence for the religious of S. Ambrogio, receiving 1200 livres for it. Lastly, in 1447 he painted for the Chapel of the Signiory the wonderful "Vision of St. Bernard" now in the National Gallery. In the midst of all these labours the painter could not have taken long journeys. The great artist lived in the continual embarrassments caused by his deplorable morals. Never was anyone less fitted for religious life. His portraits show us a flat-nosed individual with a jesting, but vicious looking, thick-lipped, sensual face. To compel him to work Cosmo de' Medici was forced to lock him up, and even then the painter escaped by a rope made of his sheets. His escapades threw him into financial difficulties from which he did not hesitate to extricate himself by forgery. Callistus III was obliged to deprive this unworthy monk, "who perpetrated many nefarious crimes", of a benefice. In 1452 the Carmelite was requested by the commons of Prato to paint the choir of the cathedral.

At length, despite his evil reputation, Lippi succeeded in having himself appointed chaplain of a congregation of Augustinians. Here his misbehaviour was no less flagrant than elsewhere. It is significant and shows plainly what were the ideas of the Renaissance that Lippi was not punished for his bad conduct. Glory or genius then constituted a soil of privilege and a warrant of impunity. Talent placed its possessor beyond and above the moral law. Not only did Cosmo di' Medici make merry over what he called the "folly of the frater" (Letter of J. de Medici, 27 May, 1458), but Pope Pius II thought he could do no better than to release him from his vows and permit him to marry. A son, Filippino Lippi, had already been born to him. He afterwards had a daughter (1465). In the midst of these intrigues and disorders Filippo continued to paint his greatest works. From this period, indeed, (1452-64) date, besides several pictures of the Prato Museum, his works at the cathedral, which are perhaps the chief work of the second generation of the Renaissance, before the decorations of the Sistine chapel and the frescoes of Ghirlandajo at Sta Maria Novella. The theme of these paintings is borrowed from the lives of St. John Baptist and St. Stephen. The two most celebrated scenes represent the "Feast of Herod with the dance of Salome", and the "Death of St. Stephen". Both have remained classics. In his "Salome" the painter has in fact created the leading type which owes nothing to the chastely observed formulæ of the preceding age, and which in its voluptuous grace, the delicate and rare arabesques of its draperies, and the affected arrangement of the coils of the head-dress, became the favourite type of Botticelli's "Judith" and "Daughters of Jethro". His "Death of St. Stephen" on the other hand shows us a magnificent architectural study, which reproduces the outlines of the nave of S. Lorenzo, one of the earliest examples of great monumental composition and majestic symmetry in a portrait scene, such as those which were later to form the glory of Ghirlandajo.

This was the period at which Filippo's talent grew and broadened and seemed to reach its even perfection. His last works, the "Death and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin", at the cathedral of Spoleto, are also his noblest and most strongly conceived. He did not have time to complete them. His pupils, especially his friend Fra Diamante, finished the remainder of the work (an Annunciation and a Nativity) after his death. He was buried in the cathedral of Spoleto, the inhabitants of the city having refused to allow Florence to remove the ashes of so great a man. Lorenzo de' Medici erected his tomb at his own expense, and Angelo Poliziano composed his epitaph.

In the evolution of the Renaissance Fra Filippo played a part of the utmost importance. This man of fiery passions is one of the great workmen of art. He is the incarnation of the invincible naturalness of this period. His power springs exactly from the attitude of instinct and spontaneity, and is not at all the result of a system or a theory. It is a great plebeian force, tumultuous and unconscious, let loose through art and life. Nothing equals the ingenuity and the sort of innocence of his love of nature. This monk without rule or cloister possesses literally the senses of a primitif. He adores everything, the commonest herb and the least flower. Certain of his pictures, such as the "Nativity", in the Louvre, contain an amount of documents and a collection of studies, birds, lizards, sheep, plants, stones, still-life, which equal the contents of ten albums of a Japanese artist. He was an indefatigable student of the universe. He embraced life in all its forms with the candour of a child, as well as the eyes of a naturalist and a miniaturist. Hence the extreme poetry of his early pictures. The "Nativity", in Berlin, is a sylva rerum unequalled in art. No one has ever done more to bring art closer to life and to make it the complete mirror of reality, which accounts for the good humour and novel familiarity of his touch. One cannot be astonished at the enthusiasm aroused by his fervent works. His art is like a window looking out upon a flower garden and exhibiting all its beauties.

Filippo afterwards lost something of this charming freshness. A more scholarly generation, the school of Castagno and Uccello, began to appear. He borrowed from it his passion for rigorous form and for extreme linear definition. By dint of pursuing the true he arrived at crudity, sometimes at grimace and caricature. There is nothing more vulgar than certain of Filippo's angels, the models of which were taken from among the rabble of Florence. His colour began to decompose and took on a hard and metallic reflection. But this was only a crisis. At Prato and Spoleto, though under the influence of pedantic theories he receovered himself, but ripened and transformed. He regained even in the labour and exigencies of fresco, the decorative sense and the great laws of composition imparted by his first masters, Masaccio and Masolino. His naturalism tempered by artistic feeling inspired him with the most beautiful masterpieces; and as his early and descriptive paintings were to be the inspiration of Benozzo Gozzoli, so the author of the frescoes of Prato and Spoleto was to inspire Ghirlandajo and Botticelli. It will be readily understood that his contemporaries did not rigorously condemn the errors of the poor Carmelite, since he was always so great a painter and was in the end so perfect an artist.

      Vasari, ed. Milanesi, II (Florence, 1878); Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Storia della Pintura in Italia (Florence, 1892), V, VI; Muntz, Histoire de l'art pendant la renaissance, les primitifs (Paris, 1889); Baldanzi, Relazione della pitture di Fra Filippo Lippi nel coro della cattedrale di Prato (Prato, 1835); Milanesi in L'Art (30 Dec., 1877; 6 and 7 Jan., 1878); Mendelsohn, Fra Filippo Lippo (Berlin, 1909).

Louis Gillet

Luigi Lippomano

(Or Aloisius Lipomanus Lippomano).

A cardinal, hagiographer, b. in 1500; d. 15 August, 1559. Of a noble Venetian family, he devoted himself from his youth to the study of the classical languages and later to the pursuit of the sacred sciences. Distinguished for his piety and integrity of character, he was among the first in Rome to join the "Oratorio della Carità" founded by St. Cajetan of Tiene, and composed of distinguished men, who in the Roman Curia were the leaven of Church reform, and afterwards took a prominent part in the Council of Trent. He was consecrated titular Bishop of Methone (1538), and appointed coadjutor to his uncle Pietro Lippomano, Bishop of Bergamo, who was also active in Catholic reform. When Pietro was transferred to Verona (1544), Luigi accompanied him and succeeded him in that see in 1548, whence he was transferred to Bergamo in 1558. In 1542 Paul III sent him as nuncio to Portugal to announce the convocation of the Council of Trent, where he arrived in 1547 and was commissioned to present to the pope the reasons for transferring the council to Bologna. In 1548 he was sent with Bertano and Pighi to Germany. From 1551 he was one of the presidents of the council until its suspension (25 April, 1552), during that period the dogmatic decrees on the Eucharist, penance, and extreme unction were published, as well as several decrees on reform. In 1556 Paul IV sent him as nuncio to Poland, where, on account of his lively opposition to the pretensions of the Protestant nobility, his life was frequently threatened. After his return to Rome he remained in the Curia until his death. Amid his numerous official duties, he did not neglect his studies, which, however, he directed towards spiritual edification. Thus he wrote "Catenae in Genesin" (Paris, 1546), "In Exodum" (Paris, 1550) — both works republished at Rome in 1557; "Confirmazione e stabilimento di tutti li dogmi cattoliei . . . contro i novatori" (Venice, 1553). His chief work was "Sanctorum priscorum patrum vitae" (8 vols., Venice, 1551-60; 2 vols., Louvain 1564), for which he engaged the services of many learned men, and himseIf, on his travels, searched libraries and archives. This collection gave a great impulse to scientific hagiography, and opened the way for Surius and the Bollandists.

FOSCARINI, Della letteratura veneta (Venice, 1854); UGHELLI, Italia sacra, IV (2nd ed.) 497-9; STREBER in Kirchenlex., s. v.: Diaria Conc. Trid., I-II (Freiburg, 1901-4), passim.

U. BENIGNI

Lipsanotheca

A term sometimes used synonymously with reliquary, but signifying, more correctly, the little box containing the relics, which is placed inside the reliquary.

Justus Lipsius

(JOSSE LIPS)

A philologian and humanist of the Netherlands, b. at Overyssche, 18 Oct., 1547; d. at Louvain, 23 March, 1606. Descended from an illustrious family, he studied first at Ath, and afterwards at the Jesuit College, Cologne. He wished to enter the Society of Jesus on 29 Sept., 1562, and become a novice. But this displeased his father, who recalled him and sent him to study law and literature at Louvain. In this university Pierre Nannius (Nanninck) had established in the Collegium Trilingue a fine seminary of philology, which was at the time directed by Valerius (Corneille Wouters). There Lipsius found companions such as Louis Carrion Jean Dousa, Martin Delrio, Andre Schott. He ardently took up the emendation and critical examination of Latin texts, especially of Cicero, Propertius, and Varro, and, as early as 1566, had collected three books of "Variae Lectiones", which were published in 1569 at Antwerp, dedicated to Cardinal Granvelle. The latter, who was in Rome, made him his Latin secretary (1569-70). Lipsius returned to Louvain, but left it again in 1571, alarmed by the government of the Duke of Alba. He made a more or less prolonged stay at Liège, Dole, Vienna, and Jena. In the last city he became a Lutheran, and, all through the constant changes of confessions of faith and religious tendencies, he was careful to be constantly with the masters of the moment. On a visit to Cologne he met a widow, a native of Louvain, and married her although she was older than he (1573). She refused to accompany him to Jena and he resigned his professorship there in February, 1574. Settled at Cologne he supervised the publication of his "Tacitus" (Antwerp, 1574). He was the first scholar to differentiate the "Annals" from the "History", and although he did not have access to the principal manuscripts — the two Medicean manuscripts — he introduced in his text over 450 emendations, which have been accepted by all subsequent editors. It was only much later for his fourth edition (1605), that he became acquainted with these manuscripts through the Pichena edition (1600). He also deserves commendation for his use of inscriptions in the explanation of texts. At the same time appeared "Antiquae lectiones" (Antwerp, 1575), miscellaneous criticisms devoted mainly to Plautus, to the fragmentary works of archaic authors, or to Propertius.

Lipsius was lecturing at Louvain during the following years (1576-77), but the victory of Don John of Austria forced him to go over to Leyden where he taught in the newly founded university (1578-91). During this period he published collections of his letters, new conjectures, antiquarian dissertations, and two new editions of Tacitus with an historical commentary. Apart from the philological works, he composed treatises on politics and ethics; of these the treatise on constancy (De Constantia, Antwerp, 1584) is the best known, and has had thirty-two editions without including the translations. However, Leyden was not favourable to his health, and he and his wife regretted their native town. He had already made an attempt to get away in 1586. The States and the city did their utmost to detain him. In 1590 Dirk Coornhert publicly called upon him to take sides in the religious controversies. Lipsius answered evasively and tried to dissemble. Finally, he left the city and became reconciled with Catholicism in the Jesuit Chapel at Mainz (April, 1591). He went to Spain in search of health, and during a sojourn at Liège he prepared new works, drew from a psalter of the ninth century Frankish glosses of great interest, and was finally forgiven for his stay in an heretical country rebellious to the King of Spain. From that time began a new period in Lipsius's life. Coldly received at first by some of his compatriots, but encouraged by a few warm admirers, he was appointed professor of history and Latin at the Collegiurn Trilingue of Louvain (1592), then historiographer to the King of Spain (1595), and later honorary member of the State Council (1605). To give a proof of his piety, he wrote the "De Cruce" (1593), in which confusion between patibulum and crux often make the conclusions debatable.

Lipsius contemplated writing a general treatise on Roman antiquities (Fax historica), and, as a result of his studies, produced treatises on the army ("Demilitia romana", Antwerp, 1595) and on the defence and attack of fortified towns ("Poliorceticon", Antwerp, 1596), a kind of statistical work on the Roman Empire ("Admiranda," 1598), short dissertations upon libraries, upon Vesta, and the Vestals (1602). However, every now and then, his religious wanderings were recalled to the public mind. He succeeded in producing the impression that one of his former discourses of Jena "De duplici concordia", published at Zurich in 1599, was not his. He himself called forth the sneers and the refutations of the Protestants by describing the veneration and the miracles of Our Lady of Hal (1604), and of Our Lady of Montaigu (1605). His coreligionists greatly respected and trusted him. In 1599 Archduke Albert and his wife Isabella, having come on a visit to Louvain, expressed the wish to have him prepare a Latin oration, which he did within two hours. He chose as a subject the greatness of a prince, from a passage of Seneca (De Clementia, I, iii). Many imaginary accounts have been given of this speech, Lipsius did not broach the subect of clemency, and still less did he interrupt one of his lectures to bring it up before the princes. The discourse was published in 1600, with Pliny's panegyric of Trajan and a commentary on this work. But Lipsius's most important works of this period were on Seneca and Stoicism. He wished to explain in detail the Stoic philosophy, for which he professed the greatest admiration, objecting only to its toleration of suicide. He has time only for a general outline of the system and of its place in ancient philosophy ("Manuductionis ad stoicam philosophiam libri III", 1604), and an analysis of the theology, the physics, and the cosmology of the Stoics ("Physiologiae stoicorum libri III", 1604); he had not time to write the ethics. Nevertheless these two works are even to-day the most complete treatise ever written on Stoicism as a whole. The "Seneca" glass published in 1605 with a dedication to Pope Paul V. Unfortunately, Lipsius was misled by a poor manuscript which he believed excellent, and the commentary concerns the Epistles to Lucilius only. His last work was a description and history of Louvain (1605).

Before his death he gave solemn expression to his faith. His manuscripts have been in the Leyden library since 1722. There have been four editions of his complete works (Lyons, 1613; Antwerp, 1614; Antwerp, 1637, a very fine one; Wesel, 1675). In religion, for a long time, Lipsius held aloof from both parties. His "Politica" (1589) were considered too severe in Holland and too tolerant at Rome. He escaped being placed on the Index only by accepting torture as a legitimate last resort to bring back heretics (1593). He believed, however, in sorcerers, in charms and spells, and in the commerce of witches with devils, from which children were born (Phys. stoic., p. 61) His philological work is brilliant, but at times superficial. He knew little Greek, but was well acquainted with Roman antiquity. His "Tacitus" is a masterpiece of discernment and erudition. His Latin style is peculiar. He chose to imitate the style of Tacitus and Apuleius, which caused him to he criticised by Henry Estienne (1595). Notwithstanding some imperfections, he is, with Joseph Scaliger, Casaubon, and Saumaise, one of the most eminent representatives of classical philology between 1550 and 1650.

ROERSCH in Bibliogr. rationale publiee par l'Academie de Belgique, XII (Brussels, 1892), 239; VAN DER HAEGEN, Bibliogr. lipsienne in Bibl. belgica (Ghent, 1886-8); autobiography of Lipsius in Epistolarum centuria miscella, III, 87; HALM in Allg. deutsche Biogr. XVIII, 741; NISARD, Le triumvirat litteraire du XVIe siecle, J. Lipse, J. Scaliger, et Casaubon (Paris, 1852); URLICHS, Gesch. der klass. Altertumswissenschaft in MULLER, Handbuch, I (2nd ed. Munch, 1891), 62; SANDYS, A history of classical scholarship, II, (Cambridge, 1908), 301.

PAUL LEJAY

Patriarchate of Lisbon

Patriarchate of Lisbon (Lisbonensis).

Includes the districts of Lisbon and Santarem. The area of the district of Lisbon is 3065 sq. miles; pop. 709,509 (1900). Area of Santarem 2,555 sq. miles; pop. 283,154.

Lisbon is said to owe its origin to Ulysses, and hence its oldest name Ulisaypo or Olissipo, which became on Phœnecian lips Alisubbo, meaning the "friendly bay". Its charm was acknowledged by the Romans in the name they gave it, Felicitas Julia; and when the Moors came they changed it back to Al Aschbuna, a variant of the Poœnician title. From Alisubbo and Al Aschbuna we have the later name Lissabona, whence the modern Portuguese Lisboa and the English Lisbon. It lies on the north bank of the Tagus, 12 miles from the open sea, clustered around seven hills that rise above one another, ending in the Serra of Cintra.

The town was taken by the Moors in 716 and remained in their possession until 1145, when Alfonso Henriques with the assistance of an army of Crusaders, English, Normans and Flemings bound for the Holy Land, drove out the invaders, and removed the capital of the country from Coimbra to Lisbon. An English monk named Gilbert who was with the expedition was chosen Bishop of Lisbon at this time. On two occasions the city suffered from disastrous earthquakes; in 1531 more than 1500 houses were destroyed, besides many churches and palaces. On 1 Novembner, 1755, a second disastrous earthquake shook the city and more than 30,000 of the inhabitants perished. To add to the misery, a fire broke out which lasted four days. Carvalho, Marquis of Pombal, at that time Minister of War, took charge of the panic-stricken city, and having extinguished the flames, drew up plans for the rebuilding of Lisbon. A bronze equestrian statue of King José with a medallion of Pombal, was erected in the new Praça do Commercio to commemorate the rebuilding. Except in this new quarter, around the Praça do Commercio, the streets of Lisbon are irregular and steep, but there is an elaborate electric trolley sylstem connecting all parts of the town, and the ascensores or giant lifts help to overcome the difficulties of high and low levels. There are fountains everywhere and the streets are lined by trees, of which the olaia or judas-tree is the most common. The oldest portion of Lisbon is along the steep slopes of the Castello de S. Jorge, which had been the stronghold of the Moors. In the neighbourhood of the Cathedral or Sé, Roman remains have been found including the ruins of a Roman Theatre. The Sé or Cathedral of Santa Maria is the oldest church in Lisbon; it dates back to the year 306. It served as a mosque for the Moors during their occupation of the city, and the façade with its towers and massive portico was rebuilt during the fourteenth century. It has been restored many times.

Outside what were the old walls of Lisbon stands the church of S. Vincente da Fora (St. Vincent's without) with a monastery attached, which is now the residence of the Patriarch of Lisbon. The church contains the mortuary chapel of the Kings of the House of Braganza, and the great constable Nuno. Alvara Pariera lies buried here. St. Vincent is the patron saint of Lisbon; he was martyred for the Faith under Diocletian. According to the legend, his body was attached to a millstone and flung into the sea (336), but was miraculously discovered on the sands at Valencia by some Christians of that place. In the eighth century the Moors took Valencia, and the inhabitants fled by sea, taking the relics of St. Vincent with them. They were driven ashore on the coast of Algarve at the cape now known as Cape St. Vincent, and there they remained until D. Alfonso Henriques had expelled the Moors from Lisbon, when they were brought from Cape Saint Vincent and deposited in the cathedral he had just built. At this same time Alfonso began the building of the Cistercian monastery of Alcobaca, in fulfilment of a vow he had made to build a monastery for St. Bernard's monks, if he were successful in his war against the Moors. The Castello of S. Jorge was built in the time of Julius Cæsar, and strengthened by the Moors, who held out there against the assault of Alfonso Henriques. It had three towers, known as Ulysses, Albarram, and Managem, but every trace of them disappeared in the earthquake of 1755. It was the royal residence until the Spanish kings of Portugal chose the famous Paco do Terriero which was ruined in 1755. Don João I made St. George its patron saint; he had married an English princess, Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt. The procession on the feast of Corpus Christi from the Castello to the church of S. Domingo was a brilliant one in former years. St. George, lance in hand and on horseback in heavy armour, was personated by one of the faithful and his standard was borne before him by another rider. King and court all took part in this procession, the patriarch carrying the sacred Host.

THE MODERN CITY

The church of St. Roque looks onto a square of its own name; it contains the chapel of St. John the Baptist, built in Rome from designs by the architect Vaneteli. Its costly marbles and mosaic reproductions of paintings by Guido Reni, Raphael, and Michelangelo took ten years to complete. Close by is the Casa de Unisencordia, a hospital and an orphanage. Near at hand is the Graca church and convent (now a barracks) facing the city. The church contains a remarkable crucifix known as Nosser Senhor dos Passos da Graca. The church of the Carmo, a beautiful relic of Portuguese Gothic, is now a museum. Belem, a suburb of Lisbon, contains the church and monastery of Santa Maria, known locally as the Jeronymos. The old name of Belem was Restello, and it was from here that Vasco da Gama set out to discover a sea route to India. A chapel had been built on the spot by Prince Henry the Navigator, and to it king and court went in procession, 8 July, 1497. On that same day Vasco da Gama embarked; he returned in September, 1499, having rounded the Cape of Good Hope. To immortalize the event King Manuel built a monastery near Prince Henry's chapel, changed the name of the locality from Restello to Belem or Bethlehem, and gave the new building to the monks of St. Jerome; hence the name Jeronymos. The first stone was laid in 1500. The building is of white stone from the quarries of Estramadura, and the foundations were laid on piles of pinewood. The style of architecture is pure Manueline (a mixture of Gothic, Renaissance, and Moorish) and the doorway is exuberantly decorated. The church is fast beoming a mausoleum of celebrated men. It contains the tombs of Vasco da Gama, of Camões, the great poet, and of Almeida Garrett, the chief Portuguese poet of the nineteenth century. In the chapter house of the monastery is the tomb of Alexandro Herculano, greatest of Portuguese historians. The columned arches of the cloisters are decorated with the twisted cable moulding so common in Manueline buildings. High above Belem stands the Ajuda Palace, built early in the nineteenth century to replace the royal palace which had been destroyed by the earthquake of 1755. It is a conspicuous edifice and is one of the first seen on entering the port of Lisbon. The actual residence of the royal family is the Palace of the Necessidades. Since 1834 the Cortes, a generic designation for the Constitutional Chambers of peers and deputies, occupies the monastery of San Bento. The actual number of deputies is 148, elected by the people, whereas the chamber of peers consists of nominated members appointed by the crown, and none of them under 40 years of age. One of the most remarkable monuments connected with the city is the Acueducto das Aguas Livras (built in 1713), which reaches a distance of ten miles to Chellos.

Near the Estrella Gardens is a Protestant cemetery containing the tomb of Henry Fielding, the English novelist, who died in Lisbon in 1754. This part of the city also contains the Basilica of the SS. Corãcao de Jesus with its commanding cupola of white marble. The old Franciscan convent has been turned into a museum of fine arts; and a portion of the building contains the National Library of Lisbon, where are stored about 300,000 volumes, besides many rare manuscripts. The first book printed by Guttenberg is shown there, and a Bible from the same press. It also contains books from the Duke of Northumberland's library brought to Lisbon when the nuns of Sion were driven out of England during the Reformation. The largest church in Lisbon is S. Domingo in the Praça do Rocio. It was dedicated in 1241, and has undergone many changes. The kings of Portugal are usually married there, and it was the former church of the Inquisition. In 1761 it witnessed the auto da fé of Father Malagrida the Jesuit, who was falsely accused of complicity in a plot against Pombal's life.

Except around the Praça do Commercio, nearly all the important buildings of Lisbon are or have been churches and monasteries. Since their suppression, 28 May, 1834, the monasteries have been mainly used as barracks. The Catholic Faith is the State religion, but all other forms of worship are tolerated, and in government circles the feeling is anti-clerical if not anti-religious. The press is represented by two able journals, the "Diario dos Noticias" and "O Seculo". The population of Lisbon in 1900 was computed at 357,000. The present King of Portugal is Manuel II, born 15 November, 1889, who succeeded to the throne on the assassination of his father and elder brother 1 February, 1908. The reigning dynasty belongs to the House of Braganza-Coburg; John IV of Braganza having expelled the Spanish from Lisbon in 1640, and Maria II of Braganza, having married Fernando, Prince of Coburg-Gotha, in the middle of the nineteenth century.

The Avenida da Libertade is one of the new boulevards. It begins at the Praçado Restoradores, which commemorates Portugal's Independence Day, 1 Dec., 1640, when the Duke of Braganza freed the land from Spanish domination. The avenue is lined with trees and subtropical plants and is divided by flower-beds and rockeries into three arteries to facilitate traffic. Twenty years ago all this district did not exist, and as in the newer quarters in Rome, there has been some overbuilding. Behind the Avenida lie the Botanical Gardens with their leafy lanes and wealth of tropical vegetation. The Praça do Principe Real, a few minutes' walk from the gardens, stands on the site of the Sé Patriarchal, built by João V (1706-1750), as the cathedral of Western Lisbon, and destroyed by fire during the great earthquake. The port of Lisbon, one of the safest and most commodious roadsteads in the world, is annually entered and cleared by an average of 6000 vessels sailing under every flag. The chief manufactures of the neighbourhood are pottery, woollens, glass, preserved food, and fish. The wine trade of Lisbon is also important. Besides the public buildings referred to, the Academia Real, the Escola Polytechnica (580 pupils), and the Escola Medico-Cirurgica (224 pupils), as well as the observatory, deserve mention. Lisbon has also a military school (339 students), a school of fine arts (69 students), and a Conservatorio (503 students). Lisbon was occupied by the French in 1807, but the English took it in 1808 and made it a centre of operations against Napoleon during the Peninsular War.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

The See of Lisbon dates from early Christian times, and tradition has enshrined the names of its bishops as far back as the sub-Apostolic epoch. It seems certain that a St. Potamius, who took part in the Council of Rimini (356), was Bishop of Lisbon. Other bishops are mentioned up to the year 716 when Lisbon passed into the hands of the Moors and the see reamined vacant till 1147. Before the Moorish conquest the diocese was suffragan of Merida; the liberation under Alfonso I took place in 1147, and in 1199 Lisbon was made suffragan of Compostela. At the request of King John I, Pope Boniface IX, by Bull dated 10 November, 1394, erected Lisbon into an archdiocese and gave it as suffragans, Coimbra, Leiria, Guarda, Evora, and Silves (in 1396, however, Evora was detached by the same pope) and the first archbishop was John Anes. Among his more famous successors were Roderiguez da Cunha (1636) and Cardinal Luiz da Souza (1676). As Portugal grew in political importance and colonial possessions, the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Lisbon expanded, and we learn from Stadel, "Compend. Geogr. Eccles." (1712) that Coimbra, Leiria, Portalegre, Elvas, Funchal, Angra, Congo, St. James of Cape Verde, San Thomé, and Baia of All Saints were suffragans of Lisbon. As a reward for assistance against the Turks, Clement XI in 1708 raised the Chapel of the Royal Palace to Collegiate rank and associated with it three parishes in the dioceses of Braganza and Lamego. Later in that same year, yielding to the request of John V, he issued the Bull "In Supremo Apostolatus Solio" (22 Oct., 1716), known as the Golden Bull, because the seal or bulla was affixed with gold instead of lead, giving the collegiate chapel cathedral rank, with metropolitical rights, and conferring on its titular the rank of patriarch. The town of Lisbon was ecclesiastically divided into Eastern and Western Lisbon. The former Archbishop of Lisbon retained jurisdiction over Eastern Lisbon, and had as suffragans Guarda, Portalegre, St. James of Cape Verde, San Thomé, and San Salvator in Congo. Western Lisbon and metropolital rights over Leiria, Lamego, Funchal, and Angra, together with elaborate privileges and honours were granted to the new patriarch and his successors. It was further agreed between pope and king that the Patriarch of Lisbon should be made a cardinal at the first consistory following his appointment. The first Patriarch of Lisbon was a saintly man, Thomas d'Almeyda, formerly Bishop of Porto, and he was raised to the cardinalate 20 Dec., 1737. There thus existed side by side in the city of Lisbon two metropolitical churches. To obviate the inconvenience of this arrangement Benedict XIV (13 Dec., 1740) united East and West Lisbon into one single archdiocese under Patriarch d'Almeyda, who ruled the see until 1754. The double chapter however remained until 1843, when the old cathedral chapter was dissolved by Gregory XVI. It was during the patriarchate of Cardinal d'Almeyda (1746) that the famous chapel of Saint John the Baptist, now in the church of São Roque, was built in Rome at the expense of King John V, and consecrated by Pope Benedict XIV.

At what date the patriarchs of Lisbon began to quarter the tiara with three crowns, though without the keys, on their coat of arms is uncertain and there are no documents referring to the grant of such a privilege. By Apostolic letters dated 30 Sept., 1881 the metropolitan of Lisbon claims as suffragans the Dioceses of Angola, St. James of Cape Verde, San Thomé, Egitan, Portalegre, Angra, Funchal. The archdiocese comprises the civil districts of Lisbon and Santarem, and has a Catholic population of 728,739. The estimated number of Protestants and Jews is 5000. The total number of parishes is 341, of priests 662, and of churches and chapels 1555. The present patriarch is Antonio Mendes Bello, who was born at Gouvea in the Diocese of Guarda in June, 1842, appointed Archbishop of Mitylene 24 March, 1884, translated to Faro 13 Nov., 1884, and appointed patriarch of Lisbon, 19 Dec., 1907, in succession to cardinal Neto, who resigned. The patriarch is assisted by an auxiliary bishop, Mgr. José Alves de Mattos, titular Archbishop of Mitylene. Cardinal Neto, the ex-patriarch, was born at Lagos in the Diocese of Faro, 8 Feb., 1841; was ordained in 1863; joined the Order of Friars Minor in 1875; was appointed Bishop of Angola and Congo in 1879; became Patriarch of Lisbon in 1883; was named Cardinal of the Title of the Twelve Apostles, 24 March, 1884, and at present ranks as senior cardinal priest. He resigned his patriarchate in November, 1907, and retired to a convent of his own order in Lisbon. In 1624 a college for English students desiring to study for the priesthood and for mission work in England, was founded in Lisbon by Pietro Catinho, a member of an illustrious family. It is known as SS. Peter and Paul's and has the same rights and privileges as the English College, Rome. It suffered severely from the earthquake of 1755, but continues its work to this day, and is now governed by Monsignor Hilton, who was born in 1825; educated at Lisbon; ordained 1850; served some time on the mission in the Diocese of Shrewsbury, England; made a domestic prelate in 1881; and returned to Lisbon as president in 1883. A college for Irish students was founded by royal charter in 1593; it escaped all injury from the earthquake, but was closed during the civil wars in Portugal in the nineteenth century and has never been reopened. A convent of Irish Dominican monks and another of Irish Dominican nuns exist in Lisbon to this day.

SANTAREM

The ancient Scalabis, the Præsidium Julium of the Romans, and capital fo the district of Santarem lies on the right bank of the Tagus about 46 miles from Lisbon. The population in 1901 was 9400. It does a large trade in wine and oil, and is the vegetable garden of Lisbon. In the sixteenth century it was of more importance than nowadays, and its population stood at 21,000. A long narrow bridge spans the Tagus, and on a rock in the river stands the castle of Almourel, a building in Gothic architecture. Roman relics unearthed in the vicinity incline archæologists to the opinion that the noted Nabantia of the Romans and Goths stood there. The Franciscan convent is now a barracks, and the convent of Santa Iria or Irene is in ruins. Saint Irene (whence the name of the town Santarem) is said to have been the niece of the prior of the Benedictine monastery when the Goths ruled that portion of Portugal.

Inchbold, Lisbon and Cintra (New York, 1908); Stephens, Portugal (London, 1903); Adam, La patrie portuguaise (Paris, 1896); Crawford, Portugal Old and New (London, 1880); Annuaire Pontificale (1910); Gerarchia (1910).

J.C. Grey.

Lismore

DIOCESE OF LISMORE (LISMORENSIS)

The Diocese of Lismore extends over a territory of 21,000 squire miles in the nort-east of New South Wales (Australia). It comprises a portion of the Eastern Coast district, from Point Danger on the Queensland border to the north of Mount Lindsay, and from the western base of the latter to a point ten miles south of Mount Seaview, thence to a point ten miles south of Port Macquarie. The diocese is watered by the Macleay, the Clarence, the Richmond, and other rapid rivers that rise in the New England and Macpherson ranges, and contains a good deal of rich pastoral, agricultural, and dairying land. Among its chief products are sugar and maize. In 1837 the waters of the Clarence were first cleft by white men's keels — two sailing vessels, one of which made a beginning of the pastoral settlement of the district by landing the first cattle that ever browsed upon the banks of that fine river. The first Catholic family (the Hawthornes) arrived in Grafton, on the Clarence, in 1841. Their first two children were taken to Sydney (450 miles by sea) to be baptized. In 1859 Grafton (then with a population of about 1800) was incorporated as a borough. There was no resident priest in any part of the present diocese till 1862, and the rugged and sparsely populated North Coast (as it is called) was visited occasionally from Sydney, Ipswich (Queensland), and annually from Armidale, from March, 1854, till 1862.

The first church on the North Coast was opened at South Grafton on 23 September, 1857, at a cost of £100. Archbishop Polding paid his first visit to these outlying parts of his see in 1860, and two years later the first resident priest (Rev. Timothy McCarthy) took up his quarters in the principal town, Grafton, his parochial charge extending — till Tenterfield received a resident priest in 1866 3 from Coff's harbour to the Tweed Heads, and from Tenterfield to Ballina. In 1869 the territory of the present See of Lismore was included in the newly formed Diocese of Armidale. The pioneer religious of the Lismore diocese (the Sisters of Mercy) reached Grafton in 1884. By Brief of 10 May, 1887, Grafton was erected into an episcopal see, and the Right Rev. Jeremiah Joseph Doyle, then in charge of Lismore, was shortly afterwards (28 August, 1887) consecrated its first bishop in St. Mary's cathedral, Sydney. He chose Lismore as his residence (later on, the name of the diocese was changed to Lismore). In 1878 there were only three Catholic families and a scanty population in Lismore, but, owing to the richness of its soil, the district has since then progressed at a rapid rate. The foundation stone of the new cathedral was laid on Rosary Sunday, 1892, and the edifice was completed in 1908. Bishop Doyle died suddenly, 4 June, 1909. Rev. John Carroll, of Moss Vale, Australia, born at Piltown, Kilkenny, Ireland, 1866, and ordained at The College, Carlow, 1890, was consecrated bishop 4 April, 1910.

There were in the Diocese of Lismore, at the close of 1909, 19 parochial districts, 51 churches, 20 secular priests, 104 nuns, 6 boarding schools, and 6 superior day schools for girls, 11 primary parochial schools, 1907 children receiving Catholic education and about 19,500 Catholics in a total white population of some 80,000.

HENRY W. CLEARY

School of Lismore

As the School of Armagh in the North of Ireland, and that of Clonmacnoise in the centre, so the School of Lismore was the most celebrated in the South of Ireland. It was founded in the year 635 by St. Carthach the Younger, in a most picturesque site, steeply rising from the southern bank of the Blackwater. Its founder had spent nearly forty years of his monastic life in the monastery of Rahan on the southern borders of ancient Meath, in what is now King's County. He dearly loved that monastery which he had founded and which he fondly hoped would be the place of his resurrection; but the men of Meath — clerics and chieftains — grew jealous of the great monastery founded in their territory by a stranger from Munster, and they persuaded Prince Blathmac, son of Aedh Slaine, of the southern Hy Mall, to expel the venerable old man from the monastic home which he loved so well. The eviction is described by the Irish annalists as most unjust and cruel, yet, under God's guidance, it led to the foundation of Lismore on the beautiful margin of what was then called Avonmore, "the great river", a site granted to St. Carthach by the prince of the Desii of Waterford. Lismore was founded in 635; and the founder survived only two years, for he died in 637, but Providence blessed his work, and his monastery grew to be the greatest centre of learning and piety in all the South of Erin. The "Rule of St. Carthach" is the most notable literary monument which the founder left behind him. It is fortunately still extant in the ancient Gaelic verse in which it was written. It consists of 185 four-lined stanzas, which have been translated by O'Curry — who has no doubt of its authenticity — and is beyond doubt one of the most interesting and important documents of the early Irish Church.

But Lismore produced a still more famous saint and scholar, the great St. Cathaldus of Tarentum. His Irish name was Cathal, and it appears he was born at a place called Rathan, not far from Lismore. Our Irish annals tell us nothing of St. Cathaldus, because he went abroad early in life, but the brothers Morini of his adopted home give us many particulars. They tell us he was a native of Hibernia — born at Rathan in Momonia — that he studied at Lismore, and became bishop of his hative territory of Rathan, but that afterwards, inspired by the love of missionary enterprise, he made his way to Jerusalem, and on his return was, with his companions, wrecked at Tarentum — the "beautiful Tarentum" — at the heel of Italy. Its pleasure-loving inhabitants, forgetting the Gospel preached to them by St. Peter and St. Mark, had become practically pagans when Cathaldus and his companions were cast upon their shores. Seeing the city given up to vice and sensuality, the Irish prelate preached with great fervour, and wrought many miracles, so that the Tarentines gave up their sinful ways, and from that day to this have recognized the Irish Cathaldus as their patron saint, and greatly venerate his tomb, which was found intact in the cathedral as far back as the year 1110, with his name "Cathaldus Rachan" inscribed upon a cross therein. Another distinguished scholar of Lismore, and probably its second abbot, was St. Cuanna, most likely the half-brother and successor of the founder. He was born at Kilcoonagh, or Killcooney, a parish near Headford in the County Galway which takes its name from him. No doubt he went to Lismore on account of his close connexion with St. Carthach, and for the same reason was chosen to succeed him in the school of Lismore. Colgan thought that the ancient but now lost "Book of Cuanach", cited in the "Annals of Ulster", but not later than A.D. 628, was the work of this St. Cuanna of Kilcooney and Lismore. It is also said that Aldfrid, King of Northumbria, spent some time at the school of Lismore, for he visited most of the famous schools of Erin towards the close of the seventh century, and at that time Lismore was one of the most celebrated. It was a place of pilgrimage also, and many Irish princes gave up the sceptre and returned to Lismore to end their lives in prayer and penance. There, too, by his own desire, was interred St. Celsus of Armagh, who died at Ardpatrick, but directed that he should be buried in Lismore — but we have sought in vain for any trace of his monument.

Two interesting memorials of Lismore are fortunately still preserved. The first is the crosier of Lismore, found accidentally in Lismore Castle in the year 1814. The inscription tells us that it was made for Niall Mac Mic Aeducan, Bishop of Lismore, 1090-1113, by Neclan the artist. This refers to the making of the case or shrine, which enclosed an old oak stick, the original crosier of the founder. Most of the ornaments are richly gilt, interspersed with others of silver and niello, and bosses of coloured enamels. The second is the "Book of Lismore" found in the castle at the same time with the crosier, enclosed in a wooden box in a built-up doorway. The castle was built as long ago as 1185 by Prince John. Afterwards the bishops of Lismore came to live there, and no doubt both crosier and book belonged to the bishops and were hidden for security in troublesome times. The Book of Lismore contains a very valuable series of the lives of our Irish saints, written in the finest medieval Irish. It was in 1890 admirably translated into English by Dr. Whitley Stokes.

JOHN HEALY

Lister

(alias Thomas Butler)

Jesuit writer, b. in Lancashire, about 1559; d. in England, probably before 1628; was the son of Christopher Lister, of Midhope, Yorks. He entered Douai College, 1576. Having occasion to return to England, he was seized and imprisoned. He, however, obtained his release, and in 1579 was received into the English College, Rome. There, three years later, he joined the Society of Jesus in February, 1582-3. He graduated in Divinity at Pont-à-Mousson in 1592. In 1596 he went on to the English mission, but was arrested in 1598 and endured a long incarceration. Just at this point difficulties had broken out among the English clergy, owing to the refusal of certain among them to recognize the authority of the newly appointed archpriest, Dr. George Blackwell. Lister was consulted by one of the priests as to the conduct of those who refused obedience. While a man of both piety and ability, he was unfortunately lacking in judgment; and his reply took the form of a small treatise entitled "Adversus factiosos in ecclesia", in which their conduct was vigorously censured. They are declared to have ipso facto have fallen into schism, and to have incurred excommunication and irregularity. It is doubtful whether this tractate was published; but it was widely circulated in manuscript, and aroused the deepest resentment. It certainly served not a little to fan the flames of the unhappy dispute. To the request of the clergy that he would prohibit it, Blackwell replied curtly (April, 1957): "Your request is that we should call in the treatise against your schism; and this is unreasonable, because the medicine ought not to be removed until the sore be thoroughly cured. If it grieve you, I am not grieved thereat." His conduct in regard to Lister's tract formed the first of the six grounds on which was based the "Appeal of thirty-three clergymen", against his administration. The appellants obtained a favourable hearing at Rome. Lister's tract was suppressed by papal Brief (May, 1601), and Blackwell rebuked for his unreasonable conduct. Lister seems to have resided continuously in England. His death probably occurred shortly before 1628. The treatise "Adversus factiosos" is incorporated into Christopher Bagshaw's "Relatio compendium turbarum"; a portion of it is printed in Law's work cited below.

DODD, ed. TIERNEY, Church History of England, III (London, 1840); cxxxiii, sqq.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; LAW, Historical Sketch of Conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Elizabeth (London, 1889), appendix D; MORRIS, The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, related by themselves, I (London, 1872).

G.H. JOYCE

Franz Liszt

Admittedly the greatest pianist in the annals of music, and a composer whose status in musical literature still forms a debatable question, b. at Raiding, Hungary, 22 October, 1811; d. at Bayreuth, Germany, 31 July, 1886. His musical precocity was early recognized by his parents, and his first teacher was his father, Adam Liszt, a musical amateur of rare culture. His first public appearance at Oedenburg at the age of nine was so startling a character, that several Hungarian magnates who were present at once assumed the financial responsibilities of his further musical education. Taken to Vienna by his father, who devoted himself exclusively to the development of his talented child, he studied the piano for six years with Czerny, and theory and composition with Salieri and Randhartinger. His first public appearance in Vienna (1 Jan., 1823) proved a noteworthy event in the annals of music. From Beethoven, who was present, down to the merest dilettante, everyone forthwith acknowledged his great genius. His entry to the Paris Conservatory, where his father wished him to continue his studies, and which at the time was under Cherubini, proved unsuccessful on account of his not being a native of France. His studies, however, under Reicha and Paer, were of a character that made the youthful prodigy one of the conspicuous figures of the French capital. His one act opera, "Don Sanche", as well as his piano compositions, achieved a flattering success. His brilliant concert tours in Switzerland and England enhanced an already established reputation. His father's death (1827) made Liszt and his mother dependent on his own personal exertions, but the temporary hardship disappeared when he began his literary and teaching career. His charming personality, conversational brilliancy, and transcendent musical ability opened the world of fashion, wealth and intellect to him. His Catholic sturdiness was temporarily shaken by the "Nouveau Christianisme" of Saint-Simon, to which, however, he never formally or even tacitly subscribed, and by the socialistic aberrations of Chevalier and Péreire. The unhealthy atmosphere of his associations with Alphonse de Lamartine, Victor Hugo, Heinrich Heine, George Sand, and their coterie, could not fail to weaken his religious moorings. fortunately the contravening influence of Lamennais averted what might have ended in spiritual shipwreck. His intimacy with Meyerbeer and his friendship with Chopin, whose biographer he subsequently became, kept alive and fostered his interest in his art.

The result of this environment led to the unfortunate alliance (1834-44) with the Countess d'Agoult (Daniel Stern). The fruit of it was three children --- a son who died early, Blandina, who became the wife of Emile Ollivier, Minister of Justice to Napoleon III, and Cosima, first the wife of Hans von Bülow, then of Richard Wagner, and now the owner of Villa Wahnfried, Bayreuth. The rupture of this liaison signalized the beginning of his dazzling career as a virtuoso, scaling higher altitudes as years progressed, until his reputation, like that of Paganini on the violin, was that of a pianist without peer or rival. His concert tours throughout Europe evoked an unparalleled enthusiasm. Kings and national assemblies bestowed titles of nobility and decorations on him; universities honoured him with academic degrees; cities vied with one another in granting him their freedom; audiences were thrilled as if by an hypnotic influence; public demonstrations, torchlight processions, poetic greetings met him in all directions and made him the object of a hero-worship, that has seldom, if ever, fallen to the lot of any other artist. In all these intoxicating triumphs, he never lost his mental equipoise. His remunerative concerts allowed him means to make generous provision for his mother and children. His purse was open, his services at the disposal of every appeal of philanthropy. No aspiring talent ever invoked his encouragement, no deserving charity ever appealed to his aid, in vain. The princely contribution to the sufferers of the Danube inundation at Pesth (1837), and the completion of the Beethoven monument at Bonn (1845), are but two striking examples. Having reached the pinnacle of success and fame as a pianist, he now concluded to abandon the career of a virtuoso, to devote his time and energy to creative work and the public fostering of higher musical ideals.

His twelve years at Weimar (1849-61), where he assumed the proffered position of court conductor, were years of devoted, unselfish, and intensive activity. His indefatigable supervision of the court concerts and operatic performances brought them to a perfection that made the small provincial town of Weimar synonymous with the highest achievements in tonal art. His gratuitous guidance and encouragement of talented and ambitious piano pupils raised the standard of pianoforte playing to a height never before attained, and created a specific school of most brilliant virtuosos. During this period he also gave the world a series of notable piano compositions, and even more notable choral and orchestral works, that have made their rounds through the musical world. As he was the originator of the "piano recital", so now he became the creator of a new orchestral form, the "symphonic poem", which, as a type of programme music, has found a universal adoption. While directing the destinies of the Weimar musical world, he not only became a daring pioneer in placing on its concert platform and operatic stage the neglected masterpieces of classical art, but tried the more venturesome experiment of introducing the most meritorious works of contemporary composers. Wagner forms a conspicuous example of his courageous propaganda. His championship of the great dramatic composer in conversation and writing and by the production of his operas, not to allude to financial support (and all this in the face of vehement protest and demonstrative antipathy), did more to advance that master's theories and compositions and to give him a status in the world of art than all other agencies.

It was an act of the same progressive intrepidity, meeting with public manifestations of protest at the performance of an opera of one of his pupils ("The Barber of Bagdad", by Peter Cornelius), that caused him to resign his position as court conductor. After his resignation (1861) he lived in turn at Rome, Budapest, and Weimar. Religion which, in spite of his earlier associations, was only temporarily overshadowed, had for several years been again playing an active part in his life. As early as 1856 or 1858 he became a Franciscan tertiary. The failure of the Princess Caroline von Sayn-Wittgenstein, a most estimable lady whose influence over him was most potent for good, to secure a dispensation to marry him, only brought his religious designs to a more definite point. He received minor orders from Cardinal Hohenlohe in his private chapel at the Vatican on 25 April, 1865. This he did, "convinced that this act would strengthen me in the right road", and therefore he "accomplished it without effort, in all simplicity and uprightness of intention", and as agreeing "with the antecedents of my youth, as well as with the development that my work of musical composition has taken during the last four years" (La Mara, "Letters of Franz Liszt", New York, 1894, II, 100). His career of twenty-one years as an abbé was most exemplary and edifying. Punctilious as he was in the performance of his ecclesiastical duties, his interest in art continued unabated. His piano pupils followed him on his casual wanderings, contemporaneous art was not neglected, but above all the old ecclesiastical masters and the new movement for the restoration of liturgical music, represented by the Cäcilienverein, found a devoted, enthusiastic, and generous supporter in him. His own larger ecclesiastical compositions, though no doubt unwittingly deviating from strict liturgical requirements, are nevertheless imbued with deep, religious sentiment. It was while attending the marriage of his granddaughter, and coincidentally the "Parsifal" performances at Bayreuth, that, after receiving the rites of the Church, he succumbed to an acute attack of pneumonia at the home of a friend, near Wagner's Villa Wahnfried. His wish, expressed in a letter (La Mara, I, 439) breathing the most loyal devotion to the Church and humble gratitude to God, to be buried without pomp or display, where he died, was carried out by interring him in the Bayreuth cemetery.

SCHILLING, Franz Liszt. Sein Leben u. Werke (Stuttgart, 1844); WOHL, François Liszt (London, 1887); BEAUFORT, The Abbé Liszt (London 1886); MÜLLER, Franz Liszt (Erlangen, 1885); RAMAN, Franz Liszt, Artist and Man (2 vols., London, 1882), only reaches 1840; NOHL, Life of Liszt (Chicago, 1889); LA MARA; Musikalische Studienköpfe (Leipzig, 1868). For a thematic catalogue of compositions and for his literary works see GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians (New York, 1908), s. v.; for criticism of Liszt as a pianist, GROVE, loc. cit.; VON LENZ, Die grossen Piano Virtuosen (Berlin, 1872), 1-19; FAY, Music Study in Germany (Chicago, 1881), 205-272. For critical review and appraisement of his compositions: GROVE, MENDEL, Musikalisches Conversationslexikon, VI (Berlin, 1876), 354-7; RAMAN, Franz Liszt als Psalmensänger (Leipzig, 1886). Consult also LA MARA, Letters of Franz Liszt (2 vols., New York, 1894); HUEFFER, Correspondence of Wagner and Liszt (1841-1861) (2 vols., New York, 1889).

H. G. GANSS

Litany

(Lat. litania, letania, from Gr. lite, prayer or supplication)

A litany is a well-known and much appreciated form of responsive petition, used in public liturgical services, and in private devotions, for common necessities of the Church, or in calamities — to implore God's aid or to appease His just wrath. This form of prayer finds its model in Psalm cxxxv: "Praise the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. Praise ye the God of gods . . . the Lord of lords . . . Who alone doth great wonders . . . Who made the heavens", etc., with the concluding words in each verse, "for his mercy endureth for ever." Similar is the canticle of praise by the youths in the fiery furnace (Dan., iii, 57-87), with the response, "praise and exalt him above all for ever." In the Mass of the Oriental Church we find several litanies in use even at the present day. Towards the end of the Mass of the catechumens the deacon asks all to pray; he formulates the petitions, and all answer "Kyrie Eleison". When the catechumens have departed, the deacon asks the prayers: for the peace and welfare of the world, for the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, for the bishops and priests, for the sick, for those who have gone astray, etc., to each of which petitions the faithful answer "Kyrie Eleison", or "Grant us, Lord", or "We beseech Thee." The litany is concluded by the words, "Save us, restore us again, Lord, by Thy mercy." The last petitions in our Litany of the Saints, with the responses "Deliver us, Lord" and "We beseech Thee hear us", show a great resemblance to the Mass Litany of the Greek Church. In the Ambrosian or Milanese Rite two litanies are recited on the Sundays of Lent instead of the "Gloria in excelsis". In the Stowe Missal a litany is inserted between the Epistle and Gospel (Duchesne, "Christian Worship", London, 1904, 199). The Roman Missal has retained the prayers for all classes of people in the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, a full litany on Holy Saturday, and the triple repetition of "Kyrie Eleison", "Christe Eleison", "Kyrie Eleison", in every Mass. The frequent repetition of the "Kyrie" was probably the original form of the Litany, and was in use in Asia and in Rome at a very early date. The Council of Vaison in 529 passed the decree: "Let that beautiful custom of all the provinces of the East and of Italy be kept up, viz., that of singing with great effect and compunction the 'Kyrie Eleison' at Mass, Matins, and Vespers, because so sweet and pleasing a chant, even though continued day and night without interruption, could never produce disgust or weariness". The number of repetitions depended upon the celebrant. This litany is prescribed in the Roman Breviary at the "Preces Feriales" and in the Monastic Breviary for every "Hora" (Rule of St. Benedict, ix, 17). The continuous repetition of the "Kyrie" is used to-day at the consecration of a church, while the relics to be placed in the altar are carried in procession around the church. Because the "Kyrie" and other petitions were said once or oftener, litanies were called planœ, ternœ, quinœ, septenœ.

When peace was granted to the Church after three centuries of bloody persecution, public devotions became common and processions were frequently held, with preference for days which the heathens had held sacred. These processions were called litanies, and in them pictures and other religious emblems were carried. In Rome, pope and people would go in procession each day, especially in Lent, to a different church, to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries. Thus originated the Roman "Stations", and what was called the "Litania Major", or "Romana". It was held on 25 April, on which day the heathens had celebrated the festival of Robigalia, the principal feature of which was a procession. The Christian litany which replaced it set out from the church of S. Lorenzo in Lucina, held a station at S. Valentino Outside the Walls, and then at the Milvian Bridge. From thence, instead of proceeding on the Claudian Way, as the heathens had done, it turned to the left towards the Vatican, stopped at a cross, of which the site is not given, and again in the paradise or atrium of St. Peter's, and finally in the basilica itself, where the station was held (Duchesne, 288). In 590, when a pestilence caused by an overflow of the Tiber was ravaging Rome, Gregory the Great commanded a litany which is called "Septiformis"; on the preceding day he exhorted the people to fervent prayer, and arranged the order to be observed in the procession, viz, that the clergy from S. Giovanni Battista, the men from S. Marcello, the monks from SS. Giovanni e Paolo, the unmarried women from SS. Cosma e Damiano, the married women from San Stefano, the widows from S. Vitale, the poor and the children from S. Cæcilia, were all to meet at S. Maria Maggiore. The "Litania Minor", or "Gallicana", on the Rogation Days before Ascension, was introduced (477) by St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, on account of the earthquakes and other calamities then prevalent. It was prescribed for the whole of Frankish Gaul, in 511, by the Council of Orleans (can. xxvii). For Rome it was ordered by Leo III, in 799. In the Ambrosian Rite this litany was celebrated on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday after Ascension. In Spain we find a similar litany from Thursday to Saturday after Whitsuntide, another from the first to third of November, ordered by the Council of Gerunda in 517, and still another for December, commanded by the synod of Toledo in 638. In England the Litany of Rogation Days (Gang-Days) was known in the earliest periods. In Germany it was ordered by a Synod of Mainz in 813. Owing to the fact that the Mass Litany became popular through its use in processions, numberless varieties were soon made, especially in the Middle Ages. Litanies appeared in honour of God the Father, of God the Son, of God the Holy Ghost, of the Precious Blood, of the Blessed Virgin, of the Immaculate Conception, of each of the saints honoured in different countries, for the souls in Purgatory, etc. In 1601 Baronius wrote that about eighty forms were in circulation. To prevent abuse, Pope Clement VIII, by decree of the Inquisition of 6 Sept., 1601, forbade the publication of any litany, except that of the saints as found in the liturgical books and that of Loreto. To-day the litanies approved for public recitation are: of All Saints, of Loreto, of the Holy Name, of the Sacred Heart, and of St. Joseph.

BISHOP in Journal of Theological Studies (1906), 133; Römische Quartalschrift (1904), 13; PUNKES in Kirchenlex., s. v. Litanei; THILL in Pastor Bonus (1891), 217 sqq.; KELLNER, Heortologie (Freiburg, 1906), 143 sqq.; KRIEG in KRAUS, Real-Encyk., s. v. Litanei; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten, IV, I, 572 sqq.; Revue Bénédictine, III, 111; V, 152; SERARIUS, Litaneutici seu de litaniis libelli duo (Cologne, 1609).

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Litany of Loreto

Despite the fact that, from the seventeenth century onwards, the Litany of Loreto has been the subject of endless panegyrics and ascetical writings, there is a great lack of documentary evidence concerning its origin, the growth and development of the litany into the forms under which we know it, and as it was for the first time definitely approved by the Church in the year 1587. Some writers declare that they know nothing of its origin and history; others, on the contrary, trace it back to the translation of the Holy House (1294); others, to Pope Sergius I (687); others, again, to St. Gregory the Great or to the fifth century; while others go as far back as the earliest ages of the Church, and even Apostolic times. Historical criticism, however, proves it to be of more recent origin, and shows that it was composed during the early years of the sixteenth century or the closing years of the fifteenth. The most ancient printed copy hitherto discovered is that of Dillingen in Germany, dating from 1558; it is fairly certain that this is a copy of an earlier Italian one, but so far, in spite of much careful research, the oldest Italian copy that the writer has been able to discover dates from 1576.

In form, the Litany of Loreto is composed on a fixed plan common to several Marian litanies already in existence during the second half of the fifteenth century, which in turn are connected with a notable series of Marian litanies that began to appear in the twelfth century and became numerous in the thirteenth and fourteenth. The Loreto text had, however, the good fortune to be adopted in the famous shrine, and in this way to become known, more than any other, to the many pilgrims who flocked there during the sixteenth century. The text was brought home to the various countries of Christendom, and finally it received for all time the supreme ecclesiastical sanction.

Appended is a brief résumé of the work published by the present writer on this subject, the reference being to the revised and enlarged French edition of 1900, suplemented by any new matter brought to light since that time.

Sauren claims that the first and oldest Marian litany is a pious laus to the Virgin in the "Leabhar Breac", a fourteenth-century MS., now in the library of the Royal Irish Academy, and written "in the purest style of Gaedhlic", according to O'Curry, who explained its various parts. This laus of fifty-nine eulogies on the Virgin occurs on fol. 121, and O'Curry calls it a litania, attributing it at the latest to about the middle of the eighth century. But it has not at all the form of a lintany, being rather a sequence of fervent praises, like so many that occur in the writings of the Fathers, especially after the fourth century. As a matter of fact, Dr. Sicking has shown that the entire laus of the "Leabhar Breac" is copied almost word for word from the first and third of the "Sermones Dubii" of St. Ildephonsus.

The earliest genuine text of a Marian litany thus far known is in a twelfth-century codex in the Mainz Library, with the title "Letania de domina nostra Dei genitrice virgine Maria: oratio valde bona: cottidie pro quacumque tribulatione recitanda est". It is fairly long, and was published in part by Mone, and in its entirety by the present writer. It opens with the usual "Kyrie Eleison"; then follow the invocations of the Trinity, but with amplifications, e.g. "Pater de celis deus, qui elegisti Mariam semper virginem, miserere nobis"; these are followed by invocations of the Virgin Mary in a long series of praises, of which a brief selection will be enough: "Sancta Maria, stirps patriarcharum, vaticinium prophetarum, solatium apostolorum, rosa martirum, predicatio confessorum, lilium virginum, ora pro nobis benedictum ventris tui fructum"; "Sancta Maria, spes humilium, refugium pauperum, portus naufragantium, medicina infirmorum, ora pro nobis benedictum ventris tui fructum"; etc. This goes on for more than fifty times, always repeating the invocation "Sancta Maria", but varying the laudatory titles given. Then, after this manner of the litanies of the saints, a series of petitions occur, e.g.: "Per mundissimum virgineum partum tuum ab omni immundicia mentis et corporis liberet nos benedictus ventris tui fructus"; and farther on, "Ut ecclesiam suam sanctam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere dignetur benedictus ventris tui fructus, ora mater virgo Maria." The litany concludes with the "Agnus", also amplified, "Agne dei, filius matris virginis Marie qui tollis peccata mundi, parce nobis Domine", etc.

Lengthy and involved litanies of this type do not seem to have won popularity, though it is possible to find other examples of a like kind. However, during the two centuries that followed, many Marian litanies were composed. Their form remains uncertain and hesitating, but the tendency is always towards brevity and simplicity. To each invocation of "Sancta Maria" it becomes customary to add only one praise, and these praises show in general a better choice or a better arrangement. The petitions are often omitted or are changed into ejaculations in honour of the Blessed Virgin.

A litany of this new form is that of a codex in the Library of St. Mark's, Venice, dating from the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century. It is found, though with occasional variants, in many manuscripts, a sure sign that this text was especially well known and favourably received. It omits the petitions, and consists of seventy-five praises joined to the usual invocation, "Sancta Maria". Here is a short specimen, showing the praises to be met with most frequently also in other litanies of that or of later times: "Holy Mary, Mother and Spouse of Christ, pray for me [other MSS. have "pray for us"–the "pray" is always repeated]; Holy Mary, Mother inviolate; Holy Mary, Temple of the Holy Ghost; Holy Mary, Queen of Heaven; Holy Mary, Mistress of the Angels; Holy Mary, Star of Heaven; Holy Mary, Gate of Paradise; Holy Mary, Mother of True Counsel; Holy Mary, Gate of Celestial Life; Holy Mary, Our Advocate; Holy Mary, brightest Star of Heaven; Holy Mary, Fountain of True Wisdom; Holy Mary, unfailing Rose; Holy Mary, Beautly of Angels; Holy Mary, Flower of Patriarchs; Holy Mary, Desire of Prophets; Holy Mary, Treasure of Apostles; Holy Mary, Praise of Martyrs; Holy Mary, Glorification of Priests; Holy Mary, Immaculate Virgin; Holy Mary, Splendour of Virgins and Example of Chastity", etc.

The first Marian litanies must have been composed to foster private devotion, as it is not at all probable that they were written for use in public, by reason of their drawn-out and heavy style. But once the custom grew up of reciting Marian litanies privately, and of gradually shortening the text, it was not long until the idea occurred of employing them for public devotion, especially in cases of epidemic, as had been the practice of the Church with the litanies of the Saints, which were sung in penitential processions and during public calamities. Hence it must be emphasized that the earliest certain mention we have of a public recital of Marian Litanies is actually related to a time of pestilence, particularly in the fifteenth century. An incunabulum of the Casanatensian Library in Rome, which contains the Venice litanies referred to above, introduces them with the following words: "Oraciones devote contra imminentes tribulaciones et contra pestem". At Venice, in fact, these same litanies were finally adopted for liturgical use in processions for plague and mortality and asking for rain or for fair weather. Probably they began to be sung in this connection during the calamities of the fifteenth century; but in the following century we find them prescribed, as being an ancient custom, in the ceremonials of St. Mark's, and they were henceforth retained until after the fall of the republic, i.e., until 1820.

In the second half of the fifteenth century we meet another type of litany which was to be publicly chanted tempore pestis sive epydimic. The invocations are very simple and all begin, not with the words "Sancta Maria", but with "Sancta mater", e.g.: Sancta mater Creatoris; Sancta mater Salvatoris; Sancta mater munditie; Sancta mater auxilii; Sancta mater consolationis; Sancta mater intemerata; Sancta mater inviolata; Sancta mater virginum, etc. At the end, however, are a few short petitions such as those found in the litanies of the saints.

Before going further, it may be well to say a few words on the composition of the litanies we have been considering. With regard to their content, which consists mainly of praises of the Blessed Virgin, it would seem to have been taken not so much from the Scriptures and the Fathers, at least directly, as from popular medieval Latin poetry. To be convinced of this, it suffices to glance through the Daniel and Mone collections, and especially through the "Analectica Hymnica medii ævi" of Dreves­Blume. In the earlier and longer litanies whole rhythmic strophes are to be found, taken bodily from such poetry, and employed as praises of the Blessed Virgin. With regard to their form, it is certain that those who first composed the Marian litanies aimed at imitating the litanies of the Saints which had been in use in the Church since the eighth century. During the Middle Ages, as is well known, it was customary to repeat over and over single invocations in the litanies of the saints, and thus we find that the basic principle of the Marian litanies is this constant repetition of the invocation, "Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis." And in order that this repetition might not prove monotonous in the Middle Ages recourse was had to an expedient since then universally used, not only in private devotions but even in liturgical prayer, that of amplifying by means of what are called tropes or farcituræ. They had a model in the Kyrie of the Mass, e.g. "Kyrie, fons bonitatis, pater ingenite, a quo bona cuncta procedunt, eleison." It was an easy matter to improvise between the "Sancta Maria" and the "Ora pro nobis", repeated over and over, a series of tropes consisting of different praises, with an occasional added petition, imitated however broadly from the litanies of the saints. Thus the Marian litany was evolved.

Gradually the praises became simpler; at times the petitions were omitted, and, from the second half of the fifteenth century, the repetition of the "Sancta Maria" began to be avoided, so that the praises alone remained, with the accompaniment "Ora pro nobis". This made up the new group of litanies which we must now consider. The connecting link between the litanies we have discussed and this new group may have been a litany found in a manuscript of prayers, copied in 1524 by Fra Giovanni da Falerona. It consists of fifty-seven praises, and the "Sancta Maria" is repeated, but only at intervals of six or seven praises, perhaps because the shape or size of the parchment was so small that it held only six or seven lines to the page, and the copyist contented himself with writing the "Sancta Maria" once at the head of each page. But, because of its archaic form, this litany must be considerably anterior to 1524, and may have been copied from some fifteenth-century MS. The praises are chosen in part from previous litanies, and in part they are original. Moreover, their arrangement is better and more varied. The first place is given to praises bestowed on the name of "Mater"; then come those expressing the Blessed Virgin's tender love for mankind; then the titles given her in the creeds; then those beginning with "Regina", which are identical with those we now have in the Litany of Loreto. Two new titles are introduced: "Causa nostræ lætitiæ" and "Vas spirituale", which are not found in earlier litanies. Noteworthy also are three invocations, "Advocata christianorum", "Refugium desperatorum", "Auxilium peccatorum", which passed by an easy change into the "Refugium peccatorum" and "Auxilium christianorum" of the Litany of Loreto. In a word, if we omit the petitions of this older form, and its reiteration of the "Sancta Maria", we have a litany which in the choice and arrangement of praises comes very close to the Litany of Loreto.

Now there are many similar examples in which the litany consists of praises alone without the repetition of the "Sancta Maria", and in which arrangement and form come nearer and nearer to the Litany of Loreto. Such are: (1) a litany in a manuscript of the Biblioteca Angelica in Rome (formerly, No. 392; second half of the fifteenth century; fol. 123). Except for light variants, it is identical with one printed at Venice in 1561, and another printed at Capri in 1503; (2) a litany found in a manuscript missal of the sixteenth century; (3) a litany printed at Venice in two different editions of the "Officium B. Virginis" in 1513 and 1545; (4) a litany found in a codex of the "Compagnia della Concezione di Maria SS." of Fiorenzuola d'Arda (Piacenza), founded in 1511; (5) a litany found in a codex of the priory of Sts. Philip and James, Apostles, at Montegranaro, in which the baptisms during the years 1548-58 are recorded. This litany is the shortest of all and the closest in similarity to that of Loreto.

This form of litany was widely circulated, both in script and in print, during the sixteenth century. A comparison of the texts will show that they contain the praises in the Loreto Litany, with two exceptions: the "Virgo prudentissima" of the Loreto Litany is found as "Virgo prudens", and the "Auxilium christianorum", though it appears in no text before this time, is, as remarked above, an easy variant of the litany of 1524. So far no MS. of the Loreto Litany has been discovered, but it cannot be doubted that it is nothing more than a happy arrangement of a text belonging to the last group. And, moreover, it may be laid down as probable that the Loreto text became customary in the Holy House towards the close of the fifteenth century, at a time when in other places similar litanies were being adapted for public use to obtain deliverance from some calamity. It is only in 1531, 1547, and 1554, that the documents afford indications of litanies being sung in that sanctuary, though the text is not given.

The earliest printed copy of the Litany of Loreto so far known is that of Dillingen, which is undated and seems to belong to the end of 1557 or the beginning of 1558. As. Dr. Paulus, following up a discovery made by Gass, has observed, it was probably published and circulated in Germany by Blessed Canisius. It is entitled: "Letania Loretana. Ordnung der Letaney von unser lieben Frawen wie sie zu Loreto alle Samstag gehalten" (Order of the Litany of Our Lady as said every Saturday at Loreto). The text is just the same as we have it to­day, except that it has "Mater piissima" and "Mater mirabilis", where we have "Mater purissima" and "Mater admirabilis". Further, the invocations "Mater creatoris" and "Mater salvatoris" are wanting, though this must be due to some oversight of the editor, since they are found in every manuscript of this group; on the other hand, the "Auxilium christianorum" is introduced though it does not occur in the other texts. We find this title in a Litany of Loreto printed in 1558. As already shown in the writer's book on this subject, Pope Pius V could not have introduced the invocation "Auxilium christianorum" in 1571 after the Battle of Lepanto, as stated in the sixth lesson of the Roman Breviary for the feast of S. Maria Auxiliatrix (24 May); and to this conclusion the Dillingen text adds indisputable evidence.

The Litany of Loreto had taken root at Loreto, and was being spread throughout the world, when it ran the grave risk of being lost forever. St. Pius V by Motu Proprio of 20 March, 1571, published 5 April, had prohibited all existing offices of the B. V. Mary, disapproving in general all the prayers therein, and substituting a new "Officium B. Virginis" without those prayers and consequently without any litany. It would seem that this action on the part of the pope led the clergy of Loreto to fear that the text of their litany was likewise prohibited. At all events, in order to keep up the old time custom of singing the litany every Saturday in honour of the Blessed Virgin, a new text was drawn up containing praises drawn directly from the Scriptures, and usually applied to the Bl. Virgin in the Liturgy of the Church. This new litany was set to music by the choirmaster of the Basilica of Loreto, Costanzo Porta, and printed at Venice in 1575. It is the earliest setting to music of a Marian litany that we know of. In the following year (1576) these Scriptural litanies were printed in two different handbooks for the use of pilgrims. In both they bear the title: "Litaniæ deipare Virginis ex Sacra Scriptura depromptæ quæ in alma Domo lauretana omnibus diebus Sabbathi, Vigiliarum et Festorum decantari solent". But in the second handbook, the work of Bernardine Cirillo, archpriest of Loreto, the old text of the litany is also printed, though with the plainer title, "Aliæ Litaniæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis", a clear sign that it was not quite forgotten.

On 5 Feb., 1578, the archdeacon of Loreto, Giulio Candiotti, sent to Pope Gregory XIII the "Laudi o lettanie moderne della s ^ma Vergine, cavate dalla sacra Scrittura" (New praises or litanies of the most holy Virgin, drawn from Sacred Scripture), with Porta's music and the text apart, expressing the wish that His Holiness would cause it to be sung in St. Peter's and in other churches as was the custom at Loreto. The pope's reply is not known, but we have the opinion of the theologian to whom the matter was referred, in which the composition of the new litany is praised, but which does not judge it opportune to introduce it into Rome or into church use on the authority of the pope, all the more because Pius V "in reforming the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin completely abolished, among other things, some proper litanies of the Blessed Virgin which existed in the old [office], and which (if I remember rightly) were somewhat similar to these". The judgment concludes that the litany might be sung at Loreto as a devotion proper to this shrine, and if others wanted to adopt it they might do so by way of private devotion.

This attempt having failed, the Scriptural litany straightway began to lose favour, and the Loreto text was once more resumed. In another manual for pilgrims, published by Angelita in that same year 1578, the Scriptural litany is omitted, and the old Loreto text appears with the title: "Letanie che si cantano nella Santa Casa di Loreto ogni Sabbato et feste delle Madonna". In a new edition (1584) of Angelita's book, the Scriptural litany is restored but relegated to a secondary position, though included under the title "Altre letanie che si cantano", etc. From this it is clear that for a time both litanies were in use at Loreto. But in subsequent editions of Angelita's manual, and in other manuals of devotion, the Scriptural litany is printed with the bare title "Litaniæ ex S. Scriptura depromptæ", until the seventeenth century when it disappears altogether. Meanwhile, thanks to Angelita's manuals, the Loreto text was introduced elsewhere, and even reached Rome, when Sixtus V, who had entertained a singular devotion for Loreto, by the Bull "Reddituri" of 11 July, 1587, gave formal approval to it, as to the litany of the Holy Name of Jesus, and recommended preachers everywhere to propagate its use among the faithful.

On the strength of this impulse given to the Litany of Loreto, certain ascetical writers began to publish a great number of litanies in honour of the Saviour, the B. Virgin, and the saints, often ill-advised and containing expressions theologically incorrect, so that Pope Clement VIII had promulgated (6 Sept., 1601) a severe decree of the Holy Office, which, while upholding the litanies contained in the liturgical books as well as the Litany of Loreto, prohibited the publication of new litanies, or use of those already published in public worship, without the approbation of the Congregation of Rites.

At Rome the Litany of Loreto was introduced into the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore by Cardinal Francesco Toledo in 1597; and Paul V, in 1613, ordered it to be sung in that church, morning and evening, on Saturdays and on vigils and feasts of the Madonna. As a result of this example the Loreto Litany began to be used, and is still largely used, in all the churches of Rome. The Dominicans, at their general chapter held at Bologna in 1615, ordered it to be recited in all the convents of their order after the Office on Saturdays at the end of the customary "Salve Regina". Before this they had caused the invocation "Regina sacratissimi rosarii" to be inserted in the litany, and it appears in print for the first time in a Dominican Breviary dated 1614, as has been pointed out by Father Walsh, O.P., in "The Tablet", 24 Oct., 1908. Although by decree of 1631, and by Bull of Alexander VII (1664), it was strictly forbidden to make any additions to the litanies, another decree of the Congregation of Rites, dated 1675, permitted the Confraternity of the Rosary to add the invocation "Regina sacratissimi rosarii", and this was prescribed for the whole Church by Leo XIII (24 Dec., 1883). By decree of 22 April, 1903, the same pope added the invocation "Mater boni consilii", which, under the form of "Mater veri consilii", was contained in the Marian litany used for centuries in St. Mark's Venice, as indicated above. In 1766 Clement XIII granted Spain the privilege of adding after "Mater intemerata" the invocation "Mater immaculata", which is still customary in Spain, notwhthstanding the addition of "Regina sine labe originali concepta". This last invocation was originally granted by Pius IX to the Bishop of Mechlin in 1846, and, after the definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854), the congregation by various rescripts authorized many dioceses to make a like addition, so that in a short time it became the universal practice. For these various decrees of the Congregation of Rites, see Sauren, 27-29; 71-78.

De Santi, Le Litanie lauretaine in Civiltà Cattolica (Dec., 1896-April, 1897); ibid. (Nov., 1899), 456-62; ibid. (Dec., 1899), 637-38; published in book form: De Santi, Le litanie lauretane (Rome, 1897); French tr. Boudinhon, Les Litanies de la Sainte Vierge (Paris, 1900); Germ. tr., NÖrpel, Die lauretanische Litanei (Paderborn, 1900); Vogel, De ecclesiis Recanat. et Lauret., I (Recanati, 1859), 315-30; Sauren, Die lauretanische Litanei (Kempten, 1895); Sicking, Twee litanien der H. Maagd in De Katholick (Leyden, 1900), 329-36; Gass, Die Alter der lauretanischen Litanei in Strassburger Diöcesenblatt (1901), 264-68; Paulus, Die Einführung der lauretanischen Litanei in Deutschland durch den seligen Canisius in Zeitsch. für kath. theol. (1902), 572-83; Walsh, Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii in The Tablet (24 Oct., 1908), 656; De Santi, Per la storia delle Litanie lauretane in Civilta Cattolica (Nov., 1900), 302-13.

Angelo De Santi

Litany of the Holy Name

An old and popular form of prayer in honour of the Name of Jesus. The author is not known. Probably Binterim (Denkwürdigkeiten, IV, I, 597) is correct in ascribing it to the celebrated preachers of the Holy Name, Saints Bernardine of Siena and John Capistran, at the beginning of the fifteenth century. At the request of the Carmelites, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) granted an indulgence of 300 days for its recitation (Samson, "Die Allerheiligen Litanei", Paderborn, 1894, 14). Though this was an implied recognition of the litany, requests made in 1640, 1642, and 1662, for formal approval were rejected. In 1862 Pius IX approved one of the formularies in use, and attached an indulgence of 300 days for the faithful of the dioceses whose bishops had made special application. Leo XIII (16 Jan., 1886) extended the privilege to the entire world (Beringer, "Die Ablässe", Paderborn, 1900, 142).

This litany is arranged on the plan of the Litany of Loreto, and begins with the invocation of the Holy Trinity. The first part enumerates a list of praises referring to Jesus as God and as man. Remembering the blessing bestowed on Peter's confession (Matth., xvi, 16), we call Jesus, "Son of the Living God", "Splendour of the Father", and "Brightness of Eternal Light" (the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world -- John, i, 9). He is the "King of Glory" (Ps. xxiii, 10), the "Sun of Justice, rising for them that fear the name of the Lord" (Mal., iv, 2). But, lest this splendour and glory make us fear, we turn to Jesus in His humanity, and appeal to him as "Son of the Virgin Mary", and, as such, "amiable" and "admirable"; and, though annihilating Himself in taking the form of a servant (Phil., ii, 7), He is still the "mighty God", "Father of the world to come", "Angel of the great counsel" (Is., ix, 6). Again, though "most powerful", he has become for us "most patient" (led as a sheep to the slaughter -- Acts, viii, 32), "most obedient" (even to the death of the cross -- Phil., ii, 8), "meek and humble of heart" (Matth., xi, 29). He is the "Lover of chastity" and "Lover of us", blessing the clean of heart (Matth., v, 8), and proving His love for us by giving His life to procure that peace which the angels announced (Luke, ii, 14) and life everlasting, whence He is "God of peace" and "Author of life". During His sojourn on earth He was, and is to-day, "Model of virtues" and "zealous for souls", "our God" and "our refuge"; He is "Father of the poor" and "Treasure of the faithful", the "Good Shepherd" Who lays down His life for His sheep (John, x, 11); He is the "True Light", "Eternal Wisdom", "Infinite Goodness", "our Way and our Life" (John, xiv, 6); He is the "Joy of Angels" and "King of Patriarchs". Through Him all have obtained the knowledge and strength to accomplish God's designs, for He is "Master of Apostles", "Teacher of Evangelists", "Strength of Martyrs", "Light of Confessors", "Purity of Virgins", and "Crown of all Saints". After again calling for mercy and the granting of our prayers, we, in the second part of the litany, beg Jesus to deliver us from all evil that would keep us from the attainment of our last end, from sin and the wrath of God, the snares of the devil and the spirit of uncleanness, from eternal death and the neglect of His inspirations. We adjure Him by the mystery of His holy Incarnation, His nativity and infancy, His most Divine life and labours, His agony and Passion, His Cross and dereliction, His languor, His Death and burial, His Resurrection and Ascension, His joys and Glory. (Where sanctioned by the bishop, the invocation "Through Thine institution of the most holy Eucharist" may be added after "Through Thine Ascension" -- S.R.C., 8 Feb., 1905). The litany closes with the triple invocation of the Lamb of God, the petition, "Jesus hear us", "Jesus graciously hear us", and two prayers.

See under LITANY; also Theol. prakt. Quartalschrift (1893), 97; (1902), 300, 521.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Litany of the Saints

The model of all other litanies, of great antiquity.

HISTORY

It was used in the "Litania Septiformis" of St. Gregory the Great, and in the procession of St. Mamertus. In the Eastern Church, litanies with the invocation of saints were employed in the days of St. Basil (d. 379) and of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. about 270) (Basil, Ep. lxiii; Socrates, VI, viii, Sozomen, VIII, vii). It is not known when or by whom the litany was composed, but the order in which the Apostles are given, corresponding with that of the Canon of the Mass, proves its antiquity (Walafr. Strabo, "De Reb. Eccl.", xxiii).

STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

First part. The litany begins with the call for mercy upon God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, in the "Kyrie eleison", "Christe eleison", Kyrie eleison". Then, considering Christ as our Saviour and Mediator, we ask Him to hear us. In order to render more secure the hearing of our prayers, we again ask each of the Persons of the Holy Trinity for mercy, and, adding those titles which give us a claim to Their consideration, we call upon the First Person: God, the Father of Heaven, to whom we owe existence and life; the Second: Redeemer of the world, to Whom we owe our salvation; the Third: Holy Ghost, to whom we owe our sanctification; and then on the Holy Trinity, one God.

To render God propitious, we, aware of our own unworthiness, ask the intercession of those who have become His special friends, through a holy life, the saints in lasting communion with Him. Foremost among these stands Mary, the chosen daughter of the Father, the undefiled mother of the Son, the stainless bride of the Holy Ghost -- we call upon her with the triple invocation: Holy Mary, Mother of God, Virgin of virgins. We then invoke the blessed spirits who remained firm in their allegiance to the Almighty during the rebellion of Lucifer and his adherents: Michael, prince of the heavenly host; Gabriel, "fortitude of God", the trusted companion of Tobias; and the other angels, archangels, and orders of blessed "ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation" (Heb., i, 14). Next in our confidence is he of whom Christ says "There hath nor risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist" (Matt., xi, 11), the precursor of the Lord, the last of the Prophets of the Old Law and the first of the New.

Next in order come St. Joseph, the foster-father of the Incarnate Word; and all the Patriarchs and Prophets who saved their souls in the hope of Him Who was the expected of the nations. Then follow the saints: Peter, prince of the Apostles, vice-regent of Christ; Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles; Andrew, who first heeded the call of the Master; James the Greater and John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, who, with St. Peter, were most favoured by Christ; Thomas, called Didymus, who received from Christ signal proofs of His Resurrection; James the Less, first Bishop of Jerusalem; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew, once called Levi, the toll-gatherer, who wrote the First Gospel; Simon the Zealot; Jude Thaddeus; Matthias, who was chosen to fill the place of Judas Iscariot; Barnabas, called to the Apostolate by the Holy Ghost (Acts, xiii, 2); Luke, the physician, writer of the Third Gospel and the Acts; Mark, the Evangelist, disciple of St. Peter; all the Apostles and Evangelists; the holy disciples of the Lord; the Holy Innocents, the infant martyr-flowers, "Who, slain at the command of Herod, confessed the name of the Lord not by speaking but by dying" (Rom. Brev.).

The glorious martyrs are then invoked: Stephen the Deacon, protomartyr, stoned at Jerusalem whilst praying for his executioners (Acts, vii, 58); Laurence, the Roman archdeacon; Vincent, the deacon of Saragossa in Spain; Fabian, the pope, and Sebastian, the soldier; John and Paul, brothers at the Court of Constantia, daughter of Constantine; Cosmas and Damian, renowned physicians of Ægea in Cilicia; Gervasius and Protasius, brothers at Milan; after which follows a collective impetration of all the holy martyrs. The litany now asks the prays of St. Sylvester, the pope who saw the triumph of the Crucified over paganism; of the Doctors of the Church; Sts. Gregory the Great, pope; Ambrose of Milan; Augustine of Hippo, in Africa; and Jerome, representing Dalmatia and the Holy Land; of the renowned Bishops Martin of Tours; Nicholas of Myra; of all the holy bishops and confessors; of all the holy teachers; of the founders of religious orders: Anthony, father of the anchorites of the desert; Benedict, patriarch of the Western monks; Bernard; Dominic; Francis; of all holy priests and levites; of monks and hermits. We then invoke Mary Magdalen, the model of Christian penance and of a contemplative life, of whom Christ said: "Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her" (Matt., xxvi, 13); the virgins and martyrs: Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Catherine, and Anastasia the Younger; and in conclusion of the holy virgins and widows; all the holy men and women.

Second part. The second part of the litany begins with another cry of "Be merciful to us, spare us O Lord; Be merciful to us, graciously hear us O Lord". We then enumerate the ills from which we hope to be delivered: From all evils; from sin; the wrath of God; sudden and unprovided death; the snares of the devil; anger, hatred, and all ill will; the spirit of fornication; lightning and tempest; the scourge of earthquake; plague, famine, and war; from everlasting death. To make our prayers more effective, we present to Christ all that He did for us through the mystery of the Incarnation, through His coming, nativity, baptism and holy fasting, cross and passion, death and burial, holy resurrection, admirable ascension, the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, and we conclude by the petition, "In the day of judgment, O Lord, deliver us."

Third part. In the third part we humbly acknowledge our unworthiness: "We, sinners, beseech Thee, hear us", and add the list of favours that we wish to obtain: that the Lord spare us; pardon us; and bring us to true penance; that He govern and preserve His holy Church; preserve our Apostolic prelate, and all orders of the Church, in holy religion; humble the enemies of the Church; give peace and true concord to Christian kings and princes; peace and unity to Christian nations; strengthen and preserve us in His holy service; raise our minds to heavenly desires; reward with eternal good all our benefactors; deliver us, our brethren, kinsfolk, and benefactors, from eternal damnation; give and preserve the fruits of the earth; and grant eternal rest to the faithful departed. We ask all this in calling upon the Son of God, thrice invoking the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. We repeat the "Kyrie", as in the beginning, and add the prayer taught by Christ Himself, the Our Father. Then follow psalm lxix, "O God, come to my assistance", etc., and a number of verses, responses, and prayers, renewing the former petitions. We conclude with an earnest request to be heard, and an appeal for the faithful departed.

FORMS

Three forms of the Litany of the Saints are at present in liturgical use.

First form. The form given above is prescribed by the Roman Ritual at the laying of the corner-stone of a new church, at the blessing or reconciliation of the same or of a cemetery, in the rite of blessing the people and fields in virtue of a special papal indult, for the major and minor Rogation Days, in the procession and prayers to obtain rain or fine weather, to avert storms and tempests, in time of famine or war, to escape mortality or in time of pestilence, in any tribulation, during the translation of relics, in solemn exorcisms of the possessed, and at the Forty Hours' Devotion. The Roman Pontifical, besides the occasions given in the Ritual, orders its recitation in the conferring of major orders, in the consecration of a bishop, benediction of an abbot or abbess, consecration of virgins, coronation of a king or queen, consecration of a church, expulsion and readmission of public penitents on Maundy Thursday, and in the "Ordo ad Synodum".

Second form. Another form is given in the Roman Missal for Holy Saturday and the Vigil of Pentecost. It is an abbreviation of the other. Each verse and response must be duplicated in this litany and in that chanted on Rogation Days (S.R.C., 3993, ad 4).

Third form. A third form is in the "Commendatio" of the Roman Ritual, in which the invocations and supplications are specially chosen to benefit the departing soul about to appear before its Maker (Holzhey, "Thekla-Akten", 1905, 93). This and the preceding form may not be used on other occasions (S.R.C., 2709, ad 1).

Formerly it was customary to invoke only classes of saints, then individual names were added, and in many places local saints were added (Rock, "The Church of Our Fathers", London, 1903, 182; "Manuale Lincopense", Paderborn, 1904, 71). To obtain uniformity, changes and additions to the approved were forbidden (S.R.C., 2093, 3236, 3313).

Romische Quartalschrift (1903), 333; BYKOUKAL in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlex., s.v.. Litanei; PUNKES in Kirchenlex., s.v. Litanei; SAMSON, Die Allerheiligen Litanei (Paderborn, 1894); Pastor Bonus, III, 278.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Lithuania

(Ger. Litauen)

An ancient grandy-duchy united with Poland in the fourteenth century.

The Lithuanians belong to the Indo-Germanic family, of which they form with the Letts and the extinct Borussians (Old Prussians) the Balto-Slavonic group. Within the Russian Empire they dwell principally in the governmental districts of Kovno, Grodno, Tchernigoff, and, in smaller numbers, in some few districts of Russian Poland (total in 1897: 1,658,542, or, including the Letts, 3,094,469). In Germany they are found in the northern part of East Prussia and in West Prussia (total about 110,000). Concerning their early history, even to-day little reliable information is available. In the twelfth century of our era, we find them divided into various clans and taking part in the wars between the princes of Polozk, Novgorod, Tchernigoff, etc., now as allies of the princes and again as enemies. From the end of the twelfth century they were engaged in constant warfare with the Order of the Brethren of the Sword, who were extending their conquests along the coast of the Baltic into Livonia. The Lithuanians were divided politically into numerous principalities, mostly hereditary, and to a great extent independent of one another.

The credit of having united them belongs to Prince Mendog (or Mindowe), who, towards the middle of the thirteenth century, succeeded in compelling the lesser princes to recognize his supremacy. With a view to strengthening his position against external enemies, especially the Teutonic Order, Mindowe and his wife sought baptism in 1250 or 1251, and received from Innocent IV the royal crown, with which he was crowned by the Bishop of Kulm, in 1252 (1253) in presence of the Master of the Teutonic Order. As Mindowe desired a special diocese for his territories, one Christian, a member of the Teutonic Order, was by order of the pope consecrated Bishop of Lithuania by Archbishop Albert of Riga. Notwithstanding Albert's efforts to secure this new diocese as suffragan of his see, it was made directly dependent on Rome. Of Christian's activity in Lithuania little is known. At this period, however, Christianity acquired no firm footing in Lithuania proper; it was embraced only by Mindowe and his immediate friends, and by them purely for political reasons, and it was also with an eye to political interest that they reverted to paganism about 1262. As Christian was coadjutor Bishop of Mainz as early as 1259, he cannot have long occupied the See of Lithuania; his successor, John, also a member of the Teutonic Order, also appears as coadjutor Bishop of Constance. The murder of Mindowe by his nephew Traniate was followed by great political confusion and a complete relapse into paganism. In the Russian territories, however, which were then and later known as Lithuanian, Christianity was retained under the Greek Orthodox form, these regions having been evangelized from Byzantium.

The first step towards the restoration of Lithuanina power was taken by Gedymin (archduke from 1316), when he introduced German colonists into his territories, and founded numerous cities and towns, granting them the privileges customary in Germany. The most important of these cities was Wilna, afterwards the capital of Lithuania. Gedymin succeeded in extending his kingdom to the east by successful battles with the Tatars, who had then made themselves masters of Russia. From 1336 he was involved in war with the Teutonic Order, and was slain while besieging Welona, one of their fortresses, in 1340 or 1341. Two of his sons, Olgerd and Keistut, successfully defended the independence of their kingdom against the order, while pushing their conquests further into Russia. Vigorous champions of paganism, they opposed the entrance of Christianity within their frontiers, although Gedymin, while himself remaining a heathen, had granted entire freedom to the Christian religion. Thus, the Franciscan and Dominican monasteries founded at Wilna under Gedymin were suppressed by his sons. Olderd (d. 1377) was succeeded by his son Jagello, who made overtures to the Teutonic Order and concluded a secret treaty with it. Jagello, however, awakened the suspicions of his uncle, Keistut, who took up arms, surprised him at Wilna, and made him prisoner for a time. In the ensuing civil war, Keistut allowed himself to be enticed into Jagello's camp under pledge of personal safety, but on his arrival there he was at once seized, thrown into prison, and eventually put to death (1382).

In 1384, upon the death of Louis I of Hungary and Poland, the Polish nobles, having crowned his daughter Hedwig, decided that as the new queen was but fifteen years old, she must be provided with a consort capable of protecting her dominions. Their choice fell upon Jagello of Lithuania, whose hostility to the Teutonic Order made him their natural ally. Moreover, the Catholic Church in Poland saw in this union the promise of glorious missionary activity in a land still for the most part pagan. The Franciscan provincial, Kmita, who enjoyed Jagello's confidence, was one of the foremost advocates of union between the kingdoms. Jagello, after formally suing for the queen's hand, promised to embrace the Catholic Faith, with his borthers and all his subjects, to unite his Lithuanian and Russian lands forever with the Polish Crown, to recover at his own expense the territory taken from Poland, and to pay Duke William of Austria, who had been promised Hedwig's hand, and indemnity of 200,000 gulden. Hedwig at length consented to the match. Jagello was baptized on 15 Feb., 1386, taking the name Wladislaw, and on 4 March he was married to Hedwig and crowned King Consort and Regent of Poland.

As the result of this union between Lithuania and Poland, a mighty Christian kingdom arose in Eastern Europe. Lithuania itself, three times as large as Poland, but far below it in culture, ceased to be independent, but it was now for the first time brought into immediate contact with Western civilization. In 1387 Jagello returned to his home, accompanied by missionaries. He won the good will of the nobles (boyars) for Christianity by granting them, on 20 February, the same liberties as were then enjoyed by the Catholic nobles in Poland. A see was established at Wilna, and Vasylo, a Polish Franciscan, appointed its first bishop. The Russian portions of Lithuania (Kiev, Tchernigoff, etc.) remained Greek Orthodox, but the Samoghitians continued for some time longer to be pagans. To strengthen the internal union between the peoples, Polish law was conceded only to the Catholic Lithuanians in the Constitution of 1387, and marriage with the Green Orthodox was forbidden. At first the relation between Lithuania and Poland was simply a personal union. Jagello retained for himself the princely dignity, but appointed a governor for Lithuania — first his brother Skirgjello and then, from 1392 to 1430, his cousin Witold. His endeavour to maintain this relation of independence towards the Polish Crown was rendered abortive by his defeat at the hands of the Tatars in 1399, which compelled him to enter into closer relations with the Poles. In 1401 the political union of the kingdoms took place; Lithuania was to be independent as long as Witold lived, but was then to be annexed to the Crown of Poland; Witold and the boyars took the oath of allegiance, and the Polish nobility promised to support the Lithuanians, and, after Jagello's death, to elect no king without first consulting them.

Besides their common warfare against the Teutonic Order, the fusion of the two peoples was furthered by the Assembly of Horodlo on the Bug, in 1413, at which the earlier union was renewed, and a large number of the Lithuanian boyars were admitted into the Polish nobility, receiving identical privileges. Furthermore, both the Polish and the Lithuanian nobility received from the king the right of convoking assemblies and parliaments in the interests of the kingdom with the permission of the prince. For the Lithuanians, whose government had previously been absolute, this right meant a constitution — even though oligarchical — by means of which they could readily make their influence felt in the affairs of the nation. But the division between Catholics and Greek Orthodox in the Little Russian districts still continued. To heal this, Witold laboured for ecclesiastical union between the two sections of the people. In 1415 he summoned an Orthodox synod at Nowohorodok, which declared the Lithuanian Orthodox Church, with its metropolitan of Kiev, independent of the Patriarch of Moscow. In 1418 he sent Gregory Camblak (or Cemiwlak), Metropolitan of Kiev, with eighteen suffragan bishops, to the Council of Constance to conclude a union with Rome, and to secure, in return for their recognition of papal supremacy, the retention of the Slavic Liturgy and Rite. The mission failed, however, nor were the negotiations at the Council of Florence in 1439 more successful. It was, indeed, only about 150 years later, at the Synod of Brest-Litovsk (1595-96), that the union of the Little Russian, or Ruthenian, Church with Rome was accomplished (see UNION OF BREST).

Religious divisions and the establishment of Polish garrisons in Lithuania, created a state of feeling which, after Witold's death, manifested itself in repeated rebellions. The union was formally dissolved when, on the death of Casimir IV, in 1492, the Lithuanians chose his fourth son, Alexander, as their grand-duke, and the Poles elected his third son, John Albert, their king. Only the war against the Teutonic Order, in 1499, brought the two peoples together once more. Even after the death of Alexander, in 1501, there still remained a powerful party in favour of independence; these found support in Russia, which, from the time of Ivan III (1462-1505), had been growing in power. The threatened separation, however, and the daily increasing evidence that Russia was to be the chief rival of Poland in Eastern Europe, led to a reaction among the Poles. They recognized the urgent necessity of exchanging a deceptive union for a genuine unity of the whole Polish Empire. Four previous diets having vainly sought a solution of the problem, that assembled at Lublin in 1569 at last affected the Union of Lublin. The union was proclaimed in July of the same year, and confirmed on oath by both parties. Henceforth, Poles and Lithuanians formed one kingdom, with one king elected in common, with a common diet, a common mint, etc.; of its earlier independence, Lithuania retained its own administration, its own finances, and its own army. Thereafter, Lithuania shared the fate of Poland, although in 1648 one section of the Lithuanians of Little Russia — the Ukraine — separated from Poland and, in 1654, made their submission to the Tsar of Russia. The various partitions of Poland resulted in the larger portion of Lithuania being ceded to Russia, the smaller to Prussia.

(See also GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA; GREEK CHURCH; EASTERN CHURCHES.)

For a complete bibliography of Lithuania consult BELTRAMAITIS, Bibliographical Materials (2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1904) (in Russian). The most important works are: SCHLOEZER, Gesch. von Litauen als einen eigenen Grossfürstentum bis zum jahre 1659 (Halle, 1785); NARBUT, The Ancient History of the Lithuanian People (Vilna, 1835) (Polish); THEINER, Vetera Monum. Poloniæ et Lithuaniæ hist. illustrantia (3 vols., Rome, 1860-63); ANTONWITSCH, Historical Sketch of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Kiev, 1878) (Russian); BATINSCHKOW, White Russia and Lithuania (St. Petersburg, 1890) (Russian); Brückner Ancient Lithuania (Warsaw, 1904) (Polish); TOTORAITIS, Die Litauer unter dem König Mindowe bis zum Jahre 1263 (Fribourg, 1905); LELEWEL, Hist. de la Lithuanie (Paris, 1861); Allgem. Litauische Rundschau (Tilsit, 1900 —). See also works on Poland, especially ROPELL and CARO, Gesch. Polens (5 vols., Hamburg and Gotha, 1840-88) (reaching to 1506); SCHIEMANN, Russland, Poland u. Livland bis ins 17. Jahrh. (2 vols., Berlin, 1884-87); MORFILL, Poland (London and New York, 1893), in Story of the Nations Series.

JOSEPH LINS

Litta

A noble Milanese family which gave two distinguished cardinals to the Church.

I. ALFONSO LITTA

Archbishop of Milan, born in 1608; died at Rome, 22 Aug., 1679. After filling other important positions, he was appointed governor of the Marches by Innocent X, was made Archbishop of Milan in 1652, and received the purple in 1640. He died shortly after the conclave which elected Innocent XI. He was a learned and charitable man and defended with courage the ecclesiastical immunities against the officers of the King of Spain. His works are enumerated by Argelati in the "Bibliotheca Scriptorum Mediolanensium" (Milan, 1745); his life was written by M. Bardocchi (Bologna, 1691).

II. LORENZO LITTA

Born at Milan, 25 Feb, 1756; died at Monte Flavio, 1 May, 1820. A distinguished littérateur, he played a prominent part in contemporary ecclesiastical history. As a youth he was sent by his parents to the Clementine College in Rome, where he made rapid progress in letters and law. Not long after the completion of his studies he was made prothonotary Apostolic by Pius VI. In 1793 he was consecrated titular Archbishop of Thebes, and sent as nuncio to Poland, where he arrived in March, 1794, shortly before the outbreak of the revolution. Notwithstanding the difficulty of his own position, he used his influence with Kosciuszko on behalf of the Church and churchmen, and saved the life of Monsignor Skarzewski, Bishop of Chelm, already condemned to death, though he was not so successful with regard to the Bishop of Wilna and Livonia. In the negotiations for the third partition of Poland, he used his utmost endeavours to have the three States guarantee the preservation of the Church organization and property — guarantees which were disgracefully violated by Catherine II. On the latter's death Litta was sent on an extraordinary mission to Moscow for the coronation of Paul I, whence he was transferred as ambassador of Pius VI to St. Petersburg, to settle, according to Paul's wish, the affairs of the Latin and the Uniat Ruthenian church. He secured the erection, or rather restoration, of six dioceses of the Latin Rite and three of the Ruthenian (Polotsk, Lutsk, and Brest). The restoration of the See of Kiev was prevented by the Holy Synod. Church property was only partly restored, though the Government was obliged to establish suitable allowances for the clergy. Litta also induced the metropolitans of Gnesen (Posnania), and Lemberg (Galicia) to renounce their jurisdiction over the dioceses of the Latin Rite in Russian territory, these being transferred to the new metropolis of Mohileff. Through his efforts also the Basilian Order was restored. In April, 1789, he had to leave Russia.

On the death of Pius VI he went to Venice to assist at the conclave. When he returned to Rome he was given an office in the papal treasury which enabled him to eradicate many abuses and introduce a better administration. In 1801 he was created cardinal and was made Prefect of the Congregation of the Index and, later, of Studies. In 1809 he was expelled from Rome with Pius VII and sent to Saint-Quentin on the Seine. During this exile he translated the Iliad, and wrote a series of letters containing a brilliant refutation of the four Gallican Articles of 1682, then the subject of much discussion. Some of these letters were addressed to Napoleon himself, and were later published anonymously. Returning to Rome with Pius VII, Litta was made Prefect of Propaganda, which, under his administration, soon recovered its former status. In 1814 he became suburbicarian Bishop of Sabina, and in 1818 Cardinal Vicar of Rome. He is buried at Rome in SS. Giovanni e Paolo.

A biography was published by BARULDI (Florence, 1828); see also LITTA, Famiglie celebri italiane.

U. BENIGNI.

Little Office of Our Lady

A liturgical devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in imitation of, and in addition to, the Divine Office.

It is first heard of in the middle of the eighth century at Monte Cassino. According to Cardinal Bona, who quotes from a manuscript of Peter the Deacon (twelfth century), there was, in addition to the Divine Office, another "which it is customary to perform in honour of the Holy Mother of God, which Zachary the Pope [d. 752] commanded under strict precept to the Cassinese Monastery." This would seem to indicate that some form of the Office of Our Lady was already extant and, indeed, we hear of an Office in her honour composed by St. Ildephonsus, who lived about the end of the seventh century. The Eastern Church, too, possesses an Office of the B.V.M., attributed to St. John Damascene (c. 730). But though various Offices in honour of Our Lady were in existence earlier, it is probable that the Little Office, as a part of the liturgy, did not come into general use before the tenth century; and it is not unlikely that its diffusion is largely due to the marked devotion to the Blessed Virgin which is characteristic of the Church in England under the guidance of St. Dunstan and St. Ethelwold. Certainly during the tenth century, an Office of the Blessed Virgin is mentioned at Augsburg, at Verdun, and at Eisiedeln; while already in the following century there were at least two versions of her "Hours extant in England. In the eleventh century we learn from St. Peter Damian that it was already commonly recited amongst the secular clergy of Italy and France, and it was through his influence that the practice of reciting it in choir, in addition to the Great Office, was introduced into several Italian monasteries. At Cluny the Office of the B.V.M. was not introduced till the end of the eleventh century, and then only as a devotion for the sick monks. In the twelfth century came the foundation of the Orders of Cîteaux and Prémontré, of which the latter only retained the Little Office in addition to the Divine Office. The Austin Canons also retained it, and, perhaps through their influence, in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it developed from a private devotion into part of the daily duty of the secular clergy as well. By the fourteenth century the recital of the Little Office had come to be an almost universal practice and was regarded as obligatory on all the clergy. This obligation remained until St. Pius V removed it by the Bull "Quod a nobis" of 1568. At the present time, however, it is recited on certain days by several of the older orders, and it serves, instead of the Greater Office, as the liturgical prayer of lay brothers and lay sisters in some of the contemplative orders, and of the members of most of the congregations of women engaged in active work.

Down to the Reformation it formed a large part of the "Primer or Lay-folk's Prayer-book", and was customarily recited by the devout laity, by whom the practice was continued for long afterwards among the persecuted Catholics. Today it is recited daily by Dominican, Carmelite, Augustinian, and by large numbers of the Franciscan, Tertiaries, as well as by many pious laymen who desire to take part in the liturgical prayer of the Church. It is worth noting that the form of the Little Office of Our Lady has varied considerably at different periods and in different places. The earlier versions varied very considerably, chiefly as regards the hymns and antiphons used: in England in medieval times the main differences seem to have been between the Sarum and York Uses. Since the time of St. Pius V, that most commonly recited has been the version of the reformed Breviary of that pope. In this version, which suffers somewhat from the classicism of the sixteenth century, are to be found the seven "Hours", as in the Greater Office. At Matins, after the versicles follow the invitatory "Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum" with the "Venite then the hymn "Quem terra, pontus, sidera"; then three groups of psalms, each with their antiphons, of which one group is said on Sundays, Mondays, and Thursdays, the second on Tuesdays and Fridays, the third on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Next follow three lessons with responsories and (except in Lent and Advent) the "Te Deum". At Lauds, there are the eight psalms of the Divine Office for Sundays, sung to five antiphons. Then the Little Chapter, and the hymn "O Gloriosa Virginum". Next a versicle and the canticle "Benedictus" with its antiphon. Lastly, the prayer and commemoration of the saints. In each of the four Little Hours the hymn "Memento rerum conditor" immediately follows the versicles; then three psalms are recited, under one of the antiphons of Lauds; then are said the Little Chapter, versicles, and a prayer. At Vespers, after the versicles and five psalms with their antiphons, follow the Little Chapter, the hymn "Ave Maris stella", a short versicle, and the canticle "'Magnificat" with its antiphon; then the prayers as at Lauds. Compline begins with special versicles, then follow three psalms without antiphons, then the hymn "Memento rerum conditor", a Little Chapter, a versicle, the canticle "Nunc Dimittis", versicles, a prayer, and the Benediction. After the hours are recited the "Pater Noster" and the proper antiphon of Our Lady for the season. This last, the antiphons of the psalms and canticles and the Little Chapters are the only parts of the office that vary with the seasons. Pope Leo XIII granted (17 Nov., 1887), to those who recite the whole Office of Our Lady, an indulgence daily of seven years and seven quarantines, and a plenary indulgence once a month: to those who recite Matins and Lauds only, a daily indulgence of three hundred days: and (8 Dec., 1897) to those who recite Vespers and Compline only, and for each Hour, an indulgence of fifty days.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Diocese of Little Rock

(PETRICULANA)

The State of Arkansas and the Indian Territory, parts of the Louisiana Purchase, were formed, 1843, into the Diocese of Little Rock. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no significant church work done in Arkansas. The white population in 1785 was 196 and in 1799 only 368. Bishop Dubourg (1820) visited the Osage Indians and, after him, Father Croix. Under Bishop Rosati, the Lazarists, from their seminary at the Barrens, Missouri, did praiseworthy missionary work (1824-30) among the Indians and scattered whites. The most noted secular priest of these times was Rev. Richard Bole, who established St. Mary's Mission, five miles below the present Pine Bluff, and brought there, 1838, from St. Geneviève, Missouri, five sisters of Loretto, who opened the first Catholic school in Arkansas. Rev. Andrew Byrne, pastor of St. James's Church, New York City, was consecrated the first bishop, 10 March, 1844.

Bishop Byrne, born in Navan, Ireland, 5 Dec., 1802, and ordained by Bishop England at Charleston, South Carolina, 11 Nov., 1827, brought from New York to Arkansas Fathers Corry of Albany and Donohoe of Troy, New York. All the priests of the earlier days had gone. The Catholic population of the diocese was not more than 1000. Bishop Byrne secured from Naas, Ireland, thirteen Sisters of Mercy, who established, 1850, St. Mary's Academy at Little Rock, and, 1851, St. Ann's Academy at Fort Smith. An imposing frame cathedral was erected in Little Rock, and modest structures were built in several parts of the State. During the Civil War, 1861-65, church work was paralyzed. Bishop Byrne died on 10 June, 1862. The diocese remained sede vacante, with Very Rev. P. O'Reilly, V.G., as administrator until 3 Feb., 1867, when Rev. Edward Fitzgerald, pastor of St. Patrick's Church, Columbus, Ohio, became bishop. Bishop Fitzgerald, preconized on 22 June, 1866, and consecrated on 3 Feb., 1867, was born in 1833, at Limerick, Ireland. He entered the Lazarist Seminary at the Barrens, Missouri, in 1850, and was subsequently a student at Mount St. Mary's, Cincinnati, and Mount St. Mary's, Emmitsburg, where he was ordained in 1857 by Archbishop Purcell. Bishop Fitzgerald found in his diocese four parishes, five priests, and a Catholic population of 1600. He began work to secure Catholic immigration for the State, sisters for schools and priests for missions. Benedictine monks from St. Meinrad, Indiana, came in 1876 to Logan County and soon flourishing German settlements arose. The Holy Ghost Fathers of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, established in 1879 successful German colonies near Morrilton. A Polish settlement was made at Marche in 1880, and Italians came later to Sunnyside, Tontitown, New Gascony, and Barton. Bishop Fitzgerald dedicated, 27 May, 1894, the first church in Arkansas for coloured people, at Pine Bluff, where there had been established an excellent industrial school, now in care of the Colored Sisters of the Holy Family. Monsignor John B. Morris, V.G., of Nashville, Tennessee, was consecrated Coadjutor Bishop of Little Rock, 11 June, 1906, and on the death of Bishop Fitzgerald assumed full control.

Bishop Fitzgerald died in 1907, when there were in the diocese: 41 churches with resident priests; 32 missions with churches; 26 secular priests, and 34 religious; 272 sisters; a Catholic population of 20,000, and good financial conditions. The Indian Territory, since it was created a vicariate in 1891, ceased to be part of the Diocese of Little Rock. Bishop Morris, who assumed control of the diocese, 1907, was born at Hendersonville, Tennessee, 29 June, 1866. His theological studies were made at the American College, Rome, and he was ordained priest on 11 June, 1892, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran, by Cardinal Parocchi. After several years' rectorship of the cathedral, Nashville, Bishop Byrne appointed him, 1901, vicar-general, and in 1905 Pius X elevated him to the rank of domestic prelate. In the three years of his incumbency Bishop Morris has opened Little Rock College (1908) at a cost of $50,000, and St. Joseph's orphan asylum on a tract of 720 acres, completed at a cost of $150,000. The first diocesan synod was held on 16 Feb., 1909, at Little Rock, and the first normal school of instruction for Catholic teachers was inaugurated at Little Rock, 11 June, 1909.

GAYARRE, French Domination (New Orleans, 1845); IDEM, Spanish Domination (New Orleans, 1845); IDEM, American Domination (New Orleans, 1845); POPE, A Tour of the United States (Richmond, 1792); GREENHOW, History of Oregon and California (Boston, 1845); MELISH, Military and Topographical Atlas (Philadelphia, 1815); NUTTAL, Travels in Arkansas (Philadelphia, 1821); POPE, Early Days in Arkansas (Little Rock, 1895); WASHBURN, Reminiscences of the Indians (Richmond, 1869); PARKMAN, works; BANCROFT, History of the United States (Boston, 1879); REYNOLDS, Makers of Arkansas History (New York and Boston, 1905); HEMSTEAD, School History of Arkansas (New Orleans, 1889); SHINN, School History of Arkansas (Richmond, 1900); ROZIER, History of the Mississippi Valley (St. Louis, 1890); JEWELL, History of the Methodist Church in Arkansas (Little Rock, 1898); Publications of the Arkansas Historical Association, I, II (Little Rock, 1908); HALLIBURTON, History of Arkansas County, Arkansas (Dewitt, 1909); SHEA, History of the Catholic Church (New York, 1892).

J. M. LUCEY.

Paul-Maximilien-Emile Littré

A French lexicographer and philosopher; born at Paris, 1 February, 1801; died there, 2 June, 1881. He studied at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand, Paris, and after graduating with honours, he became secretary to Count Daru. He then studied medicine and he was about to obtain his degree, when his father died and he was compelled to abandon his studies to make a living for his mother, by teaching Greek and Latin for a time. Although he could not be a physician, he was interested in medical studies throughout his life. His first publications deal with medical subjects: "Le choléra oriental" (Paris, 1832), "Les grandes épidémies", an article published in the "Revue des Deux Mondes" (Paris, 1836), "Les œuvres d'histoire naturelle de Goethe" (1838). He founded with Dezeimeris a medical magazine, "L'Expérience" (1837), and translated the "Natural History" of Pliny the Elder (Paris, 1848), the "Handbook of Physiology" by Müller (Paris, 1851), and issued a revised edition of Pierre Nysten's "Dictionnaire de Médecine et de Chirurgie" (Paris, 1854). From 1839 to 1861, he published a translation of the works of Hippocrates. On account of his researches in the scientific field, he was elected to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1839. While pursuing his scientific studies, he was greatly interested in politics. In 1831, having been introduced to Armand Carrel, he had become a regular contributor to the newspaper "Le National" and retained that position up to the Revolution of 1848. Realizing that the political movement was no longer in accordance with his own ideas, he severed his connexions with "Le National" and devoted his entire time to his studies.

It was towards 1840 that he was initiated into the Positivist philosophy and got acquainted with Auguste Comte, of whom he soon became an independent follower. As a philosopher, he wrote: "Analyse raisonné du cours de philosophie positive" (Paris, 1845), "L'Application de la philosophie positive au gouvernement des sociétés" (Paris, 1849), "Conservation, Révolution et positivisme" (Paris, 1852), "Paroles de philosophic positive" (Paris, 1859), "Auguste Comte et la philosophie positive" (1863), "Fragments de philosophie positive et de sociologic contemporaine" (1876). In 1863, he was a candidate for the French Academy, but owing to the strong opposition of Mgr Dupanloup, Bishop of Orléans, who denounced his works as immoral and impious, he was rejected. He was afterwards admitted to the Academy, in 1871, and Bishop Dupanloup sent his resignation, together with a strong letter to protest against that election which, he thought, "was a disgrace to the illustrious company".

Besides his numerous contributions to various reviews, and the publication of his works, Littré founded, in 1867, a new magazine, "La revue de philosophie positive". All this work would have absorbed the entire energy of another man; but this is only a part of the tremendous production of Littré. While he was busily engaged in all these philosophical and scientific works, this indefatigable worker, in 1839, became a member of the committee entrusted with the duty of continuing the "Histoire littéraire de la France", a vast undertaking begun in the eighteenth century by the Benedictine monks of the Saint-Maur Congregation, and taken up by the French Institute, after the Revolution. Attracted by that subject, he published a series of articles on history and literature, on comparative philology and study of languages, which were afterwards gathered under the title of "Histoire de la langue française", "Littérature et histoire" (Paris, 1878), "Etudes et glanures" (Paris, 1880). One of his most interesting contributions to philology is a translation of Book I of the Iliad, in verse and in the French language of the thirteenth century. But by far the most important of all his works, which will make his name live forever, is the "Dictionnaire de la langue française", published from 1859 to 1872 (Paris, 5 vols. and a supplement).

In 1871, Littré was elected to the Assemblée Nationale by the Department of Seine and was made a senator for life in 1874. His fame was then exploited by the Radicals who went so far as to induce him to be initiated a Freemason. Much to their surprise, he pronounced, on the occasion of his initiation, a very conservative speech which disappointed the enemies of the Church. In fact, he had never been an implacable opponent to Catholicism. In 1878 he declined the dedication of a certain book because of bitter attacks against the Church. He publicly acknowledged that he "had never been an absolute contemner of Christianity", and he had, on the contrary, constantly "recognized its lofty character and the benefits that may be derived from it". Towards the end of his life, yielding to the entreaties of his wife and daughter, he had long interviews with Fr. Millériot, S.J., and finally asked to be baptized and he died in the Catholic Church.

SAINTE-BEUVE, Littré, sa vie et ses travaux in Nouveaux Lundis, V (Paris, 1863); CARO, Littré et le Positivisme (Paris, 1883); PASTEUR AND RENAN, Discours de réception à l'académie française (Paris, 1882); SAINT-HILAIRE, Souvenirs personnels sur Littré in La Chronique médicale (1895); KNELLER, Das Christendum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg, 1904).

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE.

Liturgical Books

Under this name we understand all the books, published by the authority of any church, that contain the text and directions for her official (liturgical) services. It is now the book that forms the standard by which one has to judge whether a certain service or prayer or ceremony is official and liturgical or not. Those things are liturgical, and those only, that are contained in one of the liturgical books. It is also obvious that any church or religion or sect is responsible for the things contained in its liturgical books in quite another sense than for the contents of some private book of devotion, which she at most only allows and tolerates. The only just way of judging of the services, the tone, and the ethos of a religious body, is to consult its liturgical books. Sects that have no such official books are from that very fact exposed to all manner of vagaries in their devotion, just as the absence of an official creed leads to all manner of vagueness in their belief. In this article the liturgical books of the Roman Rite are described first, then a short account is given of those of the other rites.

I. THE FIRST TRACES OF LITURGICAL BOOKS

Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on -- were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed (see LITURGY). Even after certain forms had become so stereotyped as to make already what we should call a more or less fixed liturgy, it does not seem that there was at first any idea that they should be written down. Habit and memory made the celebrant repeat more or less the same forms each Sunday; the people answered his prayers with the accustomed acclamations and responses -- all without books.

It has been much discussed at what period we have evidence of written liturgies. Renaudot ("Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio", 2nd ed., Frankfurt, 1847, I, pp. ix and xi) thought that no books were written even by the fourth century. He argues this from a passage in St. Basil (died 379), who distinguishes between the written teaching of the Apostles (in the Bible) and the unwritten tradition, and quotes liturgical functions as belonging to this: "Who", he asks, "of the saints has written down for us the words of the Sacred Invocation in the consecration of the bread and chalice?" (De Spir. Sancto, c. xxvii, in P. G., XXXII, 187). Another argument is that no mention is made of liturgical books in the acts of martyrs (who are required to give up their holy books, that is, always, the Bible), or in the quarrels about the books with the Donatists in the fourth century. Daniel ("Codex liturgicus", IV, Leipzig, 1853, pp. 25-32) argues against this opinion at length, and defends the view that liturgies were written down at the beginning of the fourth century. Probst ("Die ältesten römischen Sakramentarien und Ordines", Münster, 1892, pp. 1-19) tries to establish that there were liturgical books back to the time of the Apostolic Fathers. The argument from St. Basil may be dismissed at once. He is only explaining the well-known distinction between the two sources of revelation, Scripture and tradition. Tradition is distinct from Scripture; it may include other written books, but not the Bible. By "saints" he means only the writers of Scripture, and therefore his statement is that the Eucharistic Invocation is not in the Bible. As for the Donatists, there is, on the contrary, evidence that both they and the Catholics had liturgical books at that time. Optatus of Mileve, writing about the year 370 against them, says: "You have no doubt cleaned the palls" (linen cloths used in Mass), "tell me what you have done with the books?" ("De schism. Donat.", V, Vienna edition, 1893, p. 153.) What were these books? Both palls and books had been taken from the Catholics, both were used in the liturgy (ibid.). The books were not the Bible, because the Donatists thought them polluted (ibid.). So there were other liturgical books besides the Bible. Augustine too reproaches the Donatists with being in schism with the very churches whose names they read in the "holy books" (epp. lii and liii). So also a synod at Hippo in Africa (in 393) forbids anyone to write down the prayers of other Churches and use them, until he has shown his copy to the more learned brethren (can. xxv; Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, p. 88; cf. Probst, op. cit., 13-14).

That some prayers were occasionally written down from the first age is evident. Prayers are quoted in the Apostolic Fathers ("Didache", ix, x; Clement, "First Epistle to the Corinthians", lix, 3-lxi. See LITURGY). This does not, however, prove the existence of liturgical books. Probst thinks that the exact quotations made by the Fathers as far back as the second century prove that the liturgy was already written down. Such quotations, he says, could only be made from written books (op. cit., 15-17). This argument does not seem very convincing. We know that formulæ, especially liturgical formulæ, can become very definite and well-known before they are put in a book. A more solid reason for the existence of a written liturgy at any rate by the fourth century is the comparison of the liturgy of the eighth book of the Apostolic Fathers with the Byzantine Rite of St. Basil. Proclus (died 446) says that Basil (died 379) modified and shortened the liturgy because it was too long for the people. There is no reason to doubt what he says (see CONSTANTINOPLE, THE RITE OF). The liturgy shortened by Basil was that of Antioch, of which we have the oldest specimen in the Apostolic Constitutions. A comparison of this (especially the Thanksgiving-prayer) with that of St. Basil (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", pp. 14-18 and 321-3) shows in effect that Basil is much shorter. It does not seem likely that, after Basil's necessary shortening, anyone should have taken the trouble to write out the discarded long form. Therefore, the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions was written before St. Basil's reform, although it is incorporated into a work not finally compiled till the early fifth century (Funk, "Die apostolischen Konstitutionen", Rottenburg, 1891, p. 366; Probst, op. cit., 12-13).

Our conclusion then is that at any rate by the middle of the fourth century there were written liturgies, and therefore liturgical books of some kind, however incomplete. How long before that anything was written down we cannot say. We conceive portions of the rite written out as occasion required. Evidently one of the first things to be written was the diptychs containing the lists of persons and churches for whom prayers were to be said. These diptychs were used liturgically -- the deacon read them -- in all rites down to the Middle Ages. Augustine's argument against the Donatists refers to the diptychs (epp. lii and liii above). The diptychs were two tablets folded like a book (dis and ptyche); on one side the names of the living, on the other those of the dead were written. They have now disappeared and the names are said from memory. But the Byzantine Rite still contains the rubrics: "The deacon remembers the diptychs of the departed"; "He remembers the diptychs of the living" (Brightman, op. cit., 388-9). No doubt the next thing to be written out was the collection of prayers said by the celebrant (Sacramentaries and Euchologia), then indications for the readers (Comites, Capitularia, Synaxaria) and the various books for the singers (Antiphonaries, books of Troparia), and finally the rubrical directions (Ordines, Typika).

II. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LITURGICAL BOOKS

So far the development went on in parallel lines in East and West. When we come to the actual books we must distinguish between the various rites, which have different groups and arrangements. In the Roman Rite the first complete books we know are the Sacramentaries (Sacramentaria). A Sacramentary is not the same thing as a Missal. It contains more on the one side, less on the other. It is the book for the celebrant. It contains all and only the prayers that he says. At the time that these books were written it was not yet the custom for the celebrant also to repeat at the altar whatever is sung by the ministers or choir. Thus Sacramentaries contain none of those parts of the Mass, no Lessons, no Introits, Graduals, Offertories and so on, but only the Collects, Prefaces, Canon, all that is strictly the celebrant's part. On the other hand they provide for his use at other occasions besides Mass. As the celebrant is normally supposed to be a bishop, the Sacramentary supplies him with the prayers he wants at ordinations, at the consecration of a church and altar and many exorcisms, blessings, and consecrations that are now inserted in the Pontifical and Ritual. That is the order of a complete Sacramentary. Many of those now extant are more or less fragmentary.

The name Sacramentarium is equivalent to the other form also used (for instance, in the Gelasian book), Liber Sacramentorum. The form is the same as that of the word Hymnarium, for a book of hymns. Gennadius of Marseilles (fifth cent.) uses both. He says of Paulinus of Nola: "Fecit et sacramentarium et hymnarium" (De viris illustribus, xlviii). The word sacramentum or sacramenta in this case means the Mass. Sacramenta celebrare or facere is a common term for saying Mass. So St. Augustine (died 430) remarks that we say "Sursum corda" "in sacramentis fidelium", that is at Mass (De Dono Persev., xiii, 33), and two schismatics of the fifth century complain to the Emperors Gratian and Theodosius that Pope Damasus (366-84) will not let them say Mass; but they do so all the same, because "salutis nostræ sacramenta facienda sunt" (Faustinus and Marcellinus, "Lib. prec. ad Imp." in P. L., XIII, 98; cf. Probst, "Die ältesten röm. Sakram.", 20-1). A number of Sacramentaries of the Roman Rite are still extant, either complete or in part. Of these the most important are the three known by the names Leonine, Gelasian, and Gregorian. Their date, authorship, place, and original purpose have been much discussed. What follows is a compilation of the views of recognized scholars.

The so-called "Sacramentarium Leonianum" is the oldest. Only one manuscript of it is known, written in the seventh century. This manuscript was found in the library of the cathedral chapter of Verona, was published by Joseph Bianchini in 1735 in the fourth volume of his edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and was by him attributed arbitrarily to St. Leo I (440-61). On the strength of this attribution the book was included by the Ballerini in their edition of Leo (Venice, 1753-7), and still bears the name Leonine. It was reprinted by Muratori in his "Liturgia Romana vetus" (Venice, 1748). Now the best edition is that of C. L. Feltoe (Cambridge, 1896). The Leonine Sacramentary represents a pure Roman use with no Gallican elements. But it is not a book compiled for use at the altar. The hopeless confusion of its parts shows this. It is a fragment, containing no Canon nor Ordinary of the Mass, but a collection of Propers (Collects, Secrets, Prefaces, Postcommunions, and Orationes super populum), of various Masses with ordination forms, arranged according to the civil year. It begins in the middle of the sixth Mass for April, and ends with a blessing for the font "In ieiunio mensis decimi" (i. e. the winter Ember-days). In each month groups of Masses are given, often very large groups, for each feast and occasion. Thus, for instance, in June we find twenty-eight Masses for St. Peter and St. Paul, one after another, each headed: "Item alia" (Feltoe's ed., pp. 36-50); there are fourteen for St. Lawrence, twenty-three for the anniversary of a bishop's consecration (123-39), and so on. Evidently the writer has compiled as many alternative Masses for each occasion as he could find. In many cases he shows great carelessness. He inserts Masses in the wrong place. Many of his Masses in natali episcoporum have nothing at all to do with that anniversary, and are really Masses for Sundays after Pentecost; in the middle of a Mass of St. Cornelius and St. Cyprian he has put the preface of a Mass of St. Euphemia (p. 104), a Mass for the new civil year is inserted among those for martyrs (XX item alia, p. 9); Masses for St. Stephen's day (26 Dec.) with evident allusions to Christmas are put in August (pp. 86-9), obviously through a confusion with the feast of the finding of his relics (3 Aug.). Many other examples of the same confusion are quoted by Buchwald ("Das sogen. Sacramentarium Leonianum", Vienna, 1908). That the collection is Roman is obvious. It is full of local allusions to Rome. For instance, one of the collects to be said by a bishop on the anniversary of his consecration could only be used by the pope of Rome: "Lord God . . . who, although Thou dost not cease to enrich with many gifts Thy Church spread throughout the world, nevertheless dost look more favourably upon the see of Thy blessed Apostle Peter, as Thou hast desired that it should be most exalted, etc." (p. 127). The Preface for St. John and St. Paul remembers that they are buried within "the boundaries of this city" (p. 34); the Masses of the Patrons of Rome, St. Peter and St. Paul, continually allude to the city (so the preface in the twenty-third Mass: "who, foreseeing that our city would labour under so many troubles, didst place in it the chief members of the power of the Apostles", p. 47), and so on continually (cf. Probst, op. cit., 48-53, etc.).

Mgr Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chrétien, 129-37) thinks that the Leonine book is a private collection of prayers copied without much intelligence from the official books at Rome about the year 538. He arrives at this date especially through an allusion in the Secret of a Mass placed in June (but really an Easter Mass), which refers to a recent deliverance from enemies (Feltoe, p. 73). This allusion he understands to refer to the raising of the siege of Rome by Vitiges and his Goths at Easter-time, 538 (see his other arguments, pp. 131-2). Muratori considered that the book was composed under Felix III (483-92; "Liturgia rom. vetus", diss. xxvii). Probst answers Duchesne's arguments (Die ältesten röm. Sakram., pp. 56-61); he attributes the allusion in the Secret to Alaric's invasion in 402, and thinks that the compilation was made between 366 and 461. The latest theory is that of Buchwald (Das sogen. Sacram. Leon., 62-7), who suggests that the book is a compilation of Roman Masses made in the sixth or seventh century for use in Gaul, so that the composers of Roman books who were at that time introducing the Roman Rite into Gaul (see LITURGY) might have a source from which to draw their material. He suggests Gregory of Tours (died 594) as possibly the compiler.

The "Gelasian Sacramentary" exists in several manuscripts. It is a Roman book more or less Gallicanized; the various manuscripts represent different stages of this Gallican influence. The oldest form extant is a book written in the seventh or early eighth century for use in the abbey of St. Denis at Paris. This is now in the Vatican library (Manuscript Reginæ 316). It was first published by Tommasi in his "Codices Sacramentorum nongentis annis vetustiores" (Rome, 1680), then by Muratori in "Liturgia romana vetus", I. Other versions of the same book are the Codices of St. Gall and of Rheinau, both of the eighth century, edited by Gerbert in his "Monumenta veteris liturgiæ alemmanicæ," I (St. Blaise, 1777). These three (collated with others) form the basis of the standard edition of H. A. Wilson (Oxford, 1894). The book does not in any old manuscript bear the name of Gelasius; it is called simply "Liber Sacramentorum Romanæ ecclesiæ". It is much more complete than the Leonine Sacramentary. It consists of three books, each marked with a not very accurate title. Book I (The Book of Sacraments in the order of the year's cycle) contains Masses for feasts and Sundays from Christmas Eve to the octave of Pentecost (there are as yet no special Masses for the season after Pentecost), together with the ordinations, prayers for all the rites of the catechumenate, blessing of the font at Easter Eve, of the oil, dedication of churches, and reception of nuns (Wilson, ed., pp. 1-160). Book II (Prayers for the Feasts of Saints) contains the Proper of Saints throughout the year, the Common of Saints, and the Advent Masses (ibid., 161-223). Book III (Prayers and the Canon for Sundays) contains a great number of Masses marked simply "For Sunday" (i. e. any Sunday), the Canon of the Mass, what we should call votive Masses (e. g. for travellers, in time of trouble, for kings, and so on), Masses for the Dead, some blessings (of holy water, fruits, trees and so on), and various prayers for special occasions (224-315). An old tradition (Walafrid Strabo, ninth century, "De rebus eccl.", XX; John the Deacon, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, xvii, etc.) ascribes what is evidently this book to Pope Gelasius I [492-6. Gennadius (De vir. illust., xcvi) says he composed a book of Sacraments]. Duchesne (op. cit., 121-5) thinks it represents the Roman service-books of the seventh or eighth century (between the years 628 and 731). It was, however, composed in the Frankish kingdom. All the local Roman allusions (for instance, the Roman Stations) have been omitted; on Good Friday the prayers read: "Let us pray for our most Christian Emperor [the compiler has added] or king" (p. 76), and again: "look down mercifully on the Roman, or the Frankish, Empire" (ibid.). There are also Gallican additions (Duchesne, 125-8). Dom Baumer ("Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelas." in "Histor. Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft", 1893, pp. 241-301) and Mr. Bishop ("The earliest Roman Massbook" in "Dublin Review", 1894; pp. 245-78) maintain that it is much earlier than Duchesne thinks, and ascribe it to the sixth century, at which time the Roman Rite entered Gaul (see LITURGY). Buchwald (Das sogen. Sacr. Leon., ibid., p. 66) agrees with Duchesne in dating this Sacramentary at the seventh or eighth century, and thinks that its compiler used the Leonine collection.

We know most about the third of these books, the so-called "Gregorian Sacramentary". Charlemagne, anxious to introduce the Roman Rite into his kingdom, wrote to Pope Adrian I between the years 781 and 791 asking him to send him the service-book of the Roman Church. The book sent by the pope is the nucleus of the Gregorian Sacramentary. It was then copied a great number of times, so that there are many versions of it, all containing additions made by the various scribes. These are described by Probst (Die ätesten Sakr., pp. 303-13). The first edition is that of Pamelius in his "Rituale SS. Patrum Latinorum", II (Cologne, 1571). The standard edition is Muratori, "Liturgia romana vetus", II. This is based on two manuscripts, both written before 800, now in the Vatican Library (Cod. Ottobonianus and Cod. Vaticanus). Migne (P. L., LXXVIII, 25-602) reprints the edition of Nicholas Ménard (Paris, 1642). Probst maintains that this is rather to be considered a Gelasian book, reformed according to the Gregorian (Die ältes. Sakr., pp. 165-9). In any case the elements are here completely fused. The original book sent by Adrian to Charlemagne is easily distinguished from the additions. The first who began to supplement Adrian's book from other sources (Pamelius says it was a certain Frankish Abbot named Grimold) was a conscientious person and carefully noted where his additions begin. At the end of the original book he adds a note, a prefatiuncula beginning with the word Hucusque: "So far (Hucusque) the preceding book of Sacraments is certainly that edited by the holy Pope Gregory." Then come (in Pamelius's edition) two supplements, one (according to Pamelius) by Abbot Grimold and the other by Alcuin. The supplements vary considerably in the codices. Eventually their matter became incorporated in the original book. But in the earlier versions we may take the first part, down to the prefatiuncula, as being the book sent by Adrian. How far it is that of Gregory I is another question. This book then has three parts:

• (1) The Ordinary of the Mass;
• (2) the Propers for the year beginning with Christmas Eve. They follow the ecclesiastical year; the feasts of saints (days of the month in the civil year) are incorporated in their approximate places in this. The Roman Stations are noted. There are still no Masses for the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost;
• (3) the prayers for ordinations.

There are no votive Masses or requiems. For these reasons Mgr Duchesne considers that the "Sacramentary" is the "pope's book", that is the book used by the pope himself for the public papal services (Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 117). Is its attribution to St. Gregory I (590-604) correct? That Gregory did much to reform the liturgy is certain. A constant tradition ascribes such a work to him, as to Gelasius. John the Deacon (eighth century) in his life of Gregory expresses this tradition: "He collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book" (we have seen that the two sets of Propers in the Gelasianum are fused together in the Gregorianum), "leaving out much" (this too is verified by comparing the books; numbers of Gelasian Prefaces and ritual elaborations are omitted in the Gregorian book), "changing little, adding something" (II, xvii). Pope Adrian himself, in sending the book to Charlemagne, says that it is composed "by our holy predecessor, the divinely speaking Pope Gregory" (letter in Jaffé, "Cod. Carol.", p. 274). That the essential foundation of this "Sacramentary" goes back to St. Gregory, indeed to long before his time, is certain. Nor need we doubt that he made such changes as are claimed for him by his biographer, and that these changes stand in this book. But it is not his work untouched. It has additions made since his time, for instance his own feast (12 March, in Migne's edition, P. L., LXXVIII, 51) and other feasts not kept at Rome before the seventh century (Duchesne, op. cit., 118). Evidently then the book sent by Pope Adrian has gone through the inevitable development; succeeding centuries since Gregory have added to it. It represents the Roman Rite of the time when it was sent -- the eighth century. For this reason Duchesne prefers to call it the "Sacramentary" of Adrian (op. cit., p. 119). We have said that, when it arrived in the Frankish kingdom, it began to receive supplements. It must be remembered of course that the writers who copied it had not in view the future needs of students. The books they made were intended for practical use at the altar. So they added at the end of Adrian's "Sacramentary" whatever other Masses and prayers were wanted by the churches for which they wrote. These supplements are taken partly from the Gelasian book, partly from Gallican sources. We have also noted that the additions were at first carefully distinguished from the original book, eventually incorporated in it. Dom Bäumer sees in these additions a compromise made in carrying out Charlemagne's orders that only the book he had received from Rome should be used (see LITURGIES; and Baumer, "Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelasianum", 295-301). He also thinks that the first additions and the prefatiuncula were made by Alcuin (died 804). Between the ninth and eleventh centuries the book so composed returned to Rome, took the place of the original pure Roman Rite, and so became the foundation of our present Roman Missal. Besides these three most important Sacramentaries there are other fragments, the "Missale Francorum," written in the seventh or eighth century, the "Ravenna Roll" of doubtful date (sixth to eleventh century?), etc. (see Duchesne, "Origines", pp. 128-9, 137-8).

At the same time as the Sacramentaries, books for the readers and choir were being arranged. Gradually the "Comes" or "Liber Comicus" that indicated the texts of the Bible to be read developed into the" Evangelarium" and "Lectionarium" (see GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY and LESSONS IN THE LITURGY). The homilies of Fathers to be read were collected in "Homilaria", the Acts of the martyrs, read on their feasts, in "Martyrologia". The book of psalms was written separately for singing, then arranged in order, as the psalms were sung through the week, in the "Psalterium" that now forms the first part of our Breviary. The parts of the Mass sung by the choir (Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion) were arranged in the "Liber Antiphonarius" (or Gradualis), the Antiphons and Responsories in the Office formed the "Liber Responsalis", or "Antiphonarius Officii", as distinct from the "Antiphonarius Missæ". Two early collections of this kind, ascribed to St. Gregory I, are in P. L., LXXVIII, 641-724, and 725-850. The same tradition that attributes to him the Sacramentary attaches his name to these (e. g., John the Deacon, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, vi). Throughout the early Middle Ages such collections were copied with local modifications all over Western Europe. Hymns (in our sense) were introduced into the Roman Rite about the fifth or sixth century. Those of the Mass were written in the Gradual, those of the Divine Office at first in the Psalter or Antiphonary. But there were also separate collections of hymns, called "Hymnaria", and "Libri Sequentiales" (or troponarii), containing the sequences and additions (farcing) to the Kyrie and Gloria, etc. Other services, the Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, Extreme Unction), the Visitation of the Sick, the Burial Service, all manner of blessings, were written in a very loose collection of little books called by such names as "Liber Agendorum", "Agenda", "Manuale", "Benedictionale", "Pastorale", "Sacerdotale", "Rituale", the predecessors of our Ritual. As examples of such books we may quote the "Manuale Curatorum" for the Diocese of Roeskilde in Denmark (ed. by J. Freisen, Paderborn, 1898) and the "Liber Agendorum" of Schleswig (ed. J. Freising, Paderborn, 1898). Their number and variety is enormous.

Finally there remained the rubrics, the directions not about what to say but what to do. This matter would be one of the latest to be written down. Long after the more or less complicated prayers had to be written and read, tradition would still be a sufficient guide for the actions. The books of prayers (Sacramentaries, Antiphonaries, etc.) contained a few words of direction for the most important and salient things to be done -- elementary rubrics. For instance the Gregorian "Sacramentary" tells priests (as distinct from bishops) not to say the Gloria except on Easter Day; the celebrant chants the preface excelsa voce, and so on (P. L., LXXVIII, 25). In time, however, the growing elaborateness of the papal functions, the more complicated ceremonial of the Roman Court, made it necessary to draw up rules of what custom and etiquette demanded. These rules are contained in the "Ordines" -- precursors of our "Cærimoniale Episcoporum". Mabillon published sixteen of the Ordines in his "Musæum Italicum", II (Paris, 1689). These are reproduced in P. L., LXXVIII, 937-1372. They are of different dates, from about the eighth to the fifteenth century. The first of them ("Ordo Romanus primus", edited apart by E. G. C. Atchley with excellent notes, London, 1905), which is the most important, was probably drawn up about the year 770 in the reign of Pope Stephen III (768-72), but is founded on a similar "Ordo" of the time of Gregory I (590-604). The "Ordines" contain no prayers, except that, where necessary, the first words are given to indicate what is meant. They supplement, the Sacramentary and choir-books with careful directions about the ritual. Since Mabillon other "Ordines" have been found and edited. A famous and important one, found in a manuscript of the church of St. Amand at Puelle is published by Duchesne in the Appendix of his "Origines du Culte Chrétien" (pp. 440-63). It was composed about the eighth or ninth century.

During the Middle Ages these books were rearranged for greater convenience, and developed eventually into the books we know. The custom of Low Mass changed the Sacramentary into a Missal. At Low Mass the celebrant had to supplement personally what was normally chanted by the deacon and subdeacon or sung by the choir. This then reacted upon High Mass, so that here too the celebrant began to say himself in a low voice what was sung by some one else. For this purpose he needed texts that were not in the old Sacramentary. That book was therefore enlarged by the addition of Lessons (Epistle and Gospel, etc.) and the chants of the choir (Introit, Gradual, etc.). So it becomes a Missale plenarium, containing all the text of the Mass. Isolated cases of such Missals occur as early as the sixth century. By about the twelfth century they have completely replaced the old Sacramentaries. But Lectionaries and Graduals (with the music) are still written for the readers and choir. In the same way, but rather later, compilations are made of the various books used for saying the Divine Office. Here too the same motive was at work. The Office was meant to be sung in choir. But there were isolated priests, small country churches without a choir, that could not afford the library of books required for saying it. For their convenience compendiums were made since the eleventh century. Gregory VII (1073-85) issued a compendium of this kind that became very popular.

First we hear of Libri nocturnales or matutinales, containing all the lessons and responses for Matins. To these are added later the antiphons and psalms, then the collects and all that is wanted for the other canonical hours too. At the same time epitomes are made for people who recite the Office without the chant. In these the Psalter is often left out; the clergy are supposed to know it by heart. The antiphons, versicles, responsories, even the lessons are indicated only by their first words. The whole is really a kind of concise index to the Office, but sufficient for people who said it day after day and almost knew it by heart. Such little books are called by various names -- "Epitomata", "Portiforia", and then especially "Breviaria divini officii" (Abbreviations of the Divine Office). They were used mostly by priests on journeys. In the twelfth century the catalogue of the library of Durham Cathedral includes "a little travelling breviary" (breviarium parvum itinerarium). In 1241 Gregory IX says in a Bull for the Franciscan order: "You have (the Divine Office) in your Breviaries" (see Batiffol, "Histoire du Bréviaire", chap. iv, especially pp. 192-202). The parts of these Breviaries were filled up eventually so as to leave nothing to memory, but the convenient arrangement and the name have been kept. It is curious that the word Breviary, which originally meant only a handy epitome for use on journeys and such occasions, has come to be the usual name for the Divine Office itself. A priest "says his breviary" that is, recites the canonical hours.

The development of the other books took place in much the same way. The Missals now contained only the Mass and a few morning services intimately connected with it. Daily Mass was the custom for every priest; there was no object in including all the rites used only by a bishop in each Missal. So these rites apart formed the Pontifical. The other non-Eucharistic elements of the old Sacramentary combined with the "Libri Agendarum" to form our Ritual. The Council of Trent (1545-63) considered the question of uniformity in the liturgical books and appointed a commission to examine the question. But the commission found the work of unifying so many and so varied books impossible at the time, and so left it to be done gradually by the popes. The Missal and Breviary were reformed very soon (see next paragraph), the other books later. The latest work was the production of the "Cærimoniale Episcoporum". John Burchard, Master of Ceremonies to Sixtus IV (1471-84), combined the old "Ordines Romani" into an Ordo servandus per sacerdotem in celebratione missœ (Rome, 1502), and arranged the rubrics of the Pontifical. Other editions of the rubrics were made at intervals, till Clement VIII (1592-1605) issued the "Cærimoniale Episcoporum" (in 1600). All the books have been constantly revised and re-edited with additions down to our own time.

III. THE PRESENT ROMAN LITURGICAL BOOKS

The official books of the Roman Rite are seven -- the Missal, Pontifical, Breviary, Ritual, Cærimoniale Episcoporum, Memoriale Rituum, and Martyrology. These contain all and only the liturgical services of this rite. Several repeat matter also found in others. Other books, containing extracts from them, share their official character inasmuch as the texts conform to that of the original book. Such secondary liturgical books are the Lectionary and Gradual (with musical notes) taken from the Missal, the Day Hours (Horæ diurnæ) of the Breviary, the Vesperal, Antiphonary and other choir-books (with notes), also extracted from the Breviary, various Benedictionals and Ordines taken from the Ritual or Pontifical.

(a) The Roman Missal

The (Missale Romanum) as we now have it, was published by Pope Pius V by the Bull "Quo primum" of 14 July, 1570 (see LITURGIES and ROMAN RITE). A commission, opened by the Council of Trent under Pius IV (1559-65), consisting of Cardinal Bernardine Scotti, Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph (one of the last two English bishops of the old Catholic line), Giulio Poggi, and others, had then finished its task of revising the book. Clement VIII (1592-1605) formed a new commission (Baronius, Bellarmine, and others) to restore the text which printers had again corrupted, and especially to substitute the new Vulgate (1590) texts for those of the Itala in the Missal; he published his revision by the Bull "Cum Sanctissimum" on 7 July, 1604. Urban VIII (1623-44) again appointed a commission to revise chiefly the rubrics, and issued a new edition on 2 September, 1634 (Bull "Si quid est"). Leo XIII (1878-1903) again made a revision in 1884. These names stand for the chief revisions; they are those named on the title-page of our Missal (Missale Romanum ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini restitutum S. Pii V Pont. Max. iussu editum, Clementis VIII, Unbani VIII et Leonis XIII auctoritate recognitum). But the continual addition of Masses for new feasts goes on. There are few popes since Pius V who have not authorized some additions, made by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to the Missal or its various supplements. The reigning pope [1910], Pius X, has issued the chants of the Vatican edition in the Gradual. As far as these affect the Missal they have again produced new editions of it. Moreover a commission now sitting is considering a further revision of the text. It is believed that when the commission for restoring the text of the Vulgate has completed its work, that text will be issued in the lessons of the Missal, thus making again a new revision. But, in spite of all these modifications, our Missal is still that of Pius V. Indeed its text goes back to long before his time to the Gallicanized Gregorian "Sacramentary" of the ninth to eleventh century, and, in its essential characteristics, behind that to the Gelasian book of the sixth century, and so back into the mist that hangs over the formation of the Roman Rite in the first centuries.

The Missal begins with the Bulls of Pius V, Clement VIII, and Urban VIII. Then come the approbation of the bishop in whose diocese it is printed and a few of the most important decisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. A long explanation of the Gregorian Calendar follows, containing much astronomical information. This is headed: "De anno et eius partibus". The two Paschal tables follow (Julian and Gregorian), a table of movable feasts for a number of future years and the Roman Calendar of feasts. Then come three sets of rubrics, first "Rubricæ generales Missæ", containing the more general rules in twenty paragraphs (these were made by Burchand, revised by the commissions of Pius V, Clement VIII, Urban VIII); then the "Ritus servandus in celebratione missæ", in thirteen paragraphs or chapters. This latter gives exact directions for High or Low Mass, whether celebrated by a bishop or priest. Third come the directions about what to do in case of various accidents or defects, headed "De defectibus in celebratione missæ occurrentibus", in ten chapters. A private preparation and thanksgiving for Mass follow "to be made at the opportunity of the priest. The prayers said while vesting come at the end of the preparation. Lastly, figures show the way to incense the altar and oblation. Shorter and special rubrics for various occasions are inserted (in red) in the text.

Then follows the text of the Missal. The first part contains the "Proper of the time" (Proprium temporis) from the first Sunday of Advent to the last after Pentecost. The Proper of each Mass is given in order of the ecclesiastical year, that is the Masses of each Sunday and other day (vigils, ember-days, feriæ in Lent) that has a proper Mass. Only Christmas and its cycle of feasts (to the octave of the Epiphany), although fixed to days of the civil year (25 Dec., etc.). come in this part. Certain rites, not Eucharistic, but connected closely with the Mass, are in their place in the Missal, such as the blessing of ashes, candles, and palms, all the morning services of Holy Week (except the Vespers of Thursday and Friday). After the service of Holy Saturday the whole Ordinary of the Mass with the Canon is inserted. This is the (almost) unchanging framework into which the various Propers are fitted. Its place in the book has varied considerably at different times. it is now put here, not so much for mystic or symbolic reasons, as because it is a convenient place, about the middle where a book lies open best (see CANON OF THE MASS). The eleven proper Prefaces, and all changes that can occur in the Canon (except the modifications on Maundy Thursday), are printed here, in the Ordinary. Then follows Easter Day and the rest of the year in order. The second part of the Missal contains the Proper of Saints (Proprium missarum de sanctis), that is, the feasts that occur on days of the civil year. It begins with the Vigil of St. Andrew (29 Nov.), as occurring at about the beginning of Advent, and continues (leaving out Christmas and its cycle) regularly through the months to the feasts of St. Silvester and St. Peter of Alexandria (26 Nov.).

The third part is always paged anew in brackets, [I], etc. It contains the Common Masses (Commune Sanctorum), that is, general Masses for Apostles, Martyrs and so on, that are very commonly used for saints of each class, often with proper Collect Secret, and Postcommunion. Most saints' days give the rubric: "All of the Common of a Confessor Pontiff (or whatever it may be) except the following prayers". A collection of votive Masses of various kinds follows, ending with the Mass for a wedding (Pro Sponso et Sponsa), then thirty-five sets of prayers (Orationes diversœ) that may be used on certain occasions in Mass, according to the rubrics. The four Masses for the dead come next, then twelve sets of prayers for the dead. Then the rite of blessing holy water and the Asperges ceremony. Eleven forms of blessings (Sacramentals) used by priests, blessings of vestments, altar-linen, and the tabernacle or ciborium (used by bishops and by priests having a special faculty), and the prayers (Collect, Secret Hanc Igitur, Postcommunion) said at ordination Masses end the old part of the Missal. There follow, however, the ever-growing supplements. Of these first come a collection of votive Masses appointed by Pius IX for each day of the week, then special Masses allowed for certain dioceses (Missœ aliquibus in locis celebrandœ), now forming a second Proper of Saints nearly as long as the old one; and finally with the Missal is bound up another supplement (paged with asterisks, I., etc.) for whatever country or province or religious order uses it. The Missal contains all the music used by the celebrant at the altar (except the obvious chants of Dominus vobiscum, Collects, etc., that are given once for all in the "Cærimoniale Episcoporum") in its place. The new (Vatican) edition gives the various new chants at the end.

The Lectionary (Lectionarium Romanum) contains the Epistles and Gospels from the Missal, the Gradual (Gradule Romanum), all the choir's part (the Proper, Introit, etc., and the common, Kyrie. etc.) with music. Religious orders that have a special rite (Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians) have of course their special Missals, arranged in the same way.

(b) The Pontifical

The (Pontificale Romanum) is the bishop's-book. It was issued by Benedict XIV (1740-58) on 25 March, 1752, and revised by Leo XIII in 1888. It has three parts and an appendix. Part I contains the rites of Confirmation, the tonsure, the seven ordinations, the blessing of abbots, abbesses, nuns, coronation of kings and queens, and blessing of a knight (miles). Part II contains the services for laying foundation-stones, consecrating churches, altars, chalices, many episcopal blessings (of vestments, vessels, crosses, statues, bells, weapons, and flags), the seven penitential psalms, and the litany. Part III contains the publication of movable feasts on the Epiphany, the expulsion of public penitents on Ash Wednesday and their reconciliation on Maundy Thursday, the order of synods, degradations from each order, excommunication and absolution from it, of the journeys of prelates (prayers to be said then), visitation of parishes, solemn reception of bishops, legates, emperors, kings, and such people down to a "Princess of great power", the old episcopal scrutiny, a ceremony for the first shaving of a clerk's beard, and a little rite for making or degrading a singer (psalmista or cantor). The appendix of the Pontifical contains the various rites of baptism by a bishop, the ordinations without music, marriage performed by a bishop, the pontifical absolution and blessing after the sermon at High Mass, the "Apostolic Benediction", and a blessing of Holy Water to reconcile a church after it has been execrated (polluted). A supplement adds the consecration of a church with many altars, of an altar alone, and of a portable altar -- all without the chant. A number of extracts from the Pontifical are made, the ordination rites, consecration of a church, and so on. These are not specially authorized; they are authentic if they conform to the original. The revision of the plain song has not yet touched the Pontifical. When it does, this will necessitate a new edition.

(c) The Breviary

The (Breviarium Romanum) contains all the Divine Office without chant. It has been revised by the same popes (Pius V, Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII) as the Missal. It begins with the Bulls, the chapter about the calendar, the paschal tables, tables of movable feasts, calendar, like the Missal. Then follow the general rubrics (Rubricœ generales breviarii) in thirty-six chapters, giving full directions for the recital of the office, occurrence of feasts, and so on. Further tables of occurrences, prayers to be said before and after the office, and a table of absolutions and blessings end the introductory matter. The actual text begins with the psalter, that is the psalms arranged for the week, with their normal antiphons and hymns. First come Matins and Lauds for Sunday; then Prime, Terce, Sext, and None, then Matins and Lauds for each weekday. After Lauds for Saturday follow Vespers for each day, then Compline. This ends the Psalterium. The offices for each day follow, arranged exactly as in the Missal (Proper of the season, Proper of saints, Common of saints, votive Offices and Offices for the dead, the supplement for certain places, and a local supplement). After the Office for the dead some extraneous matter is inserted, namely the Gradual psalms, litany, prayers for the dying, blessing for the dying, grace at meals, and prayers for clerics on a journey. At the end of the whole book come the prayers before and after Mass and two private litanies (of the Holy Name and of the Blessed Virgin).

As the Breviary, in spite of its name, is now a very large and cumbersome book, it is generally issued in four parts (Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn). This involves a good deal of repetition; the whole Psalter occurs in each part, and all feasts that may overlap into the next part have to be printed twice. The first volume only (Winter, which begins with Advent) contains the general rubrics. It is now also usual to reprint the psalms that occur in the Common of saints instead of merely referring back to the Psalter. Many other parts are also reprinted in several places. On the number and judicious arrangement of these reprints depends the convenience of any particular edition of the Breviary. Already in the Middle Ages the countless manuscripts of the Breviary are fond of promising the purchaser that he will find all the offices complete without references ("omnia exscripta sine recursu", "tout le long sans recquerir"), a statement that the writer, after examining a great number of them, has never once found true. The chief book excerpted from the Breviary is the "Day Hours" (Horœ diurnœ breviarii romani), containing everything except Matins, which with its lessons forms the main bulk of the book. For singing in choir various books with music exist, representing still more or less the state of things before Breviaries were invented. The complete "Liber Antiphonarius" contains all the antiphons, hymns, and responses throughout the Office. From this again various excerpts are made. For the offices most commonly sung in churches we have the Vesperal (Vesperale Romanum), containing Vespers and Compline. The monastic orders (Benedictines, Cistercians, Carthusians, etc.), the Dominicans, Franciscans, Premonstratensians, and several local dioceses still have their own Breviaries. For the various attempts at replacing our Breviary by a radically reformed one (especially that of Cardinal Quiñónez in 1535) see the article BREVIARY and the histories of Baumer and Batiffol.

(d) The Ritual

The (Rituale Romanum) contains all the services a priest needs besides those of the Missal and Breviary. This book especially was the least uniform in the Middle Ages. Almost every diocese had its own Ritual, or Agenda. Paul V issued in 1614 a book meant to be used everywhere; Benedict XIV revised it in 1752. The Roman Ritual contains ten titles (tituli) and an appendix nearly as big again as all the rest. Title I gives general directions for administering Sacraments; II gives all the forms for baptism; III for penance; IV for the Holy Eucharist, V for extreme unction and the care of the sick; VI relates to funerals and gives the Office for the dead from the Breviary; VII relates to matrimony; VIII contains a large collection of blessings for various objects; IX deals with processions; X with exorcisms and forms for filling up in the books of the parish (the books of baptism, confirmation, marriage, the state of souls, and the dead). The appendix (paged anew with asterisks) gives additional directions for the sacraments, some decrees and prayers and a large collection of blessings, first "unreserved", then those to be used only by priests who have a special faculty, those reserved to certain religious orders, and many "newest blessings". There is still a great want of uniformity in the use of this book. Many countries, provinces, and dioceses have their own Ritual or "Ordo administrandi Sacramenta", etc.

(e) The Ceremonial of Bishops

The (Cœrimoniale Episcoporum) in spite of its title contains much matter needed by other people than bishops. It is entirely a book of rubrical directions, succeeding the old "Ordines Romani". Much of it is already contained in the rubrics of the Missal, Pontifical, and Ritual. It was first issued by Clement VIII in 1600, then revised by Innocent X (1650), Benedict XIV at various dates (finally 1752), and Leo XIII (1882). It has three books. The first contains general directions for episcopal functions, and for the bishop's attendants (master of ceremonies, sacristan, canons, and so on). Then come full directions for everything connected with Mass, the altar, vestments, ceremonies, etc.; finally the order of a synod. Book II is all about the Divine Office, its chanting in choir and all the ritual belonging to it, as well as certain special functions (the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, the Holy Week services, processions, etc.). Book III is about various extra-liturgical functions, visits of bishops to governors of provinces, solemn receptions and so on, finally conduct for cardinals. The book continually gives directions, not only for bishops but for priests, too, at these functions. It is also here that one finds some of the most ordinary chants used by any celebrant (e. g., the Dominus vobiscum, Collects, I, 27; Confiteor, II, 39). The "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" is thus the official and indispensable supplement to the rubrics of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and Pontifical.

(f) The Memorial of Rites

The (Memoriale Rituum) or Little Ritual (Rituale parvum) is the latest of these official books. It gives directions for certain rites (the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, the Holy Week services) in small churches where there are no ministers (deacon and subdeacon). The Missal always supposes the presence of deacon and subdeacon at these functions; so there was doubt and confusion about them when carried out by a single priest. Benedict XIII (1724-30) published this book in 1725 to remove the confusion in the smaller parish churches of Rome. Pius VII (1800-23) extended it to all small churches of the Roman Rite in 1821. It is therefore the official norm for all such services without ordained ministers.

(g) The Martyrology

The (Martyrologium Romanum) is an enlarged calendar giving the names and very short accounts of all saints (not only martyrs) commemorated in various places each day. The earliest known martyrologies go back to the fourth century. In the Middle Ages there were, as usual, many versions of the book. Our present Roman Martyrology was arranged in 1584 by Cardinal Baronius under Gregory XIII, and revised four times, in 1628, 1675, 1680, and (by Benedict XIV) 1748. It is read in choir at Prime.

IV. LITURGICAL BOOKS OF OTHER RITES

Of these little need be said here. They are described in the articles on the various rites. The other two surviving rites in the West (of Milan and the Mozarabic Rite) have gone through the same development as the Roman -- from Sacramentaries, Lectionaries, Psalters, and Antiphonaries to Missals, Pontificals, and Breviaries. Only of course their books contain their own prayers and ritual. The latest editions of the Milanese (Ambrosian) Missal, Breviary, Ritual etc., are published by Giacomo Agnelli at the Archiepiscopal Press (tipografia arcivescovile) at Milan. The classical edition of the Mozarabic books is that made by order of Cardinal Ximenes (Archbishop of Toledo, 1495-1517). The Missal (Missale mistum [for mixtum] secundum regulam beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes) was printed at Toledo in 1500 (reprinted in P. L., LXXXV), the Breviary (Breviarium Gothicum) reprinted (with Romanizing additions) at Toledo in 1502 (P. L., LXXXVI). None of the Eastern Churches has yet made such compendiums of its books as our Missal and Breviary. All their books are still in the state in which ours were in the days of Sacramentaries, Antiphonaries, and so on. One reason for this is that in the East our reduplications are unknown. There the priest does not also say at the altar the parts sung by the readers and choir. Nor has there been any development (except a rudimentary beginning, chiefly among the Uniats) of private recitation of the Office. So their books are only wanted for the choir; the various readers and singers use different volumes of what in some rites is quite a large library.

The Byzantine Books are the Typikon, a kind of perpetual calendar with directions for all services, the Euchologion, containing all the priest wants for the Holy Liturgy and other sacraments and rites (almost exactly the old Latin Sacramentary). The Triodion, Pentekostarion, Oktoechos, and Horologion contain the choir's part of the Liturgy and Office throughout the year. The Menaia and Menologion contain the saints' offices; the Psalterion explains itself. The Apostolos and Evangelion contain the liturgical lessons (these books are described in CONSTANTINOPLE, THE RITE OF). There are many editions. In Greek the Orthodox books are published at the Phœnix Press (formerly at Venice, now Patras), the Uniat books by the Roman Propaganda. Each national Church has further its own editions in its liturgical language. The books of other Eastern Churches correspond more or less to these, but in most cases they are more confused, less known, sometimes not even yet edited. In the very vague state of most of their books one can only say in general that these churches have an indefinite collection, each service having its own book. These are then collected and arranged in all kinds of groups and compendiums by various editors. The Uniat compendiums have a natural tendency to imitate the arrangement of the Roman books. The most obvious cases of liturgical books are always the Lectionaries, then the Book of Liturgies. The others are mostly in a very vague state.

The Nestorian Books (all in Syriac) are the Liturgy (containing their three liturgies), the Gospel (Evangelion), Apostle (Shlicha) and Lessons (Kariane), the "Turgama" (Interpretation), containing hymns sung by deacons at the liturgy (our Graduals and Sequences), the David (Dawidha = Psalter), "Khudhra" (= "cycle", containing antiphons, responsories, hymns, and collects for all Sundays), "Kash Kõl" (= "Collection of all"; the same chants for week-days), "Kdham u-Wathar" (= "Before and after"; certain prayers, psalms, and collects most often used, from the other books), "Gezza" ("Treasury", services for feast-days), Abu-Halim (the name of the compiler, containing collects for the end of the Nocturns on Sundays), "Bautha d'Ninwaie" (= "Prayer of the Ninevites", a collection of hymns ascribed to St. Ephraem, used in Lent). The Baptism Office ("Taksa d'Amadha") is generally bound up with the Liturgies. The "Taksa d'Siamidha" has the ordination services. The "Taksa d'Husaia" contains the office for Penance, the "Kthawa d'Burrakha" is the marriage service, the "Kahneita", the burial of clergy, the "Annidha" that of laymen. Lastly the "Khamis" and "Warda" are further collections of hymns (see Badger, "The Nestorians and their Rituals", London, 1852, II, 16-25). Naturally not every church possesses this varied collection of books. The most necessary ones are printed by the Anglican missionaries at Urmi for the heretics. The Uniat (Chaldean) books are printed, some at Propaganda, some by the Dominicans at Mosul ("Missale chaldaicum", 1845; "Manuale Sacerdotum", 1858; "Breviarium chaldaicum", 1865). A Chaldean "Brevviary" was published in three vohunes at Paris in 1886-7, edited by Père Bedgan, a missionary of the Congrégation des Missions. The Malabar schismatics use the Nestorian books, the Uniats have books revised (much romanized) by the Synod of Diamper (1599; it ordered all their old books to be burned). The Uniat Malabar "Missal" was published at Rome in 1774, the "Ordo rituum et lectionum" in 1775.

The Coptic Books (in Coptic with Arabic rubrics, and generally with the text transliterated in Arabic characters too) are the Euchologion (Kitãb al-Khulagi almuqaddas), very often (but quite wrongly) called Missal. This corresponds to the Byzantine Euchologion. Then the Lectionary called "Katamãrus", the "Synaksãr", containing legends of saints, the "Deacon's Manual", an Antiphonary (called Difnãri), the Psalter, Theotokia (containing offices of the B. V. M.), Doxologia, collections of hymns for the choir and a number of smaller books for the various other offices. These books were first grouped and arranged for the Uniats by Raphael Tuki, and printed at Rome in the eighteenth century. Their arrangement is obviously an imitation of that of the Latin service-books ("Missale coptice et arabice", 1736; "Diurnum alexandrinum copto-arabicum", 1750; "Pontificale et Euchologium", 1761, 1762; "Rituale coptice et arabice", 1763; "Theotokia", 1764). Lord Cyril II, the present Uniat Coptic patriarch, has published a "missal", "ritual", and "Holy Week book" (Cairo, 1898-1902). The Monophysite Copts have a very sumptuously printed set of their books, edited by Gladios Labib, in course of publication at Cairo ("Katamãrus", 1900-2; "Euchologion", 1904; "Funeral Service", 1905).

The Ethiopic service-books are (except the Liturgy) the least known of any. Hardly anything of them has been published, and no one seems yet to have made a systematic investigation of liturgical manuscripts in Abyssinia. Since the Ethiopic Rite is derived from the Coptic, one may conjecture that their books correspond more or less to the Coptic books. One may also no doubt conjecture that their books are still in the primitive state of (more or less) a special book for each service. One has not heard of any collections or compendiums. Peter the Ethiopian (Petrus Ethyops) published the Liturgy with the baptism service and some blessings at the end of his edition of the Ethiopic New Testament (Tasfa Sion, Rome, 1548). Various students have published fragments of the Rite in Europe (cf. Chaine, "Grammaire éthiopienne", Beirut, 1907; bibliography, p. 269), but these can hardly be called service-books.

The Jacobite (and Uniat) Syrian Rite has never been published as a whole. A fragment of the liturgy was published in Syriac and Latin at Antwerp (1572) by Fabricius Boderianus (D. Seven alexandrini . . . de ritibus baptismi et sacræ Synaxis). The Uniats have an Euchologion (Syriac and Karshuni), published at Rome in 1843 (Missale Syriacum), and a "Book of clerks used in the ecclesiastical ministries" (Liber ministerii, Syriac only, Beirut, 1888). The Divine Office, collected like a Breviary, was published at Mosul in seven volumes (1886-96), the ferial office alone at Rome in 1853, and at Sharfi in the Lebanon (1898). A Ritual -- "Book of Ceremony" -- for the Syrian Uniats is issued by the Jesuits at Beirut.

The Maronites have an abundance of liturgical books for their romanized Syrian Rite. The Maronite Synod at Deir al-Luweize (1736) committed a uniform preparation of all their books to the patriarch (Part II, Sess. I, xiii, etc.) These books are all referred to in Roman terms (Missal, Ritual, Pontifical, etc.). The Missal (in this case the name is not incorrect) was published at Rome in 1592 and 1716, since then repeatedly, in whole or in part, at Beirut. Little books containing the Ordinary of the Liturgy with the Anaphora commonly used are issued by many Catholic booksellers at Beirut. The "Book of the Minister" (containing the deacon's and other ministers' parts of the Liturgy) was published at Rome in 1596 and at Beirut in 1888. The "Ferial Office", called Fard, "Burden" or "Duty" (the only one commonly used by the clergy), was issued at Rome in 1890, at Beirut in 1900. The whole Divine Office began to be published at Rome in 1666, but only two volumes of the summer part appeared. A Ritual with various additional prayers was issued at Rome in 1839. All Maronite books are in Syriac and Karshuni.

The Armenian Liturgical Books are quite definitely drawn up, arranged, and authorized. They are the only other set among Eastern Churches whose arrangement can be compared to those of the Byzantines. There are eight official Armenian service-books:

• (1) the Directory, or Calendar, corresponding to the Byzantine Typikon,
• (2) the Manual of Mysteries of the Sacred Oblation (= an Euchologion),
• (3) the Book of Ordinations, often bound up with the former,
• (4) the Lectionary,
• (5) the Hymn-book (containing the variable hymns of the Liturgy),
• (6) the Book of Hours (containing the Divine Office and, generally, the deacon's part of the Liturgy),
• (7) the Book of Canticles (containing the hymns of the Office),
• (8) the Mashdotz, or Ritual (containing the rites of the sacraments).

The books of both Gregorian and Uniat Armenians have been published a great number of times; the latest Gregorian editions are those of Constantinople and Jerusalem, the Uniat ones have been issued at Rome, Vienna, and especially Venice (at S. Lazaro). There are many extracts from them, especially from the Liturgy.

In conclusion it will be noticed that the Eastern and the older Western liturgical books consider rather the person who uses them than the service at which they are used. The same person has the same book, whatever the function may be. On the other hand the later Western books are so arranged that all the service (whoever may be saying it) is put together in one book; our books are arranged by services, not according to their users. This is the result of our modern Western principle that every one (or at any rate the chief person, the celebrant) says everything, even if it is at the same time said by some one else.

DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (2nd ed., Paris, 1898); PROBST, Die ältesten römischen Sacramentarier und Ordines (Münster, 1892); IDEM, Die abendländische Messe vom 5. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1896); CABROL, Introduction aux Etudes liturgiques (Paris, 1907); BÄUMER, Gesch. des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BATIFFOL, Hist. du Bréviaire romain (Paris, 1895); WEALE, Bibliographia liturgica. Catalogus missalium ritus latini (London, 1886); EBNER, Quellen u. Forschungen zur Gesch. u. Kunstgesch. des Missale Romanum (Freiburg, 1896). The modern Roman liturgical books are published in many editions by all the well-known Catholic firms (Desclée, Pustet, Dessain, Mame, etc.). The "typical" editions of the new books with the Vatican chant are issued by the Vatican Press. For the other rites see, besides the editions quoted in the text, the Introduction of BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896). Other works are quoted in the text.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

Liturgical Chant

Taking these words in their ordinary acceptation, it is easy to settle the meaning of "liturgical chant". Just as we say liturgical altar, liturgical vestment, liturgical chalice, etc., to indicate that these various objects correspond in material, shape, and consecration with the requirements of the liturgical uses to which they are put, so also a chant, if its style, composition, and execution prove it suitable for liturgical use, may properly be called liturgical chant. Everything receives its specification from the purpose it is to serve, and from its own greater or less aptitude to serve that purpose; nevertheless, it is necessary to pursue a finer analysis in order to discover the many possible ways in which the words "liturgical chant" may be applied. In the strict sense the word "chant" means a melody executed by the human voice only, whether in the form of plain or harmonized singing. In a wider sense the word is taken to mean such singing even when accompanied by instruments, provided the portion of honour is always retained by the vocal part. In the widest though incorrect sense, the word "chant" is also applied to the instrumental music itself, inasmuch as its cadences imitate the inflexions of the human voice, that first and most perfect of instruments, the work of God Himself. And thus, after the introduction of the organ into churches, when it began to alternate with the sacred singers, we find medieval writers deliberately using the phrase "cantant organa" or even "cantare in organis".

Now, seeing that the Church allows in its liturgical service not only the human voice, but an accompaniment thereof by the organ or other instruments, and even organ and instruments without the human voice, it follows that in the sense in which we are going to use it, liturgical chant means liturgical music, or, to employ the more usual phrase, sacred music.

Consequently we may consider sacred music as embodying four distinct, but subordinate elements: (1) plain chant, (2) harmonized chant, (3) one or other of these accompanied by organ and instruments, (4) organ and instruments alone. Wherein these elements are subordinate one to another we have to determine from the greater or less appropriateness of the adjective "liturgical" when applied to them. We shall start with some general observations, and by elimination attain the end we have in view.

(1) Sacred music is music in the service of worship. This is a generic and basic definition of all such music, and it is both obvious and straightforward. When the worship of the true God is in question, man ought to endeavour to offer him of his very best, and in the way it will be the least unworthy of the Divinity. From this root-idea there spring forth two qualities which sacred music should have, and which are laid down in the papal "Motu Proprio," 22 November, 1903, namely-that sacred music ought to be true art, and at the same time holy art. Consequently we cannot uphold as sacred music lacking the note of art, by reason of its poverty of conception, or of its breaking all the laws of musical composition, or any music, no matter how artistic it may be, which is given over to profane uses, such as dances, theatres, and similar objects, aiming albeit ever so honestly at causing amusement ("Motu Proprio," II, 5). Such compositions, even though the work of the greatest masters and beautiful in themselves, even though they excel in charm the sacred music of tradition, must always remain unworthy of the temple, and as such are to be got rid of as contrary to the basic principle, which every reasonable man must be guided by, that the means must be suited to the end aimed at.

(2) Going a step farther in our argument it must be borne in mind that we are not here dealing with worship of God in general, but with His worship as practised in the True Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. So that for us sacred music primarily means music in the service of Catholic worship. This worship has built itself up and has deliberately held itself aloof from every other form of worship; it has its own sacrifice, its own altar, its own rites, and is directed in all things by the sovereign authority of the Church. Hence it follows that no music, no matter how much it be employed in other worships that are not Catholic, can, on that account, ever be looked on by us as sacred and liturgical. We meet at times with individuals who remind us of the music of the Hebrews, and quote "Praise him with sound of trumpet: praise him with psaltery and harp. Praise him with timbrel and choir: praise him with strings and organs. Praise him on high sounding cymbals: praise him on cymbals of joy:" and who seek by so doing to justify all sorts of joyousness in church (chants, instrumental music and deafening noises), even going so far as to plead "omnis spiritus laudet Dominum" as though that verse should excuse all and everything their individual "spirit" suggested, no matter how novel and unusual. If such a criterion were to be admitted, there are many other elements of Hebrew worship we should have to accept, but which the Church rejected long ago as unsuited to the sacrifice of the New Testament and to the spirit of the New Law (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, Q. xci, a. 2, ad 4um). The same remarks apply to the music used in Protestant worship. No matter how serious and solemn, even though it belongs to the style of music the Church recognized as sacred and liturgical, it ought never be used as a pattern or model, at least exclusively for the sacred music of the Catholic Church. The warm and solemn dignity of Catholic worship has nothing in common with the pallid fragility of Protestant services. Hence our choice ought to be always and solely guided by the specific nature of Catholic worship, and by the rules laid down by the Fathers, the councils, the congregations, and the pope, and which have been epitomized in that admirable code of sacred music, the "Motu Proprio" of Pius X.

(3) Finally, the phrase "Catholic worship" must here be taken in its formal quality of public worship, the worship of a society or social organism, imposed by Divine Law and subject to one supreme authority which, by Divinely acquired right, regulates it, guards it, and through lawfully appointed ministers exercises it to the honour of God and the welfare of the community. This is what is known as "liturgical worship", so styled from the liturgy of the Church. The liturgy has been aptly defined as "that worship which the Catholic Church, through its legitimate ministers acting in accordance with well-established rules, publicly exercises in rendering due homage to God". From this it is clear that the acts and prayers performed by the faithful to satisfy their private devotion do not form part of liturgical worship, even when performed by the faithful in a body, whether in public or in a place of public worship, and whether conducted by a priest or otherwise. Such devotions not being officially legislated for, do not form part of the public worship of the Church as a social organism. Any one can see the difference between a body of the faithful going in procession to visit a famous shrine of the Madonna, and the liturgical processions of the Rogation Days and of Corpus Christi. Such popular functions are not only tolerated, but blessed and fostered by the Church authorities, as of immense spiritual benefit to the faithful, even though not sanctioned as liturgical, and are generally known as extra-liturgical functions. The principal are the Devotion of the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, the Three Hours Agony, the Hour of the Desolata, the Hour of the Blessed Sacrament, the Month of Mary, the novenas in preparation for the more solemn feasts, and the like. What has been said goes to prove that sacred music may fitly be described as music in the service of the liturgy, and that sacred music and liturgical music are one and the same thing. Pius X has admirably stated the relation between the liturgy of the Church and the music it employs: "It serves to increase the decor et splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies", not as something accidental that may or may not be present, such as the decorations of the building, the display of lights, the number of ministers, but "as an integrant part of the solemn liturgy", so much so that these liturgical functions cannot take place if the chant be lacking. Further, "since the main office of sacred music is to clothe with fitting melody the liturgical text propounded for the understanding of the people, so its chief aim is to give greater weight to the text, so that thereby the faithful may be more easily moved to devotion, and dispose themselves better to receive the fruits of grace which flow from the celebration of the sacred mysteries" ("Motu Proprio," I, 1).

From this teaching it follows: (a) That no music can rightly be considered as liturgical, which is not demanded by the liturgical function, or which is not an integrant part thereof, but which is only admitted as a discretionary addition to fill in, if we may use the expression, the silent intervals of the liturgy where no appointed text is prescribed to be sung.

Under this head would come the motets which the "Motu Proprio" (III, 8) permits to be sung after the Offertory and the Benedictus. Now, seeing that these chants are executed during the solemn liturgy, it follows that they ought to possess all the qualities of sacred music so as to be in keeping with the rest of the sacred function.

(b) Among the various elements admitted in sacred music, the most strictly liturgical is that which more directly than any other unites itself with the sacred text and seems more indispensable than any other. The playing of the organ by way of prelude or during intervals can only be called liturgical in a very wide sense, since it is by no means necessary, nor does it accompany any chanted text. But a chant accompanied by organ and instruments may very properly be known as liturgical. Organ and instruments are permitted, however, only to support the chant, and can never by themselves be considered as an integrant part of the liturgical act. As a matter of fact, their introduction is comparatively recent, and they are still excluded from papal functions. Vocal music generally is the most correct style of liturgical music, since it alone has always been recognized as the proper music of the Church; it alone enters into direct touch with the meaning of the liturgical text, clothes that text with melody, and expounds it to the understanding of the people. Now, since vocal music may be either rendered plain or polyphonic, true liturgical music, music altogether indispensable in the celebration of the solemn liturgy, is the plain chant, and therefore, in the Catholic Church, the Gregorian chant. Lastly, since Gregorian is the solemn chant prescribed for the celebrant and his assistants, so that it is never lawful to substitute for it a melody different in composition from those laid down in the liturgical books of the Church, it follows that Gregorian is the sole chant, the chant par excellence of the Roman Church, as laid down in the "Motu Proprio" (II, 3). It contains in the highest degree the qualities Pope Pius has enumerated as characteristic of sacred music: true art; holiness; universality; hence he has proposed Gregorian chant as the supreme type of sacred music, justifying the following general law: The more a composition resembles Gregorian in tone, inspiration, and the impression it leaves, the nearer it comes to being sacred and liturgical; the more it differs from it, the less worthy is it to be employed in the church. Since Gregorian is the liturgical chant par excellence of the Roman Church, it is equally true that the chant handed down by tradition in other Churches is entitled to be considered as truly liturgical; for instance, the Ambrosian chant in the Ambrosian Church, the Mozarabic in the Mozarabic Church, and the Greek in the Greek Church.

To round off the line of thought we have been pursuing, a few more observations are called for.

(a) The music which accompanies non-liturgical functions of Catholic worship is usually and accurately styled extra-liturgical music. As a matter of fact, legislation affecting the liturgy does not ipso facto apply equally to legitimate extra-liturgical functions. And consequently the more or less rigid prohibition of certain things during the solemn offices of the Church does not necessarily ban such things from devotions such as the Way of the Cross, the Month of Mary, etc. To take an example, singing in the vernacular is prohibited as part of liturgical functions. As has been pointed out, music in liturgical functions is an integrant and not a purely ornamental part thereof, whereas in extra-liturgical functions it is altogether secondary and accidental, never exacted by the ceremony, and its main purpose is to entertain the faithful devoutly in Church or to furnish them a pleasing spiritual relaxation after the prolonged tension of a sermon, or whatever prayers they have been reciting together. Hence the style of extra-liturgical music is susceptible of greater freedom, though within such limits as are demanded by respect for God's house, and the holiness of the prayer it accompanies. As a sort of general rule it may be laid down that, since extra-liturgical ceremonies ought to partake as much as possible of the externals, as well as of the interior spirit of liturgical ones, avoiding whatsoever is contrary to the holiness, solemnity, and nobility of the act of worship as intended by the Church, so true extra-liturgical music ought absolutely to exclude whatsoever is profane and theatrical, assuming as far as possible the character, without the extreme severity of liturgical music.

(b) Whatever music not suitable for liturgical or extra-liturgical functions ought to be banished from the churches. But such music is not for that reason to be called profane. There is a distinction to be drawn.

There is a style of music that belongs to the theatre and the dance, and that aims at giving pleasure and delight to the senses. This is profane music as distinct from sacred music. But there is another style of music, grave, and serious, though not sacred because not used in worship, yet partaking of some of the qualities of sacred music, and drawing its ideas and inspiration from things that have to do with religion and worship. Such is the music of what are known as sacred oratorios, and other compositions of a religious character, in which the words are taken from the Bible or at times from the liturgy itself. To this class belong the mighty "Masses" of Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, and other classical authors, Verdi's "Requiem", Rossini's "Stabat Mater", etc., all of them works of the highest musical merit, but which, because of their outward vehicle and extraordinary length, can never be received within the Church. They are suited, like the oratorios, to recreate religiously and artistically audiences at great musical concerts. By way of special distinction, music of this nature is usually designated religious music.

DE SANTI, La musica a servigio del culto in Civiltà Cattolica (September, 1888), 652-671; IDEM, La Musica a servigio del culto Cattolico, ibid. (October, 1888), 169-183; IDEM, La musica a servigio della liturgia, ibid. (December, 1888), 670-688; GEVAERT, Les Origines du Chant Liturgique de l'église Latine (Ghent, 1890); GASTOUÉ, Les origines du Chant Romain (Paris, 1907); WYATT, St. Gregory and the Gregorian Music (London, 1904).

ANGELO DE SANTI

Liturgy

The various Christian liturgies are described each under its own name. (See ALEXANDRINE LITURGY; AMBROSIAN LITURGY; ANTIOCHENE LITURGY; CELTIC RITE; Clementine Liturgy, treated in CLEMENT I; RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE; GALLICAN RITE; LITURGY OF JERUSALEM; MOZARABIC RITE; SARUM RITE; SYRIAN RITE; SYRO-JACOBITE LITURGY.) In this article they are considered only from the point of view of their relation to one another in the most general sense, and an account is given of what is known about the growth of a fixed liturgy as such in the early Church.

I. DEFINITION

Liturgy (leitourgia) is a Greek composite word meaning originally a public duty, a service to the state undertaken by a citizen. Its elements are leitos (from leos = laos, people) meaning public, and ergo (obsolete in the present stem, used in future erxo, etc.), to do. From this we have leitourgos, "a man who performs a public duty", "a public servant", often used as equivalent to the Roman lictor; then leitourgeo, "to do such a duty", leitourgema, its performance, and leitourgia, the public duty itself. At Athens the the leitourgia was the public service performed by the wealthier citizens at their own expense, such as the office of gymnasiarch, who superintended the gymnasium, that of choregus, who paid the singers of a chorus in the theatre, that of the hestiator, who gave a banquet to his tribe, of the trierarchus, who provided a warship for the state. The meaning of the word liturgy is then extended to cover any general service of a public kind. In the Septuagint it (and the verb leitourgeo) is used for the public service of the temple (e. g., Ex., xxxviii, 27; xxxix, 12, etc.). Thence it comes to have a religious sense as the function of the priests, the ritual service of the temple (e. g., Joel, i, 9; ii, 17, etc.). In the New Testament this religious meaning has become definitely established. In Luke, i, 23, Zachary goes home when "the days of his liturgy" (ai hemerai tes leitourgias autou) are over. In Heb., viii, 6, the high priest of the New Law "has obtained a better liturgy", that is a better kind of public religious service than that of the Temple.

So in Christian use liturgy meant the public official service of the Church, that corresponded to the official service of the Temple in the Old Law. We must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still commonly used. These two senses often lead to confusion. On the one hand, liturgy often means the whole complex of official services, all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church, as opposed to private devotions. In this sense we speak of the arrangement of all these services in certain set forms (including the canonical hours, administration of sacraments, etc.), used officially by any local church, as the liturgy of such a church -- the Liturgy of Antioch, the Roman Liturgy, and so on. So liturgy means rite; we speak indifferently of the Byzantine Rite or the Byzantine Liturgy. In the same sense we distinguish the official services from others by calling them liturgical; those services are liturgical which are contained in any of the official books (see LITURGICAL BOOKS) of a rite. In the Roman Church, for instance, Compline is a liturgical service, the Rosary is not. The other sense of the word liturgy, now the common one in all Eastern Churches, restricts it to the chief official service only -- the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which in our rite we call the Mass. This is now practically the only sense in which leitourgia is used in Greek, or in its derived forms (e. g., Arabic al-liturgiah) by any Eastern Christian. When a Greek speaks of the "Holy Liturgy" he means only the Eucharistic Service. For the sake of clearness it is perhaps better for us too to keep the word to this sense, at any rate in speaking of Eastern ecclesiastical matters; for instance, not to speak of the Byzantine canonical hours as liturgical services. Even in Western Rites the word "official" or "canonical" will do as well as "liturgical" in the general sense, so that we too may use Liturgy only for the Holy Eucharist. It should be noted also that, whereas we may speak of our Mass quite correctly as the Liturgy, we should never use the word Mass for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in any Eastern rite. Mass (missa) is the name for that service in the Latin Rites only. It has never been used either in Latin or Greek for any Eastern rite. Their word, corresponding exactly to our Mass, is Liturgy. The Byzantine Liturgy is the service that corresponds to our Roman Mass; to call it the Byzantine (or, worse still, the Greek) Mass is as wrong as naming any other of their services after ours, as calling their Hesperinos Vespers, or their Orthros Lauds. When people go even as far as calling their books and vestments after ours, saying Missal when they mean Euchologion, alb when they mean sticharion, the confusion becomes hopeless.

II. THE ORIGIN OF THE LITURGY

At the outset of this discussion we are confronted by three of the most difficult questions of Christian archæology, namely: From what date was there a fixed and regulated service such as we can describe as a formal Liturgy? How far was this service uniform in various Churches? How far are we able to reconstruct its forms and arrangement?

With regard to the first question it must be said that an Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to he done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches.

And yet the whole series of actions and prayers did not depend solely on the improvisation of the celebrating bishop. Whereas at one time scholars were inclined to conceive the services of the first Christians as vague and undefined, recent research shows us a very striking uniformity in certain salient elements of the service at a very early date. The tendency among students now is to admit something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the Last Supper. What our Lord had done then, that same thing He told His followers to do in memory of Him. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not at least done as our Lord did the night before He died. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy: bread and wine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a plate and a cup); he puts them on a table -- the altar; standing before it in the natural attitude of prayer he takes them in his hands, gives thanks, as our Lord had done, says again the words of institution, breaks the Bread and gives the consecrated Bread and Wine to the people in communion. The absence of the words of institution in the Nestorian Rite is no argument against the universality of this order. It is a rite that developed quite late; the parent liturgy has the words.

But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering "Amen" in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e. g., Luke, iv, 16-27). This is what was known afterwards as the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Then followed the Eucharist, at which only the baptized were present. Two other elements of the service in the earliest time soon disappeared. One was the Love-feast (agape) that came just before the Eucharist; the other was the spiritual exercises, in which people were moved by the Holy Ghost to prophesy, speak in divers tongues, heal the sick by prayer, and so on. This function -- to which I Cor., xiv, 1-14, and the Didache, x, 7, etc., refer -- obviously opened the way to disorders; from the second century it gradually disappears. The Eucharistic Agape seems to have disappeared at about the same time. The other two functions remained joined, and still exist in the liturgies of all rites. In them the service crystallized into more or less set forms from the beginning. In the first half the alternation of lessons, psalms, collects, and homilies leaves little room for variety. For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place of honour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably (see LESSONS IN THE LITURGY). A chant of some kind would very soon accompany the entrance of the clergy and the beginning of the service. We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession said by one person to each clause of which the people answer with some short formula (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY; ALEXANDRINE LITURGY; KYRIE ELEISON). The place and number of the homilies would also vary for a long time. It is in the second part of the service, the Eucharist itself, that we find a very striking crystallization of the forms, and a uniformity even in the first or second century that goes far beyond the mere nucleus described above.

Already in the New Testament -- apart from the account of the Last Supper -- there are some indexes that point to liturgical forms. There were already readings from the Sacred Books (I Tim., iv, 13; I Thess., V, 27; Col., iv, 16), there were sermons (Act., xx, 7), psalms and hymns (I Cor., xiv, 26; Col., iii, 16; Eph., v, 19). I Tim., ii, 1-3, implies public liturgical prayers for all classes of people. People lifted up their hands at prayers (I Tim., ii, 8), men with uncovered heads (I Cor., xi, 4), women covered (ibid., 5). There was a kiss of peace (I Cor., xvi, 20; II Cor., xiii, 12; I Thess., V, 26). There was an offertory of goods for the poor (Rom., xv, 26; II Cor., ix, 13) called by the special name "communion" (koinonia). The people answered "Amen" after prayers (I Cor., xiv, 16). The word Eucharist has already a technical meaning (ibid.). The famous passage, I Cor., xi, 20-9, gives us the outline of the breaking of bread and thanksgiving (Eucharist) that followed the earlier part of the service. Heb., xiii, 10 (cf. I Cor., x, 16-21), shows that to the first Christians the table of the Eucharist was an altar. After the consecration prayers followed (Acts, ii, 42). St. Paul "breaks bread" (= the consecration), then communicates, then preaches (Acts, xx, 11). Acts, ii, 42, gives us an idea of the liturgical Synaxis in order: They "persevere in the teaching of the Apostles" (this implies the readings and homilies), "communicate in the breaking of bread" (consecration and communion) and "in prayers". So we have already in the New Testament all the essential elements that we find later in the organized liturgies: lessons, psalms, hymns, sermons, prayers, consecration, communion. (For all this see F. Probst: "Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderte", Tübingen, 1870, c. i; and the texts collected in Cabrol and Leclercq; "Monumenta ecclesiæ liturgica", I, Paris, 1900, pp. 1-51.) It has been thought that there are in the New Testament even actual formulæ used in the liturgy. The Amen is certainly one. St. Paul's insistence on the form "For ever and ever, Amen" (eis tous aionas ton aionon amen. -- Rom., xvi, 27; Gal., i, 5; I Tim., i, 17; cf. Heb., xiii, 21; I Pet., i, 11; v, 11; Apoc., i, 6, etc.) seems to argue that it is a liturgical form well known to the Christians whom he addresses, as it was to the Jews. There are other short hymns (Rom., xiii, 11-2; Eph., v, 14; I Tim., iii, 16; II Tim., ii, 11-3), which may well be liturgical formulæ.

In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new things each time, Modern sermons and modern extempore prayers show how easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form of prayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant and the deacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless they heard more or less the same prayers each time. They heard from the altar such phrases as: "The Lord be with you", or "Lift up your hearts", and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before, that they could answer at once in the way expected.

We find too very early that certain general themes are constant. For instance our Lord had given thanks just before He spoke the words of institution. So it was understood that every celebrant began the prayer of consecration -- the Eucharistic prayer -- by thanking God for His various mercies. So we find always what we still have in our modern prefaces -- a prayer thanking God for certain favours and graces, that are named, just where that preface comes, shortly before the consecration (Justin, "Apol.," I, xiii, lxv). An intercession for all kinds of people also occurs very early, as we see from references to it (e. g., Justin, "Apol.," I, xiv, lxv). In this prayer the various classes of people would naturally be named in more or less the same order. A profession of faith would almost inevitably open that part of the service in which only the faithful were allowed to take part (Justin, "Apol.", I, xiii, lxi). It could not have been long before the archtype of all Christian prayer -- the Our Father -- was said publicly in the Liturgy. The moments at which these various prayers were said would very soon become fixed, The people expected them at certain points, there was no reason for changing their order, on the contrary to do so would disturb the faithful. One knows too how strong conservative instinct is in any religion, especially in one that, like Christianity, has always looked back with unbounded reverence to the golden age of the first Fathers. So we must conceive the Liturgy of the first two centuries as made up of somewhat free improvisations on fixed themes in a definite order; and we realize too how naturally under these circumstances the very words used would be repeated -- at first no doubt only the salient clauses -- till they became fixed forms. The ritual, certainly of the simplest kind, would become stereotyped even more easily. The things that had to be done, the bringing up of the bread and wine, the collection of alms and so on, even more than the prayers, would be done always at the same point. A change here would be even more disturbing than a change in the order of the prayers.

A last consideration to be noted is the tendency of new Churches to imitate the customs of the older ones. Each new Christian community was formed by joining itself to the bond already formed. The new converts received their first missionaries, their faith and ideas from a mother Church. These missionaries would naturally celebrate the rites as they had seen them done, or as they had done them themselves in the mother Church. And their converts would imitate them, carry on the same tradition. Intercourse between the local Churches would further accentuate this uniformity among people who were very keenly conscious of forming one body with one Faith, one Baptism, and one Eucharist. It is not then surprising that the allusions to the Liturgy in the first Fathers of various countries, when compared show us a homogeneous rite at any rate in its main outlines, a constant type of service, though it was subject to certain local modifications. It would not be surprising if from this common early Liturgy one uniform type had evolved for the whole Catholic world. We know that that is not the case. The more or less fluid ritual of the first two centuries crystallized into different liturgies in East and West; difference of language, the insistence on one point in one place, the greater importance given to another feature elsewhere, brought about our various rites. But there is an obvious unity underlying all the old rites that goes back to the earliest age. The medieval idea that all are derived from one parent rite is not so absurd, if we remember that the parent was not a written or stereotyped Liturgy, but rather a general type of service.

III. THE LITURGY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES

For the first period we have of course no complete description. We must reconstruct what we can from the allusions to the Holy Eucharist in the Apostolic Fathers and apologists. Justin Martyr alone gives us a fairly complete outline of the rite that he knew. The Eucharist described in the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (most authorities now put the date of this work at the end of the first century) in some ways lies apart from the general development. We have here still the free "prophesying" (x, 7), the Eucharist is still joined to the Agape (x, 1), the reference to the actual consecration is vague. The likeness between the prayers of thanksgiving (ix-x) and the Jewish forms for blessing bread and wine on the Sabbath (given in the "Berakoth" treatise of the Talmud; cf. Sabatier, "La Didache", Paris, 1885, p. 99) points obviously to derivation from them. It has been suggested that the rite here described is not our Eucharist at all; others (Paul Drews) think that it is a private Eucharist distinct from the official public rite. On the other hand, it seems clear from the whole account in chapters ix and x that we have here a real Eucharist, and the existence of private celebrations remains to be proved. The most natural explanation is certainly that of a Eucharist of a very archaic nature, not fully described. At any rate we have these liturgical points from the book. The "Our Father" is a recognized formula: it is to be said three times every day (viii, 2-3). The Liturgy is a eucharist and a sacrifice to be celebrated by breaking bread and giving thanks on the "Lord's Day" by people who have confessed their sins (xiv, 1). Only the baptized are admitted to it (ix, 5). The wine is mentioned first, then the broken bread; each has a formula of giving thanks to God for His revelation in Christ with the conclusion: "To thee be glory forever" (ix, 1, 4). There follows a thanksgiving for various benefits; the creation and our sanctification by Christ are named (x, 1-4); then comes a prayer for the Church ending with the form: "Maranatha. Amen"; in it occurs the form: "Hosanna to the God of David" (x, 5-6).

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written probably between 90 and 100) contains an abundance of liturgical matter, much more than is apparent at the first glance. That the long prayer in chapters lix-lxi is a magnificent example of the kind of prayers said in the liturgy of the first century has always been admitted (e. g., Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 49-51); that the letter, especially in this part, is full of liturgical forms is also evident. The writer quotes the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of his glory) from Is., vi, 3, and adds that "we assembled in unity cry (this) as with one mouth" (xxxiv, 7). The end of the long prayer is a doxology invoking Christ and finishing with the form: "now and for generations of generations and for ages of ages. Amen" (lxi, 3). This too is certainly a liturgical formula. There are many others. But we can find more in I Clem. than merely a promiscuous selection of formulæ. A comparison of the text with the first known Liturgy actually written down, that of the "Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions" (written long afterwards, in the fifth century in Syria) reveals a most startling likeness. Not only do the same ideas occur in the same order, but there are whole passages -- just those that in I Clem have most the appearance of liturgical formulæ -- that recur word for word in the "Apost. Const."

In the "Apost. Const." the Eucharistic prayer begins, as in all liturgies, with the dialogue: "Lift up your hearts", etc. Then, beginning: "It is truly meet and just", comes a long thanksgiving for various benefits corresponding to what we call the preface. Here occurs a detailed description of the first benefit we owe to God -- the creation. The various things created -- the heavens and earth, sun, moon and stars, fire and sea, and so on, are enumerated at length ("Apost. Const.", VIII, xii, 6-27). The prayer ends with the Sanctus. I Clem., xx, contains a prayer echoing the same ideas exactly, in which the very same words constantly occur. The order in which the creatures are mentioned is the same. Again "Apost. Const.", VIII, xii, 27, introduces the Sanctus in the same way as I Clem., xxxiv, 5-6, where the author actually says he is quoting the Liturgy. This same preface in "Apost. Const." (loc. cit.), remembering the Patriarchs of the Old Law, names Abel, Cain, Seth, Henoch, Noe, Sodom, Lot, Abraham, Melchisedech, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Josue. The parallel passage in I Clem. (ix xii) names Enoch, Noe, Lot, Sodom, Abraham, Rahab, Josue: we may note at once two other parallels to this list containing again almost the same list of names -- Heb., xi, 4-31, and Justin, "Dialogue", xix, cxi, cxxxi, cxxxviii. The long prayer in I Clem. (lix-lxi) is full of ideas and actual phrases that come again in "Apost. Const.", VIII. Compare for instance I Clem., lix, 2-4, with "Apost. Const.", VIII, X, 22-xi, 5 (which is part of the celebrant's prayer during the litany of the faithful: Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", p. 12), and xiii, 10 (prayer during the litany that follows the great intercession. Brightman, p. 24). Other no less striking parallels may be seen in Drews, "Untersuchungen über die sogen. clement. Liturgie," 14-43. It is not only with the Liturgy of "Apost. Const." that I Clem. has these extraordinary resemblances. I Clem., lix, 4, echoes exactly the clauses of the celebrant's prayer during the intercession in the Alexandrine Rite (Greek St. Mark. Brightman, 131). These parallel passages cannot all be mere coincidences (Lightfoot realized this, but suggests no explanation."The Apostolic Fathers", London, 1890, I, II, p. 71).

The question then occurs: What is the relation between I Clement and -- in the first place -- the Liturgy of"Apost. Const."? The suggestion that first presents itself is that the later document ("Apost. Const.") is quoting the earlier one (I Clem.). This is Harnack's view (" Gesch. der altchristl. Litteratur", I, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 42-43), but it is exceedingly unlikely. In that case the quotations would be more exact, the order of I Clem. would be kept; the prayers in the Liturgy have no appearance of being quotations or conscious compositions of fragments from earlier books; nor, if the "Apost. Const." were quoting I Clem., would there be reduplications such as we have seen above (VIII, xi, 22-xi, 5, and xiii, 10). Years ago Ferdinand Probst spent a great part of his life in trying to prove that the Liturgy of the "Apostolic Constitutions" was the universal primitive Liturgy of the whole Church. To this endeavour he applied an enormous amount of erudition. In his "Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte" (Tübingen, 1870) and again in his "Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform" (Münster, 1893), he examined a vast number of texts of Fathers, always with a view to find in them allusions to the Liturgy in question. But he overdid his identifications hopelessly. He sees an allusion in every text that vaguely refers to a subject named in the Liturgy. Also his books are very involved and difficult to study. So Probst's theory fell almost entirely into discredit. His ubiquitous Liturgy was remembered only as the monomania of a very learned man; the rite of the "Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions" was put in what seemed to be its right place, merely as an early form of the Antiochene Liturgy (so Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 55-6). Lately, however, there has come again to the fore what may be described as a modified form of Probst's theory. Ferdinand Kattenbusch ("Das apostolische Symbol", Tübingen, 1900, II, 347, etc.) thought that after all there might be some foundation for Probst's idea. Paul Drews (Untersuchungen über die sogen. clementinische Liturgie, Tübingen, 1906) proposes and defends at length what may well be the germ of truth in Probst, namely that there was a certain uniformity of type in the earliest Liturgy in the sense described above, not a uniformity of detail, but one of general outline, of the ideas expressed in the various parts of the service, with a strong tendency to uniformity in certain salient expressions that recurred constantly and became insensibly liturgical formulæ. This type of liturgy (rather than a fixed rite) may be traced back even to the first century. It is seen in Clement of Rome, Justin, etc.; perhaps there are traces of it even in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And of this type we still have a specimen in the "Apostolic Constitutions". It is not that that rite exactly as it is in the "Constitutions" was used by Clement and Justin. Rather the "Constitutions" give us a much later (fifth century) form of the old Liturgy written down at last in Syria after it had existed for centuries in a more fluid state as an oral tradition. Thus, Clement, writing to the Corinthians (that the letter was actually composed by the Bishop of Rome, as Dionysius of Corinth says in the second century, is now generally admitted. Cf. Bardenhewer, "Gesch. der altkirchl. Litteratur", Freiburg, 1902, 101-2), uses the language to which he was accustomed in the Liturgy; the letter is full of liturgical ideas and reminiscences. They are found again in the later crystallization of the same rite in the "Apostolic Constitutions". So that book gives us the best representation of the Liturgy as used in Rome in the first two centuries.

This is confirmed by the next witness, Justin Martyr. Justin (d. about 164), in his famous account of the Liturgy, describes it as he saw it at Rome (Bardenhewer, op. cit., 206). The often quoted passage is (I Apology): LXV. 1."We lead him who believes and is joined to us, after we have thus baptized him, to those who are called the brethren, where they gather together to say prayers in common for ourselves, and for him who has been enlightened, and for all who are everywhere. . . . 2. We greet each other with a kiss when the prayers are finished. 3. Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren, and he having received them sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of his Son and the Holy Ghost, and makes a long thanksgiving that we have been made worthy of these things by him; when these prayers and thanksgivings are ended all the people present cry 'Amen'. . . . 5. And when the president has given thanks (eucharistesantos, already a technical name for the Eucharist) and all the people have answered, those whom we call deacons give the bread and wine and water for which the 'thanksgiving' (Eucharist) has been made to be tasted by those who are present, and they carry them to those that are absent. LXVI. This food is called by us the Eucharist" (the well-known passage about the Real Presence follows, with the quotation of the words of Institution). LXVII. 3 "On the day which is called that of the Sun a reunion is made of all those who dwell in the cities and fields; and the commentaries of the Apostles and writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. 4. Then, when the reader has done, the president admonishes us in a speech and excites us to copy these glorious things. 5. Then we all rise and say prayers and, as we have said above, when we have done praying bread is brought up and wine and water; and the president sends up prayers with thanksgiving for the men, and the people acclaim, saying 'Amen', and a share of the Eucharist is given to each and is sent to those absent by the deacons."

This is by far the most complete account of the Eucharistic Service we have from the first three centuries. It will be seen at once that what is described in chapter lxvii precedes the rite of lxv. In lxvii Justin begins his account of the Liturgy and repeats in its place what he had already said above.

Putting it all together we have this scheme of the service:

• 1. Lessons (lxvii, 3).
• 2. Sermon by the bishop (lxvii, 4).
• 3. Prayers for all people (lxvii, 5; lxv, 1).
• 4. Kiss of peace (lxv, 2).
• 5. Offertory of bread and wine and water brought up by the deacons (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3).
• 6. Thanksgiving-prayer by the bishop (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3).
• 7. Consecration by the words of institution (? lxv, 5; lxvi, 2-3).
• 8. Intercession for the people (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3).
• 9. The people end this prayer with Amen. (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3).
• 10. Communion (lxvii, 5; lxv 5).

This is exactly the order of the Liturgy in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 3-4, 9-12, 13, 14-21, 21-3, 25). Moreover, as in the case of I Clement, there are many passages and phrases in Justin that suggest parallel ones in the "Apost. Const." -- not so much in Justin's account of the Liturgy (though here too Drews sees such parallels, op. cit., 58-9) as in other works in which Justin, like Clement, may be supposed to be echoing well-known liturgical phrases. Drews prints many such passages side by side with the corresponding ones of the "Apost. Const.", from which comparison he concludes that Justin knows a dismissal of the catechumens (cf."I Apol.", xlix, 5; xiv, 1;xxv, 2, with "Apost.Const.", VIII, vi, 8; x, 2) and of the Energumens (Dial., xxx; cf."Apost. Const.", VIII, vii, 2) corresponding to that in the Liturgy in question. From "I Apol.", lxv, 1; xvii, 3; xiv, 3; deduces a prayer for all kinds of men (made by the community) of the type of that prayer in "Apost. Const.", VIII, x."I Apol.", xiii, 1-3, lxv, 3; v, 2, and Dial., xli, lxx, cxvii, give us the elements of a preface exactly on the lines of that in "Apost. Const."‚VIII, xii, 6-27 (see these texts in parallel columns in Drews, "op. cit.", 59-91).

We have, then, in Clement and Justin the picture of a Liturgy at least remarkably like that of the "Apostolic Constitutions". Drews adds as striking parallels from Hippolytus (d. 235), "Contra Noetum", etc. (op. cit., 95-107) and Novatian (third cent.) "De Trinitate" (ibid., 107-22), both Romans, and thinks that this same type of liturgy continues in the known Roman Rite (122-66). That the Liturgy of the "Apostolic Constitutions" as it stands is Antiochene, and is closely connected with the Rite of Jerusalem, is certain. It would seem, then, that it represents one form of a vaguer type of rite that was in its main outline uniform in the first three centuries. The other references to the Liturgy in the first age (Ignatius of Antioch, died about 107, "Eph.", xiii, xx, "Phil.", iv, "Rom.", vii, "Smyrn.", vii, viii; Irenæus, died 202, "Adv. hær.", IV, xvii, xviii; V, ii, Clement of Alexandria, died about 215, "Pæd.", I, vi; II, ii, in P. G., VIII, 301, 410; Origen, d.254, "Contra Cels.", VIII, xxxiii, "Hom. xix in Lev.", xviii, 13; "In Matt.", xi, 14; "In Ioh.", xiii, 30) repeat the same ideas that we have seen in Clement and Justin, but add little to the picture presented by them (see Cabrol and Leclercq, "Mon. Eccles. Liturg.", I, passim).

IV. THE PARENT RITES, FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY

From about the fourth century our knowledge of the Liturgy increases enormously. We are no longer dependent on casual references to it: we have definite rites fully developed. The more or less uniform type of Liturgy used everywhere before crystallized into four parent rites from which all others are derived. The four are the old Liturgies of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Gaul. Each is described in a special article. It will be enough here to trace an outline of their general evolution.

The development of these liturgies is very like what happens in the case of languages. From a general uniformity a number of local rites arise with characteristic differences. Then one of these local rites, because of the importance of the place that uses it, spreads, is copied by the cities around, drives out its rivals, and becomes at last the one rite used throughout a more or less extended area. We have then a movement from vague uniformity to diversity and then a return to exact uniformity. Except for the Gallican Rite the reason of the final survival of these liturgies is evident. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the old patriarchal cities. As the other bishops accepted the jurisdiction of these three patriarchs, so did they imitate their services. The Liturgy, as it crystallized in these centres, became the type for the other Churches of their patriarchates. Only Gaul and north-west Europe generally, though part of the Roman Patriarchate, kept its own rite till the seventh and eighth centuries.

Alexandria and Antioch are the starting-points of the two original Eastern rites. The earliest form of the Antiochene Rite is that of the "Apostolic Constitutions" written down in the early fifth century. From what we have said it seems that this rite has best preserved the type of the primitive use. From it is derived the Rite of Jerusalem (till the Council of Chalcedon, 451, Jerusalem was in the Antiochene Patriarchate), which then returned to Antioch and became that of the patriarchate (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY and JERUSALEM, LITURGY of). We have this liturgy (called after St. James) in Greek (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 31-68) and in Syriac (ibid., 69-110). The Alexandrine Rite differs chiefly in the place of the great intercession (see ALEXANDRINE LITURGY). This too exists in Greek (Brightman, 113-43) and the language of the country, in this case Coptic (ibid., 144-88). In both cases the original form was certainly Greek, but in both the present Greek forms have been considerably influenced by the later Rite of Constantinople. A reconstruction of the original Greek is possible by removing the Byzantine additions and changes, and comparing the Greek and Syriac or Coptic forms. Both these liturgies have given rise to numerous derived forms. The Roman Rite is thought by Duchesne to be connected with Alexandria, the Gallican with Antioch (Origines du Culte, p. 54). But, from what has been said, it seems more correct to connect the Roman Rite with that of Antioch. Besides its derivation from the type represented by the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions there are reasons for supposing a further influence of the Liturgy of St. James at Rome (see CANON OF THE MASS, and Drews, "Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons in der römischen Messe", Tübingen, 1902). The Gallican Rite is certainly Syrian in its origin. There are also very striking parallels between Antioch and Alexandria, in spite of their different arrangements. It may well be, then, that all four rites are to be considered as modifications of that most ancient use, best preserved at Antioch; so we should reduce Duchesne's two sources to one, and restore to a great extent Probst's theory of one original rite -- that of the "Apostolic Constitutions".

In any case the old Roman Rite is not exactly that now used. Our Roman Missal has received considerable additions from Gallican sources. The original rite was simpler, more austere, had practically no ritual beyond the most necessary actions (see Bishop, "The Genius of the Roman Rite" in "Essays on Ceremonial", edited by Vernon Staley, London, 1904, pp. 283-307). It may be said that our present Roman Liturgy contains all the old nucleus, has lost nothing, but has additional Gallican elements. The original rite may be in part deduced from references to it as early as the fifth century ("Letters of Gelasius I" in Thiel, "Epistolæ Rom. Pontificum", I, cdlxxxvi, "Innocent I to Decennius of Eugubium", written in 416, in P. L., XX, 551; Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Sacramentis", IV, 5, etc.); it is represented by the Leonine and Gelasian "Sacramentaries", and by the old part of the Gregorian book (see LITURGICAL Books). The Roman Rite was used throughout Central and Southern Italy. The African use was a variant of that of Rome (see Cabrol, "Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne", s. v. Afrique, Liturgie postnicéenne). In the West, however, the principle that rite should follow patriarchate did not obtain till about the eighth century. The pope was Patriarch of all Western (Latin) Europe, yet the greater part of the West did not use the Roman Rite. The North of Italy whose centre was Milan, Gaul, Germany, Spain, Britain, and Ireland had their own Liturgies. These Liturgies are all modifications of a common type; they may all be classed together as forms of what is known as the Gallican Rite. Where did that rite come from? It is obviously Eastern in its origin: its whole construction has the most remarkable conformity to the Antiochene type, a conformity extending in many parts to the actual text (compare the Milanese litany of intercession quoted by Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", p. 189, with the corresponding litany in the Antiochene Liturgy; Brightman, pp. 44-5). It used to be said that the Gallican Rite came from Ephesus, brought by the founders of the Church of Lyons, and from Lyons spread throughout North-Western Europe. This theory cannot be maintained. It was not brought to the West till its parent rite was fully developed, had already evolved a complicated ceremonial, such as is inconceivable at the time when the Church of Lyons was founded (second century). It must have been imported about the fourth century, at which time Lyons had lost all importance. Mgr Duchesne therefore suggests Milan as the centre from which it radiated, and the Cappadocian Bishop of Milan, Auxentius (355-74), as the man who introduced this Eastern Rite to the West (Origines du Culte, 86-9). In spreading over Western Europe the rite naturally was modified in various Churches. When we speak of the Gallican Rite we mean a type of liturgy rather than a stereotyped service.

The Milanese Rite still exists, though in the course of time it has become considerably romanized. For Gaul we have the description in two letters of St. Germanus of Paris (d. 576), used by Duchesne "Origines du Culte", ch. vii: La Messe Gallicane. Original text in P. L., LXXII). Spain kept the Gallican Rite longest; the Mozarabic Liturgy still used at Toledo and Salamanca represents the Spanish use. The British and Irish Liturgies, of which not much is known, were apparently Gallican too (see F. E. Warren, "The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church", Oxford, 1881; Bäumer, "Das Stowe Missale" in the "Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. theol.", 1892; and Bannister, "Journal of Theological Studies", Oct., 1903). From Lindisfarne the Gallican Use spread among the Northern English converted by Irish monks in the sixth and seventh centuries.

V. THE DERIVED LITURGIES

From these four types -- of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and the so-called Gallican Rite -- all liturgies still used are derived. This does not mean that the actual liturgies we still have under those names are the parents; once more we must conceive the sources as vaguer, they are rather types subject always to local modification, but represented to us now in one form, such as, for instance, the Greek St. James or the Greek St. Mark Liturgy. The Antiochene type, apparently the most archaic, has been also the most prolific of daughter liturgies. Antioch first absorbed the Rite of Jerusalem (St. James), itself derived from the primitive Antiochene use shown in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (see JERUSALEM, LITURGY OF). In this form it was used throughout the patriarchate till about the thirteenth century (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). A local modification was the Use of Cappadocia. About the fourth century the great Byzantine Rite was derived from this (see CONSTANTINOPLE, RITE OF). The Armenian Rite is derived from an early stage of that of Byzantium. The Nestorian Rite is also Antiochene in its origin, whether derived directly from Antioch, or Edessa, or from Byzantium at an early stage. The Liturgy of Malabar is Nestorian. The Maronite Use is that of Antioch considerably romanized. The other Eastern parent rite, of Alexandria, produced the numerous Coptic Liturgies and those of the daughter Church of Abyssinia.

In the West the later history of the Liturgy is that of the gradual supplanting of the Gallican by the Roman, which, however, became considerably gallicanized in the process. Since about the sixth century conformity with Rome becomes an ideal in most Western Churches. The old Roman Use is represented by the "Gelasian Sacramentary". This book came to Gaul in the sixth century, possibly by way of Arles and through the influence of St. Cæsarius of Arles (d. 542-cf. Bäumer, "Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelas." in the "Histor. Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft", 1893, 241-301). It then spread throughout Gaul and received Gallican modifications. In some parts it completely supplanted the old Gallican books. Charles the Great (768-814) was anxious for uniformity throughout his kingdom in the Roman use only. He therefore procured from Pope Adrian I (772-795) a copy of the "Roman Sacramentary". The book sent by the pope was a later form of the Roman Rite (the "Sacramentarium Gregorianum"). Charles imposed this book on all the clergy of his kingdom. But it was not easy to carry out his orders. The people were attached to their own customs. So someone (possibly Alcuin -- cf. Bäumer, loc. cit.) added to Adrian's book a supplement containing selections from both the older Gelasian book and the original Gallican sources. This composition became then the service-book of the Frankish Kingdom and eventually, as we shall see, the Liturgy of the whole Roman Church.

In Spain Bishop Profuturus of Braga wrote in 538 to Pope Vigilius (537-55) asking his advice about certain liturgical matters. The pope's answer (in Jaffé, "Regest. Rom. Pont.", no. 907) shows the first influence of the Roman Rite in Spain. In 561 the national Synod of Braga imposed Vigilius's ritual on all the kingdom of the Suevi. From this time we have the "mixed" Rite (Roman and Gallican) of Spain. Later, when the Visigoths had conquered the Suevi (577-584), the Church of Toledo rejected the Roman elements and insisted on uniformity in the pure Gallican Rite. Nevertheless Roman additions were made later; eventually all Spain accepted the Roman Rite (in the eleventh century) except the one corner, at Toledo and Salamanca, where the mixed (Mozarabic) Rite is still used. The great Church of Milan, apparently the starting-point of the whole Gallican Use, was able to resist the influence of the Roman Liturgy. But here too, in later centuries the local rite became considerably romanized (St. Charles Borromeo, died 1584), so that the present Milanese (Ambrosian) use is only a shadow of the old Gallican Liturgy. In Britain St. Augustine of Canterbury (597-605) naturally brought with him the Roman Liturgy. It received a new impetus from St. Theodore of Canterbury when he came from Rome (668), and gradually drove out the Gallican Use of Lindisfarne.

The English Church was very definitely Roman in its Liturgy. There was even a great enthusiasm for the rite of the mother Church. So Alcuin writes to Eanbald of York in 796: "Let your clergy not fail to study the Roman order; so that, imitating the Head of the Churches of Christ, they may receive the blessing of Peter, prince of the Apostles, whom our Lord Jesus Christ made the chief of his flock"; and again: "Have you not plenty of books written according to the Roman use?" (quoted in Cabrol, "L'Angleterre terre chrétienne avant les Normans", Paris, 1909, p. 297). Before the Conquest the Roman service-books in England received a few Gallican additions from the old rite of the country (op. cit., 297-298)

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical. Mr. Edmund Bishop says that its characteristics were "essentially soberness and sense" (" The Genius of the Roman Rite", p. 307; see the whole essay). Once these additions were accepted at Rome they became part of the (new) Roman Rite and were used as part of that rite everywhere.

When was the older simpler use so enriched? We have two extreme dates. The additions were not made in the eighth century when Pope Adrian sent his "Gregorian Sacramentary" to Charlemagne. The original part of that book (in Muratori's edition; "Liturgia romana vetus", II, Venice, 1748) contains still the old Roman Mass. They were made by the eleventh century, as is shown by the "Missale Romanum Lateranense" of that time, edited by Azevedo (Rome, 1752). Dom Suitbert Bäumer suggests that the additions made to Adrian's book (by Alcuin) in the Frankish Kingdom came back to Rome (after they had become mixed up with the original book) under the influence of the successors of Charlemagne, and there supplanted the older pure form (Ueber das sogen. Sacr. Gelas., ibid.).

VI. LATER MEDIEVAL LITURGIES

We have now arrived at the present state of things. It remains to say a word about the various medieval uses the nature of which has often been misunderstood. Everyone has heard of the old English uses -- Sarum, Ebor, etc. People have sometimes tried to set them up in opposition to what they call the "modern" Roman Rite, as witnesses that in some way England was not "Roman" before the Reformation. This idea shows an astonishing ignorance of the rites in question. These medieval uses are in no sense really independent rites . To compare them with the Gallican or Eastern Liturgies is absurd. They are simply cases of what was common all over Europe in the later Middle Ages, namely slight (often very slight) local modifications of the parent Rite of Rome. As there were Sarum and Ebor, so there were Paris, Rouen, Lyons, Cologne, Trier Rites. All these are simply Roman, with a few local peculiarities. They had their own saints' days, a trifling variety in the Calendar, some extra Epistles, Gospels, sequences, prefaces, certain local (generally more exuberant) details of ritual. In such insignificant details as the sequence of liturgical colours there was diversity in almost every diocese. No doubt, some rites (as the Dominican use, that of Lyons, etc.) have rather more Gallican additions than our normal Roman Liturgy. But the essence of all these late rites, all the parts that really matter (the arrangement, Canon of the Mass and so on) are simply Roman. Indeed they do not differ from the parent rite enough to be called derived properly. Here again the parallel case of languages will make the situation clear. There are really derived languages that are no longer the same language as their source. Italian is derived from Latin, and Italian is not Latin. On the other hand, there are dialectic modifications that do not go far enough to make a derived language. No one would describe the modern Roman dialect as a language derived from Italian; it is simply Italian, with a few slight local modifications. In the same way, there are really new liturgies derived from the old ones. The Byzantine Rite is derived from that of Antioch and is a different rite. But Sarum, Paris, Trier, etc. are simply the Roman Rite, with a few local modifications.

Hence the justification of the abolition of nearly all these local varieties in the sixteenth century. However jealous one may be for the really independent liturgies, however much one would regret to see the abolition of the venerable old rites that share the allegiance of Christendom (an abolition by the way that is not in the least likely ever to take place), at any rate these medieval developments have no special claim to our sympathy. They were only exuberant inflations of the more austere ritual that had better not have been touched. Churches that use the Roman Rite had better use it in a pure form; where the same rite exists at least there uniformity is a reasonable ideal. To conceive these late developments as old compared with the original Roman Liturgy that has now again taken their place, is absurd. It was the novelties that Pius V abolished; his reform was a return to antiquity. In 1570 Pius V published his revised and restored Roman Missal that was to be the only form for all Churches that use the Roman Rite. The restoration of this Missal was on the whole undoubtedly successful; it was all in the direction of eliminating the later inflations, farced Kyries and Glorias, exuberant sequences, and ceremonial that was sometimes almost grotesque. In imposing it the pope made an exception for other uses that had been in possession for at least two centuries. This privilege was not used consistently. Many local uses that had a prescription of at least that time gave way to the authentic Roman Rite; but it saved the Missals of some Churches (Lyons, for instance) and of some religious orders (the Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians). What is much more important is that the pope's exception saved the two remnants of a really independent Rite at Milan and Toledo. Later, in the nineteenth century, there was again a movement in favour of uniformity that abolished a number of surviving local customs in France and Germany, though these affected the Breviary more than the Missal. We are now witnessing a similar movement for uniformity in plainsong (the Vatican edition). The Monastic Rite (used by the Benedictines and Cistercians) is also Roman in its origin. The differences between it and the normal Roman Rite affect chiefly the Divine Office.

VII. TABLE OF LITURGIES

We are now able to draw up a table of all the real liturgies used throughout the Christian world. The various Protestant Prayerbooks, Agendæ, Communion-services, and so on, have of course no place in this scheme, because they all break away altogether from the continuity of liturgical development; they are merely compilations of random selections from any of the old rites imbedded in new structures made by various Reformers.

In the First Three Centuries: --

A fluid rite founded on the account of the Last Supper, combined with a Christianized synagogue service showing, however, a certain uniformity of type and gradually crystallizing into set forms. Of this type we have perhaps a specimen in the Liturgy of the second and eighth books of the "Apostolic Constitutions".

Since the Fourth Century: --

The original indetermined rite forms into the four great liturgies from which all others are derived These liturgies are:

I ANTIOCH.

• 1. Pure in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (in Greek).
• 2. Modified at Jerusalem in the Liturgy of St. James.
  a. The Greek St. James, used once a year by the Orthodox at Zacynthus and Jerusalem.
  b. The Syriac St. James, used by the Jacobites and Syrian Uniats.
  c. The Maronite Rite, used in Syriac.
• 3. The Chaldean Rite, used by Nestorians and Chaldean Uniats (in Syriac).
  a. The Malabar Rite, used by Uniats and Schismatics in India (in Syriac).
• 4. The Byzantine Rite, used by the Orthodox and Byzantine Uniats in various languages.
• 5. The Armenian Rite, used by Gregorians and Uniats (in Armenian).

II. ALEXANDRIA.

• 1. a. The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark, no longer used.
  b. The Coptic Liturgies, used by Uniat and schismatical Copts.
• 2. The Ethiopic Liturgies, used by the Church of Abyssinia.

III. ROME.

• 1. The original Roman Rite, not now used.
• 2. The African Rite, no longer used.
• 3. The Roman Rite with Gallican additions used (in Latin) by nearly all the Latin Church.
• 4. Various later modifications of this rite used in the Middle Ages, now (with a few exceptions) abolished.

IV. THE GALLICAN RITE.

• 1. Used once all over North-Western Europe and in Spain (in Latin).
• 2. The Ambrosian Rite at Milan.
• 3. The Mozarabic Rite, used at Toledo and Salamanca.

CABROL AND LECLERCQ, Monumenta Ecclesiæ Liturgica. I, Reliquiæ Liturgicæ Vetustissimæ (Paris, 1900-2); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I. Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); DANIEL, Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiæ universæ (4 vols., Leipzig, 1847-53); RAUSCHEN, Florilegium Patristicum, VII. Monumenta eucharistica et liturgica vetustissima (Bonn, 1909); FUNK, Patres Apostolici (2 vols., Tübingen, 1901), and Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (Paderborn, 1905), the quotations in this article are made from these editions; PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrh. (Tübingen, 1870); IDEM, Liturgie des vierten Jahr. u. deren Reform (Münster, 1893); DREWS, Untersuchungen über die sogenannte clementin. Liturgie (Tübingen, 1906); DUCHESNE, Origines du Cuite chrét. (Paris, 1898); RAUSCHEN, Eucharistie und Buss-sakrament in den ersten sechs Jahrh. der Kirche (Freiburg, 1908); CABROL, Les Origines liturgiques (Paris, 1906); IDEM, Introduction aux Etudes liturgiques (Paris, 1907). For further bibliography see articles on each liturgy. For liturgical languages, as well as liturgical science, treating of the regulation, history, and dogmatic value of the Liturgy, see RITES.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Liutprand of Cremona

(Or Luidprand).

Bishop and historian, b. at the beginning of the tenth century; d. after 970. Luitprand belonged to a distinguished Lombard family in Northern Italy and at an early age went to the Court of Pavia, during the reign of King Hugo of Arles (926-45), whose favour he won by his wonderful voice. He received a sound education at the court school, and became a cleric; later he was deacon of the cathedral of Pavia. At first Liutprand stood in high favour with Berenger II of Ivrea and his consort, Willa. Berenger made him chancellor, and in 949 sent him as ambassador to the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. As both Liutprand's father and stepfather had been sent as ambassadors to the Byzantine capital, and had formed many friendships there, he seemed well fitted for a mission of that kind. He took this opportunity to learn Greek, and made himself familiar with the history, organization, and life of the Byzantine Empire as his writings prove. Shortly after his return he quarreled with Berenger, and then went to the Court of Otto I of Germany. Otto joyfully took Liutprand into his service, as a most useful agent in carrying out his plans regarding Italy. In 956 Liutprand met Bishop Recemund of Elvira (Spain) at the German Court, and was asked by him to write a history of his time. In 958 he began this work at Frankfort, and though often interrupted by public business was occupied with it until 962. When Otto became King of Lombardy (961) he made Liutprand Bishop of Cremona, as a reward for his services. After Otto had received the imperial crown at Rome (2 February, 962) Liutprand was often entrusted with important commissions, e. g., in 963 when he was sent as ambassador to John XII at the beginning of the quarrel between the pope and the emperor, owing to the former's alliance with Berenger's son Adelbert. Liutprand also took part in the assembly of bishops at Rome, 6 November, 963, which deposed John XII. Liutprand describes from his point of view these events of 960- 64, and sides entirely with the emperor, condemning the Romans very harshly. After the death of the antipope, Leo VIII (965), Liutprand again went to Rome with Bishop Otgar of Speyer, as the emperor's envoy, to conduct the election of a new pope, on which occasion John XIII was chosen. The Bishop of Cremona undertook another mission to Constantinople by order of the emperor in the summer of 968 to ask the Byzantine Emperor to bestow his daughter in marriage on Otto's son, later Otto II.

In the autumn of 969 Liutprand carried letters to a synod at Milan, from the emperor and the Roman synod in May of that year. The last authentic information we have about him is in April, 970; he appears to have been present in Cremona, 15 April, 970 (Hist. patriæ monumenta, XXI, 36). A later account of the transfer of the relics of St. Himerius (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., III, 265) makes him take part in an embassy to Constantinople in 971 for the imperial princess, Theophano, bride of Otto II, and says that he died during the journey. This is not very credible. Liutprand wrote three historical works on the occasions already mentioned: (1) "Antapodosis sive Res per Europam gestæ", embracing from 887 till 950, dealing chiefly with Italian history (ed. Pertz, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", III, 264-339; P. L., CXXXVI, 787- 898). (2) "Historia Ottonis sive Liber de rebus gestis Ottonis imp. an. 960-964" (ed. Pertz, op. cit., 340-46; P. L., CXXXVI, 897-910; Watterich, "Vitæ Roman. Pont.", I, 49-63), an account of the journey of Otto I to Italy, the imperial coronation, and the deposition of John XII. (3) "Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana ad Nicephorum Phocam", the account of his mission in 968 (ed. Peertz, op. cit., 347-63; P. L., loc. cit., 909-38). His works were edited by Dümmler, "Liutprandi opera omnia" (Hanover, 1877). Liutprand's writings are a very important historical source for the tenth century; he is ever a strong partisan and is frequently unfair towards his adversaries.

Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, I (Berlin, 1904), 474-80; Koepke, De vita et scriptis Liudprandi (Berlin, 1842); DÄndliker and MÜller, Liudprand von Cremona und seine Quellen in BÜdinger, Untersuchungen zur mittleren Geschichte, I (Leipzig, 1871); DÜmmler in Hist. Zeitschrift, XXVI, 273-81; Koehler, Beiträge zur Textkritik Liudprands von Cremona in Neues Archiv Ges. f. ält. d. Gesch., VIII (1883), 49- 89; Hantzsch, Ueber Liudprand von Cremona (Leoben, 1888); Balzani, Le cronache italiane del medio evo (Milan, 1884), 112-129; Colini Baldeschi, Liudprandio vescovo di Cremona (Giarre, 1889); Novati, L'infusso del pensiero latino sopra la civiltà italiana del medio evo (Milan, 1899); Potthast, Bibliotheca hist. medii ævi, I, 742-743; Mann, History of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV (London, 1909).

J.P. Kirsch

Liverpool

Diocese of Liverpool/Liverpolium (Liverpolitana).

One of the thirteen dioceses into which Pius IX divided Catholic England, 29 September, 1850, when he re-established the Catholic hierarchy.

In addition to the Isle of Man it contains all North Lancashire (Amounderness and Lonsdale Hundreds), and the western portion of South Lancashire (West Derby and Leyland Hundreds), whilst the eastern portion of South Lancashire (Salford and Blackburn Hundreds), constitutes the Diocese of Salford. The diocese at present (1910) has a Catholic population of 366,611 souls. There are 184 public churches and chapels and 172 public elementary schools containing 74,100 children and 1720 teachers. There are 458 priests, 332 secular and 126 regulars including 59 Jesuits, 36 Benedictines, 10 Redemptorists, 7 Passionists, 7 members of St. Joseph's Society for Foreign Missions, 4 Fathers of the Holy Ghost, and 3 Oblates of Mary Immaculate. There are also the Irish Christian Brothers and the Brothers of Charity and in some 70 convents there are 1000 nuns belonging to the various orders or congregations of the Sisters of Mercy, Faithful Companions of Jesus, Sisters of Notre Dame, Good Shepherd Sisters, Sisters of Charity, Little Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of Nazareth, Carmelites, etc. In various institutions provision is made for the blind, the aged poor, unemployed servants, penitents and fallen women, whilst for boys and girls there are orphanages, homes and refuges, poor-law schools, industrial and reformatory schools, etc. The following table contains statistics of the principal towns of the diocese:

• Liverpool - Pop. (1910) 760,000 - 143,000 Catholics - 140 priests - 39 churches - 29 convents
• Preston - 117,000 - 34,000 - 26 - 7 - 7
• St. Helen's - 95,000 - 24,000 - 26 - 9 - 4
• Wigan 89,000 - 19,000 - 16 - 6 - 2
• Warrington - 73,000 - 9,000 - 9 - 4 - 1
• Bootle - 70,000 - 21,000 - 14 - 4 -
• Blackpool - 63,000 - 4,000 - 6 - 3 - 1
• Barrow - 62,000 - 5,000 - 5 - 3 - 1
• Southport - 48,000 - 2,000 - 3 - 2 - 1
• Leigh - 45,000 - 7,000 - 8 - 4 -
• Lancaster - 41,000 - 4,000 - 5 - 2 - 3
• Chorley - 30,000 - 7,000 - 7 - 4 -

EDUCATION

Elementary education is provided in 172 Catholic schools attended by 74,000 children. Higher education for girls is given in the convents of the Sisters of Notre Dame in Liverpool, St. Helen's, Birkdale, and Wigan; of the Faithful Companions of Jesus in Liverpool and Preston; of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary at Great Crosby; of the Sisters of Mercy at Liverpool; and of the Holy Child Jesus at Preston and Blackpool. The great training college of the Sisters of Notre Dame at Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, trains female teachers for all parts of England. For boys there are in Liverpool the Catholic Institute under the Irish Christian Brothers, and St. Francis Xavier's College under the Jesuit Fathers, who have also a Catholic College in Preston, whilst in St. Helen's there is a Catholic Grammar School under the secular clergy and lay masters. St. Peter's College, Freshfield, trains boys in the humanities, before they enter the Foreign Missionary College established by the late Cardinal Vaughan at Mill Hill, London. The ecclesiastical students for the diocese make their preparatory studies at St. Edward's College, Liverpool (established in 1842) and then study philosophy and theology at the diocesan seminary of St. Joseph's, Upholland, near Wigan.

HISTORY SINCE 1840

From 1688 to 1840 Lancashire was subject to the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District of England. In 1840 the Northern District was divided into three districts: the Northern District (Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham, now the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle), the Yorkshire District, now the Dioceses of Middlesbrough and Leeds, and the Lancashire District containing with all Lancaster, the Isle of Man, and Cheshire. The first Vicar Apostolic of the new Lancashire District was Bishop George Hilary Brown (b. 13 Jan., 1786), who after being for twenty-one years rector of St. Peter's, Lancaster, was consecrated on 24 August, 1840, at Liverpool, by Bishop John Briggs, with the title of Bishop of Bugia in partibus, which in 1842 was changed to Bishop of Tloa in partibus. In 1843 Dr. James Sharples was consecrated coadjutor, but died in August, 1850. The following month the Lancashire District was broken into three parts, Cheshire became part of Shrewsbury Diocese, South-eastern Lancashire became the Salford Diocese, and the rest of Lancashire with the Isle of Man became the Liverpool Diocese, of which Bishop Brown remained bishop. In 1853 be obtained another coadjutor, Canon Alexander Goss, of St. Edward's College (b. 5 July, 1814, at Ormskirk), who was consecrated by Cardinal Wiseman as Bishop of Gerra. Bishop Brown died, 25 January, 1856, and was succeeded by Bishop Goss, who ruled as ordinary for seventeen years and died, 3 October, 1872. After an interval of five months Canon Bernard O'Reilly (b. 10 January, 1824, at Ballybeg, County Meath, Ireland), was consecrated by Cardinal Manning 19 March, 1873. During his long episcopacy of twenty-one years he opened some twenty-two churches in Liverpool city and the immediate neighbourhood, but his special work was the diocesan seminary of St. Joseph at Upholland, of which the foundation stone was laid on the feast of the Patronage of St. Joseph, 18 April, 1880, the college being ready to receive the students on 22 September, 1883. Two years later, on Trinity eve, 30 May, 1885, the first body of students were raised to the priesthood within its walls. Its second rector, Mgr John Bilsborrow, was taken from it in 1892 to become Bishop of Salford. Bishop O'Reilly died on 9 April, 1894, and was buried in the seminary.

Canon Thomas Whiteside (b. at Lancaster on 17 April, 1857; ordained priest in Rome, 30 May, 1885), who was the third president of the seminary, was, at the age of thirty-seven years, consecrated fourth Bishop of Liverpool by Cardinal Vaughan. The increase in the number of clergy since his accession has made possible more thorough pastoral work. During the years 1890 to 1905, the number approaching Easter Communion increased from 146,000 to 186,000; those attending Sunday school from 138,000 to 180,000, some 16,000 non-Catholics were received into the Church, whilst about two million communions are received in the course of the year by about 250,000, who have made their first communion. A very large proportion of the Catholics of the diocese, especially in the towns, are of Irish birth or descent, though in the country parts and in North Lancashire many old Lancashire Catholic families remain which during the ages that have elapsed from the Reformation have never lost the faith.

Originally Lancashire belonged to the Kingdom of Northumbria and the Diocese of York, but in 642 Southern Lancashire became part of Mercia and of the Diocese of Lichfield. Henry VIII, in 1542, made Chester, including South Lancashire, into a separate diocese. In Queen Elizabeth's time it is the Protestant Bishop of Chester who complains that there is a confederacy of Lancashire Papists, and that "from Warrington all along the sea-coast of Lancashire, the gentlemen were of that faction and withdraw themselves from religion" (i.e., from attending the Protestant service). For this crime fifty Lancashire Catholic gentlemen were arrested in one night, and in 1587 six hundred Catholic recusants were prosecuted. A yearly fine of £260 was the penalty paid in some cases for twenty years for refusing to attend the Protestant service, and after death refusal of Christian burial. At Rossall, in North Lancashire, was born Cardinal Allen, the founder of the Seminary of Douai, which in five years sent a hundred priests to face the martyr's death in England. Amongst the Lancashire martyrs were the Ven. George Haydock, b. 1556 at Cottam Hall, Preston, and martyred in 1589 at the age of 28 at Tyborne; Ven. John Thulis, b. at Upholland, near Wigan, and martyred at Lancaster in 1616, Ven. Edmund Arrowsmith, b. at Haydock, near St. Helens in 1585, and in 1628, at the age of 43, martyred at Lancaster. His "holy hand" is still devoutly kept in the church of Ashton-in-Makerfield.

In addition to the manliness of the Lancashire character and the example of sacrifice given by the Lancashire gentry, the Gerards, Blundells, Molyneuxes, Andertons, Cliftons, Scarisbricks, Gillows, the close connexion which Lancashire has always had with Ireland has done much for this preservation of the faith. Traces of this connexion are seen in the old St. Patrick's Cross of Liverpool which was supposed to mark the spot where St. Patrick preached before sailing to Ireland, and in the pre-Reformation chalice still preserved at Fernyhalgh, near Preston, which bears the date of 1529 and an inscription testifying that it was given by "Dosius Maguire, Chieftain of Fermanagh". Again the Irish famine of 1847 filled the Lancashire towns with Irish exiles so that hardly one can be found without its church of St. Patrick to mark their devotion to him who brought them their Catholic Faith.

The Catholic Directory, 1850-1910; Liverpool Catholic Annual, 1880-1910; Hughes, Liverpool Quarant' Ore Guide, 1895-1910; Hughes, Catholic Guide to Liverpool, 1903; Liverpool Catholic Times and Catholic Fireside; Gibson, Cavalier's Note-book; Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire; Cheetham Society.--Norris Papers and Chauntries of Lancashire; Haydock Papers; Burke, History of Catholic Liverpool, 1910; Blundell, Crosby Records; Challoner, Missionary Priests; Camm, English Martyrs; Crosby Records.--Harkirke Burial Register; Fishwick, History of Lancashire; Picton, Memorials of Liverpool and Liverpool Municipal Records; Camden, Britannia; Leland, Itinerary; Muir, History of Liverpool, 1907; Baines, Commerce and Town of Liverpool; Brooke, Liverpool as It Was; Dixon Scott, Liverpool; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., passim.

JAMES HUGHES

Livias

A titular see in Palestina Prima, suffragan of Cæsarea. It is twice mentioned in the Bible (Num xxxii, 36; Jos., xiii, 27) under the name of Betharan. About 80 B.C. Alexander Jannæus captured it from the King of the Arabs (Josephus, "Ant. Jud.", XIV, i, 4); it was then called Betharamphtha. Somewhat later Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, fortified it with strong walls and called it Livias after the wife of Augustus; Josephus calls it Julias also, because he always speaks of the wife of Augustus as Julia ("Ant.", XVIII, ii, 1; "Bel. Jud.", II, ix,l). Nero gave it with its fourteen villages to Agrippa the Younger (Josephus, "Ant. Jud.", XX, viii, 4), and the Roman general Placidus captured it several years later (Josephus, "Bel. Jud.", IV, vii, 6). From the time of Eusebius and St. Jerome the natives always called it Bethramtha. Lequien (Oriens Christ., III, 655) mentions three bishops: Letoius, who was at Ephesus in 431; Pancratius, at Chalcedon in 451; Zacharias, at Jerusalem in 536. To-day Livias is known as Teller-Rameh, a hill rising in the plain beyond Jordan, about twelve miles from Jericho.

RELAND, Palæstina, I (Utrecht, 1714), 496; HEIDET in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. BÈtharan.

S. VAILHÉ

Llancarvan

Llancarvan, Glamorganshire, Wales, was a college and monastery founded apparently about the middle of the fifth century. Most Welsh writers assign it to the period of St. Germanus's visit to Britain in A.D. 447, stating further that the first principal was St. Dubric, or Dubricius, on whose elevation to the episcopate St. Cadoc, or Cattwg, succeeded. On the other hand the Life of St. Germanus, written by Constantius, a priest of Lyons, about fifty years after the death of the saint, says nothing at all of any school founded by him or under his auspices, in Britain, nor is mention made of his presence in Wales. The other tradition, supported by the ancient lives of St. Cadoc, assigns the foundation of Llancarvan to that saint, which would place it about a century later than the former date. As, however, these lives confound two, or possibly three, saints of the same name, nothing really certain can be gathered from them. In the "Liber Landavensis" the Abbot of Llancarvan appears not infrequently as a witness to various grants, but none of these is earlier than the latter part of the sixth century. The Abbot of Llancarvan assisted at a council held at Llandaff in 560, which passed sentence of excommunication upon Meurig, King of Glamorgan.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

Llandaff

ANCIENT DIOCESE OF LLANDAFF (LANDAVENSIS)

The origins of this see are to be found in the sixth century monastic movement initiated by St. Dubricius, who presided over the monastery of Mochros. The saint made his disciple, St. Teilo, abbot of the daughter monastery of Llandaff, which after the retirement of Dubricius to Bardsey came to be the chief monastery. The abbots of Llandaff were in episcopal orders and SS. Teilo and Dubricius are referred to as archbishops. The territory in which Llandaff was situated belonged to the kings or chiefs of Morganwg or Owent, who presented gifts of lands to the Church of Llandaff. The early title "archbishop" implied only rule over other monasteries, and as the episcopate became diocesan it gave way to the usual style of bishop. The successors of St. Teilo long maintained absolute independence within their own territories, and the rights and privileges of the Church of Llandaff were extensive. The early history of the see, the chief authority for which is the "Book of Llandaff" (Llyfr Teilo, Teilo's book), is very obscure, and the order of the bishops uncertain. When St. Augustine began the conversion of the Saxons in 597 he invited the British bishops to co-operate, but they refused and there was no communication between the Celtic clergy and the Roman missionaries. Unfortunately this resulted in long enmity between the Churches in Wales and in England. It was not till 768 that the Welsh clergy adopted the Roman use of Easter. From this time Welsh bishops and kings went on frequent pilgrimage to Rome, and relations with the Saxon episcopate became more friendly. After the Conquest the archbishops of Canterbury exercised their jurisdiction over Wales, and St. Anselm placed Bishop Herwald of Llandaff under interdict. Herwald's successor Urban was consecrated at Canterbury, after taking an oath of canonical obedience to the archbishop, and from that time Llandaff became a suffragan of Canterbury. A standing difficulty was the admixture of race and language due to the English settlements, also to the ignorance and incontinence of the Welsh clergy, who had ceased to observe celibacy and gave scandal to the Normans and English. A reform was gradually effected, chiefly by the establishment of new monasteries. The Benedictines had houses at Chepstow, Abergavenny, Goldeliff, Bassaleg, Usk, Llangyran, Ewenny, and Cardiff; the Cistercians, at Neath, Tintern, Margam, Grace Dieu, Caerleon, and Llantarnam; Cluniacs at Malpas; Premonstratensians at St. Kynemark; Dominicans, Franciscans, and Carmelites were settled in Cardiff.

The cathedral, begun in 1120, was enlarged at the close of the twelfth century. It was regarded as a fine specimen of Early English architecture, but after the Reformation was allowed to fall into a ruinous state, from which it was restored during the nineteenth century. In the following list of bishops of Llandaff, the order and dates of all before the tenth century are unknown. St. Dubricius (Dyfrig) is sometimes given as the first bishop, but more correctly the episcopal succession begins with St. Teilo, who was succeeded by Oudoceus. After him came Ubilwynus, Aidanus, Elgistil, Lunapeius, Comegern, Argwistil, Gurvan, Guodloin, Edilbinus, Grecielus, all of doubtful authenticity. More historical are Berthguin, Trychan, Elvog, Catguaret, Edilbiu, Grecielis, Cerenhir, Nobis, and Nud. Cimeilljauc, Libiau, Marebluid, Pater, Gulfrit, Gucaun (consecrated in 982), Bledri (983), Joseph (1022), Herwald (1056), Urban (Worgan) (1107), vacancy (1134), Uchtryd (1140), Nicholas ap Gwrgant (1148), vacancy (1183), William Saltmarsh (1186), Henry of Abergavenny (1193), William of Goldehif (1219), Elias de Radnor (1230), vacancy (1240), William de Burgh (1245), John de la Ware (1254), William de Radnor (1257), William de Braose (1266), vacancy (1287), John of Monmouth (1296), John de Egleselif (1323), John Pascal (1347), Roger Cradock (1361), Thomas Ruchook (1383), William Bottlesham (1386), Edmund Broinfield (1389), Tide-man de Winchcomb (1393), Andrew Barrett (1395), John Burghill (1396), Thomas Peverell (1398), John de Ia Zouche (1408), John Wells (1425), Nicholas Ashby (1441), John Hunden (1458), John Smith (1476), John Marshall (1478), John Ingleby (1496), Miles Salley (1500), George de Athequa (1517), Robert Holgate (1537), Anthony Kitchin (1545), who alone of the English episcopate fell into schism under Elizabeth and died in 1563. The ancient diocese comprised the Counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth except a few parishes in each. It contained but one archdeaconry (Liandaff). The dedication of the cathedral was to SS. Peter, Andrew, Dubricius, Teilo, and Oudoceus, and the arms of the see were sable, two crosiers in saltire, or and argent, in a chief azure three mitres with labels of the second.

WILLIS, A Survey of the Cathedral Church of Llandaff (London, 1718); REES, Liber Landavensis (Llandovery, 1840); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, VI, pt. iii (London, 1846); WINKLE, Cathedral Churches of England and Wales (London. 1860); EVANS, The Text of the Book of Llan Dav (Oxford, 1893); NEWELL, Llandaff in Diocesan Histories Series (London, 1902); Digest of the parish registers within the Diocese of Llandaff (Cardiff, 1905); FAIRBAIRNS, Cathedrals of England and Wales (London, 1907); Acts of the Bishops of Llandaff, ed. by BRADNEY (Cardiff, 1908).

EDWIN BURTON

Llanthony Priory

A monastery of Augustinian Canons, situated amongst the Black Mountains of South Wales, nine miles north-east of Abergavenny. St. David is said to have lived some time here as a hermit, but the tradition lacks confirmation. The origin of the priory was as follows. About the year 1100 a retainer of the Baron of Herefordshire, named William, whilst hunting in the neighbourhood, discovered the ruins of a chapel and cell, supposed to have been once occupied by St. David, and he thereupon decided to quit the world and become a hermit there himself. He was afterwards joined by Ernisius, chaplain to Queen Maud, wife of Henry I. The fame of the two anchorites reached the ears of William's former lord, Hugh de Lacy, who in 1107 founded and endowed a monastery for them, dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The rule of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine was adopted. In course of time the severity of the climate, the poverty of the soil and the persecution of the Welsh natives combined to make life there impossible. In 1134 the entire community, numbering about forty, abandoned the monastery and took refuge in the palace of Robert, Bishop of Hereford. After two years a new monastery was built for them near Gloucester by Milo, Earl of Hereford, which was called Llanthony Secunda. Only a few canons lived from time to time in the original monastery, and both houses were governed by one prior, who resided at Gloucester.

The buildings at Llanthony fell gradually into decay and passed into private hands at the dissolution in 1539. In 1807 the property was bought by Walter Savage Landor. It still belongs to his descendents, the habitable portion of it having been added to and converted into an inn. The church is in ruins, but the western towers, part of the central one, and some of the nave piers and arches are standing.

TANNER, Notitia Monastica (London, 1744); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, VI (London, 1846); ROBERTS, Llanthony Priory (London, 1847).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

St. John Lloyd

Welsh priest and martyr, executed at Cardiff, 22 July, 1679. He took the missionary oath at Valladolid, 16 October, 1649, and was arrested at Mr. Turberville's house at Penllyne, Glamorganshire, 20 November, 1678, and thrown into Cardiff gaol. There he was joined by Father Philip Evans, S.J. This venerable martyr was born in Monmouthshire, 1645, was educated at St-Omer, joined the Society of Jesus, 7 Sept., 1665, and was ordained at Liege and sent on the mission in 1675. He was arrested at Mr. Christopher Turberville's house at Sker, Glamorganshire, 4 December, 1678. Both priests were brought to the bar on Monday, 5 May (not 3 May), 1679, and charged with being priests and coming into the principality contrary to the provisions of 27 Eliz., c. 2. The chief witness against Father Evans was an apostate named Mayne Trott. He was deformed, and had been a dwarf at the Spanish and British Courts, but was at this time in the service of John Arnold of Abergavenny, an indefatigable priest-hunter, who had offered £200 for Father Evans's arrest. Both were found guilty and put to death.

[Note: In 1970, both John Lloyd and Philip Evans, S.J., were canonized by Pope Paul VI among the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feast day is kept on 25 October.]

MATTHEWS, Cardiff Records (Cardiff, 1898-1905), II, 175-8, IV, 155-9; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II, 186; IV, 289; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biogr., s. v. Evans, Philip; STAUNTON, Menology (London, 1887), 351; CHALLONER, Memoirs, II.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Garcia de Loaisa

Cardinal and Archbishop of Seville, b. in Talavera, Spain, c. 1479; d. at Madrid, 21 April, 1546. His parents were nobles; at a very early age he entered the Dominican convent at Salamanca. Its severe discipline, however, affected his delicate constitution and he was transferred to the convent of St. Paul in Peñafiel where he was professed in 1495. On the completion of his studies in Alcala, and later at St. Gregory's College, Valladolid, he taught philosophy and theology. About the same time he was appointed regent of studies and for two terms filled the office of rector in St. Gregory's College. In 1518 he represented his province at the general chapter held at Rome where his accomplishments, his sound judgment, and piety secured for him by unanimous vote the generalship of the order in succession to Cardinal Cajetan. After visiting the Dominican houses in Sicily and other countries he returned to Spain. Here he made the acquaintance of King Charles V who, recognizing in him a man of more than ordinary ability, chose him for his confessor and later, with papal sanction, offered him the See of Osma, for which he was consecrated in 1524. Subsequently he held several offices of considerable political importance. In 1530 Clement VII created him cardinal and transferred him to the See of Siguenza. The following year he was made Archbishop of Seville, and Commissary-General of the Inquisition. G. Haine found, in the royal library at Simancas, Garcia's letters to Charles V written in the years 1530-32. They contain information of the greatest importance for the history of the Reformation as well as for the religious and political history of Spain during that period. They manifest, moreover, the accomplishments of the author, the honour in which he was held and the unlimited confidence the emperor placed in him. His writings are limited to a few pastoral letters.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Loango

VICARIATE APOSTOLIC OF LOANGO (LOWER FRENCH CONGO).

Formerly included in the great Kingdom of Congo, Loango became independent towards the end of the sixteenth century, at which time it extended from the mouth of the Kwilou to that of the River Congo. By the treaties of 1885 all this country, over which Portugal had till then exercised a somewhat uncertain sway, became part of French Congo, except the enclave of Cabinda which still remained under Portuguese control. The transference of civil dominion affected the ecclesiastical distribution of the territory. By decree of 24 Nov., 1886, the Vicariate Apostolic of French Congo, or Lower Congo, more properly Loango, was detached from that of Gaboon; and in 1890, as a result of further division, the Vicariate of Upper French Congo, or Ubangi, was erected. The three vicariates which make up French Congo — Gaboon, Loango, Ubangi — embrace an area, approximately, of one million square miles. The official returns (1908) for French Congo and its dependencies are given in the "Annuaire Pontifical Catholique" (1909), 342, note.

The Vicariate Apostolic of Loango lies to the south of that of Gaboon; on the west, it is bounded by the Atlantic; on the south, by the Massabi river, Cabinda, and Belgian Congo; to the east is the Vicariate of Ubangi, from which it is separated by the Djue as far as the upper reaches of that river, and thence onward by a line drawn to meet the head waters of the Alima. The natives are known by the generic appellation of Fiots, i.e. "Blacks", and belong to the great Bantu family. Of the numerous dialects the most important is the Kivili. Amongst those who have contributed to the knowledge of the language are Mgr Carrie, the first Apostolic vicar, and Mgr Derouet, now in charge. The revival of missionary enterprise followed a grievous lapse on the part of the tribes from a relatively high degree of culture; fetichism, in its grossest forms, was everywhere rampant. The work of Christianization has been attended with serious difficulties, but in one year (1901) more than one thousand conversions were registered to the mission of Loango alone. The vicariate, entrusted to the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, numbers about 1,500,000 inhabitants, of whom more than 5,000 are Catholics and 3000 catechumens. There are 24 European missionaries, 1 native priest, 45 catechists, 15 brothers, and 11 sisters. Of the mission stations — 8 residental, 62 secondary — Loango, at the head of the Niari-Kwilou portage route, and starting-point of the "route des caravanes" to Brazaville, is the most important. Its fitness for serving as chief French port and railway depot of the territory has received serious attention of late. In this place (now a mere group of factories), which is the residence of the vicar, the fathers have their own printing establishment. The seminary and house of novices are at Mayumba, where P. Ignace Stoffel founded the mission in 1888. There are established in the vicariate 6 parochial schools, with 750 boys; 6 orphanages, with 650 inmates, and 1 religious institute of men, with 6 houses.

The present vicar Apostolic is Mgr Jean Derouet, of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, titular Bishop of Camachus. He was born at Saint-Denis-de-Villenette, Diocese of Seez, Department of Orne, France, 31 Jan., 1866. Ordained in 1891, he went as missionary to the Congo, and in 1904 was named pro-Vicar Apostolic of Loango. He was chosen bishop on 19 December, 1906; consecrated 3 Feb., 1907, in the chapel of the Holy Ghost, at Paris; preconized on 18 April of the same year; and appointed Vicar Apostolic of Lower French Congo.

P.J. MACAULEY

Loaves of Proposition

Heb. "bread of the faces", i.e. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Ex., xxxv, 13; xxxix, 35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (I Kings, xxi, 6), "bread of piles" (I Par., ix, 32; xxiii, 29), "continual bread" (Num., iv, 7), or simply "bread" (Heb. Version, Ex., xi, 23). In the Greek text we have various renderings, the most frequent being ’ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Ex., xxxv, 13; xxxix, 35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Ex., xxxv, 13, etc.; Matt., xii, 4; Mark, ii, 26; Luke, vi, 4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" (cf. Schaubrot of German versions), with the marginal "presence-bread".

In the account of David's flight from Saul, as found in I Kings, xxi, 6, we are told that David went to Nobe, to the high priest Achimelech, whom he asked for a few loaves of bread for himself and for his companions. Having been assured that the men were legally clean, the high priest gave them "hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up". The loaves of bread spoken of here formed the most important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. They were prepared from the finest flour, passed through seven sieves, two-tenths of an ephod (about four-fifths of a peck) in each, and without leaven (Lev., xxiv, 5; Josephus, "Antiq.", III, vi, 6; x, 7). According to Jewish tradition they were prepared in a special room by the priests who were appointed every week. In I Par., ix, 32, we read that some of the sons of Caath (Kohathites) were in charge of preparing and baking the loaves. The Bible gives us no data as to the form or shape of the individual loaves, but, according to the Mishna (Men., xi, 4; Yad, Tamid, v. 9), they were ten fingers in length, five in breadth, and with rims or upturned edges of seven fingers in length. Twelve of these loaves were arranged in two piles, of six loaves each, and while still hot placed on the "table of proposition" (Num., iv, 7) or "most clean table" (Lev., xxiv, 6) made of settim-wood and overlaid with gold. The dimensions of the table were two cubits (three feet) long, one cubit broad and one and a half cubit high (Ex., xxv, 23. Cf. III Kings, vii, 48; I Par., xxviii, 16; II Par., iv, 19; xiii, 11). The table with the loaves of bread was then placed in the tabernacle or temple before the Ark of the Covenant, there to remain "always" in the presence of the Lord (Ex., xxv, 30; Num., iv, 7). According to the Talmud, the loaves were not allowed to touch one another, and, to prevent contact, hollow golden tubes, twenty-eight in number, were placed between them, which thus permitted the air to circulate freely between the loaves. Together with the loaves of proposition, between the two piles or, according to others, above them, were two vessels of gold filled with frankincense and, according to the Septuagint, salt also (Lev., xxiv, 7; Siphra, 263, 1). The twelve loaves were to be renewed every Sabbath; fresh, hot loaves taking the place of the stale loaves, which belonged "to Aaron and his sons, that they may eat them in the holy place" (Lev., xxiv, 8, 9. Cf. I Par., xxiii, 29; Matt., xii, 4, etc.). According to the Talmud four priests removed the old loaves together with the incense every Sabbath, and four other priests brought in fresh loaves with new incense. The old loaves were divided among the incoming and outgoing priests, and were to be consumed by them within the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. The old incense was burnt. The expense of preparing the loaves was borne by the temple treasury (I Par., ix, 26 and 32). Symbolically, the twelve loaves represented the higher life of the twelve tribes of Israel. Bread was the ordinary symbol of life, and the hallowed bread signified a superior life because it was ever in the presence of Yahweh and destined for those specially consecrated to His service. The incense was a symbol of the praise due to Yahweh.

      Edersheim, The Temple and Its Service (London, 1874), 152-57; Kennedy in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Shewbread; LesÉtre in Vigoroux, Dict. de la Bible, iv, 1957; Geffert in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Shewbread.

Francis X.E. Albert

Benedictine Abbey of Lobbes

Located in Hainault, Belgium, founded about 650, by St. Landelin, a converted brigand, so that the place where his crimes had been committed might benefit by his conversion. As the number of monks increased rapidly the saintly founder, desiring to consecrate his life to austerities rather than to discharge the duties of abbot, resigned his post. He was succeeded by St. Ursmer, who gave most of his energies to preaching Christianity among the still pagan Belgians. More fortunate than most monasteries, Lobbes preserved its ancient annals, so that its history is known in comparatively minute detail. The "Annales Laubicenses", printed in Pertz, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scriptores", should be consulted. The fame of St. Ursmer, his successor St. Ermin, and other holy men soon drew numbers of disciples, and Lobbes became the most important monastery of the period in Belgium, the abbatial school rising to special fame under Anson, the sixth abbot. About 864 Hubert, brother-in-law of Lothair II, became abbot, and, by his dissolute life brought the monastery into a state of decadence; both temporal and spiritual, from which it did not recover until the accession of Francon. By him the Abbacy of Lobbes was united to the Bishopric of Liège, which he already held, and this arrangement continued until 960, when the monastery regained its freedom. The reigns of Abbots Folcuin (965-990) and Heriger (990-1007) were marked by rapid advance, the school especially attaining a great reputation.

From this period, although the general observance seems on the whole to have continued good, the fame of the abbey gradually declined until the fifteenth century, when the great monastic revival, originating in the congregation of Bursfeld, brought fresh life into it. In 1569 Lobbes and several other abbeys, the most important being that of St. Vaast or Vedast at Arras, were combined to form the "Benedictine Congregation of Exempt Monasteries of Flanders", sometimes called the "Congregation of St. Vaast". In 1793 the last abbot, Vulgise de Vignron, was elected. Thirteen months later both abbot and community were driven from the monastery by French troops, and the law of 2 September, 1796, decreed their final expulsion. The monks, who numbered forty-three at that date, were received into various monasteries in Germany and elsewhere; and the conventual buildings were subsequently destroyed, with the exception of the farm and certain other portions that have been incorporated in the railway station.

Annales Laubicenses in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., I-IV, XXI; Breve Chronicon Laubiense in MARTÈNE, Thesaurus Nov. Anecd., III (Paris, 1717), 1409-1431; Epistola Lobiensium monachorum in D'ACHÉRY, Spicilegium, VI (Paris, 1664), 598-601; MABILLON, Annales Bened. (Paris, 16-), II, V; Gallia Christiana, III (Paris, 1725), 79-80; BERLIÈRE, Monasticon Belge, I (Bruges, 1890-97). 179-228; LEJEUNE, Monographie de l'ancienne Abbaye de St. Pierre de Lobbes (Mons, 1883); Vos, Lobbes, son abbaye et son chapitre (2 vols., Louvain, 1865); BERLIÈRE, Notice aur l'abbaye de Lobbes in Revue Bénédictine, V, 302, 370, 392.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON.

Ann Lobera

(Better known as Venerable Ann of Jesus).

Carmelite nun, companion of St. Teresa; b. At Medina del Campo (Old Castile), 25 November, 1545; d. at Brussels, 4 March, 1621. The daughter of Diego de Lobera of Plasencia, and of Francisca de Torres of Biscay, Ann was a deaf­mute until her seventh year. Left an orphan, she went to live with her father's relatives. Having made a vow of virginity while in the world, she took the habit in St. Teresa's convent at Avila, in 1570. While still a novice St. Teresa called her to Salamanca and placed her over the other novices. Ann made her profession on 22 October, 1571, and accompanied St. Teresa in 1575 to the foundation of Beas, of which she became the first prioress. Later she was sent by the saint to establish her new convent at Granada. One of the greatest difficulties consisted in a misunderstanding between St. Teresa and Ann, which drew from the former sharp reprimands, in a letter dated 30 May, 1582. With the help of St. John of the Cross, Ann made a foundation at Madrid (1586), of which she became prioress. She also collected St. Teresa's writings for publication. While at Madrid Ann came into conflict with her superior, Nicholas a Jesu-Maria (Doria), who, by rendering the rules stringent and rigid in the extreme, and by concentrating ll authority in the hands of a committee of permanent officials (consulta), sought to guard the nuns against any relaxation. It was an open secret that the constitutions of the nuns, drawn up by St. Teresa with the assistance of Jerome Gratian, and approved by a chapter in 1581, were to be brought into line with the new principles of administration. Ann of Jesus, determined to preserve intact St. Teresa's work, appealed (with the knowledge of Doria) to the Holy See for an Apostolic confirmation, which was granted by Sixtus V by a Brief of 5 June, 1590. But on Doria's complaining that the nuns had been acting over the head of their superiors, Philip II twice forbade the meeting of a chapter for the reception of the Brief, and the nuns, and their advisers and supporters, Luis de León and Dominic Ba241;ez, fell into disgrace. Furthermore, for over a year no friar was allowed to hear the nuns' confessions. At last Philip having heard the story from the nuns' point of view commanded the consulta to resume their government, and petitioned the Holy See for an approbation of the principles of the constitutions. Accordingly Gregory XIV by a Brief of 25 April, 1591, revoking the Acts of his predecessor, took a middle course between an unconditional confirmation of the constitutions and an approbation of the principles of the consulta. These constitutions are still in force in a large number of Carmelite convents.

Doria resumed the government of the nuns, but his first act was to punish Ann of Jesus severely for having appealed to the Holy See; for three years she was deprived of daily communion, of all intercourse with the other nuns, and of active and passive voice. At the expiration of this penance she went to Salamanca, where she became prioress from 1596 to 1599. Meanwhile a movement had been set on foot to introduce the Teresian nuns into France. Blessed Mary of the Incarnation, warned by St. Teresa and assisted by de Brétigny and de Bérulle (q. v.) brought a few nuns, mostly trained by St. Teresa herself, with Ann of Jesus at their heads, from Avila to Paris, where they established the convent of the Incarnation, 16 October, 1604. Such was the number of postulants that Ann was able to make a further foundation at Pontoise, 15 January, 1605, and a third one on 21 September at Dijon, where she took up her abode; other foundations followed. Nevertheless difficulties arose between her and the superiors in France, who were anxious to authorize certain deviations from the strict rule of St. Teresa; the situation had become strained and painful, when Mother Ann was called to Brussels by the Infanta Isabella and the Archduke Albert, who were anxious to establish a convent of Carmelite nuns. She arrived there on 22 January, 1607, and besides the Brussels house she made foundations at Louvain (4 November), and Mons (7 February, 1608); and helped to establish those at Antwerp, and at Krakow in Poland. She, moreover, obtained leave from the pope for the Discalced Friars to establish themselves in Flanders. The Spanish Carmelites having decided not to spread outside the Peninsula declined the offer, but the Italian congregation sent Thomas a Jesu with some companions, who arrived at Brussels, on 20 August, 1610. On 18 September, Ann of Jesus and her nuns, in the presence of the nuncio, rendered their obedience to the superior of the Italian congregation. She remained prioress at Brussels to the end of her life. Numerous miracles having followed upon her death, the process of canonization was introduced early in the seventeenth century, and in 1878 she was declared Venerable.

      Manrique, Vida de la V. Madre Ana de Jesus (Brussels, 1632); Bertholde- Ignace de Ste. Anne, Vie de la Mère Anne de Jésus Mechlin, 1876).

B. Zimmerman.

Loccum

(LUCCA, LOCKEN, LOCKWEEN, LYKE, LYCKO)

A Cistercian abbey in the Diocese of Minden, formerly in Brunswick but now included in Hanover, was founded by Count Wilbrand von Hallermund in 1163. The first monks under Abbot Eccardus came from Volkenrode in Thuringia, through which house the foundation belongs to the Morimond line of descent from Citeaux. An ancient writer describes Loccum as being "in loco horroris et vastæ solitudinis et prædonum et latronum commorationis"; and adds that, after suffering much from want and from the barbarity of their neighbours, the monks in time brought the land into cultivation, and the people to the fear of God. The history of the abbey presents nothing to call for special notice. It filled its place in the life of the Church in Brunswick until the tide of Lutheranism swept the Catholic religion from the country. The chief interest of Loccum lies in its buildings, which still exist in an almost perfect state, being now a Protestant seminary of higher studies. The group, which is considered inferior in beauty to Maulbronn and Bebenhausen alone amongst German abbeys, consists of a cruciform church about 218 feet long by 110 feet wide, built between 1240 and 1277, and restored with great care about sixty years ago; a quadrangular cloister of remarkable beauty; the ancient refectory, now used as a library; the chapter-house, sacristy, dormitory, and lay-brothers' wing (domus conversorum), all practically in their original state. By an odd survival the title of abbot is given to the head of the present establishment, and the abbatial mitre, crosier, etc., are preserved, and apparently still used on occasion.

JANAUSCHEK, Originum Cisterc. (Vienna. 1877), II, 151; LEIBNIZ, Scriptores Rerum Brunswickarum (Leipzig, 1710), II, 176; III, 690; MIGNE, Dictionnaire des Abbayes (Paris, 1856), 461; AHRENS, Zur ältesten Geschichte des Klosters Loccum in Archiv. d. hist. Ver. für Nieder-Sachsen (1872), 1; WITTE, Kloster Loccum in Die Katol. Welt (1904); BRUNNER, Zisterzienserbuch (Würzburg, 1881), 32.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON.

Lochleven

(from leamhan, an elm-tree)

Lochleven, a lake in Kinross-shire, Scotland, an island of which, known as St. Serf's Island (eighty acres in extent), was the seat of a religious community for seven hundred years. Brude, King of the Picts, is recorded to have given the island to the Culdees about 840, perhaps in the lifetime of St. Serf (or Servanus) himself, and the grant was confirmed by subsequent kings and by several bishops of St. Andrews. In the tenth century the Culdee community made over their island to the bishop, on condition of their being provided by him with food and clothing. The Culdees continued to serve the monastery until the reign of David I, who about 1145 granted Lochleven to the Canons Regular of St. Andrews, whom he had founded there in the previous year. Bishop Robert of St. Andrews, himself a member of the order, took possession of the island, subjected the surviving Culdees to the canons, and added their possessions to the endowments of the priory at St. Andrews. An interesting list of the books belonging to the Culdees at the time of their incorporation with St. Andrews is preserved in the St. Andrews Register. From the middle of the twelfth century until the Reformation, Lochleven continued to be a cell dependent on St. Andrews. The most noted of the priors was Andrew Wyntoun, one of the fathers of Scottish history, who probably wrote his "Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland" on the island. Patrick Graham, first Archbishop of St. Andrews, died and was buried there in 1478. The property passed at the Dissolution to the Earl of Morton. A few fragments of the chapel remain, and have been used in recent times as a shelter for cattle.

MACKAY, Fife and Kinross (Edinburgh, 1896), 12, 82; CHALMERS, Caledonia (Paisley, 1887-90), I, 409 etc.; II, 748; VII, 108, 142; LYON, Hist. of St. Andrews, I (Edinburgh, 1843), 44; GORDON, Monasticon (London, 1875), 90-9; Ordnance Gazetteer, Scotland, IV (London, 1874), 320, 321.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Stephen Lochner

A painter, born at Meersburg, on the Lake of Constance, date of birth unknown; died at Cologne, 1452. He came to Cologne about 1430 from Meersburg. His style of painting resembles more that of "Master Wilhelm" of the fourteenth century, than that of the unknown painters who followed him, who, though they lived at Cologne, betray a certain Dutch influence. He seems to have brought with him from his home in Upper Germany, the more vivid realism of Moser and Witz. His principal work was destined for the altar in the town hall, but was removed in 1810 to the choir chapel of the cathedral. This is the brilliant triptych which, in the centre piece, shows in almost life-size figures the worshipping of the Magi, and the side panels of which represent St. Ursula with her companions, and Gereon with his warriors. In the middle, seated on a throne, appears the Madonna with the Child, humble and yet majestic, clad in the traditional ideal garments. The miraculous star shines above, and angels appear overhead. On each side one of the kings prays and tenders his offering, while the third stands beside the throne. To the right and the left their followers crowd into view. A wealth of tone and colour transfigures the scene. The figures, save the Virgin, are all clad in the costumes of the time; their bearing is free and bold, and each individual in the group stands out in marked relief. This is especially true of the warriors of Gereon on the right lateral panel. Their leader is seen, virile and resolute, advancing with the flag; his costume is richly embroidered, and his armour bears a large cross. His followers are similarly clad and bear battle-axes. On the left side are the women, of delicate mould and somewhat less pronounced individuality; a pope and a bishop appear among them, both of whom play a part in the legend of St. Ursula. The sumptuous garments of the maidens are trimmed with royal ermine, and their long flowing sleeves hang down at their sides. The slender arms and tapering fingers of the Madonna, as well as the somewhat awkward movements of some of the other figures, remind us of an earlier period; but there is a keen sense of nature and an earnest aim at reality in the treatment of the costumes as well as in the expression of the faces, which are finished and lifelike.

The Annunciation, done in more subdued tones, is represented at the outer end. Great care is shown in the handling of the room, with its wall-hangings and its compartment ceilings, the desk, chair, and lily. The whole work reminds one of Van Eyck's altar painting at Ghent; the artist has achieved at Cologne a magnificent monument to the patron saint of the city. Similar in technic is the "Virgin among the Rosebushes" (Maria am Rosenhag) in the Cologne museum. This is an enchanting picture of the Blessed Mother with the Child, surrounded by angels who discourse celestial music. Indeed one might view it as a scene in heaven, a glimpse of which is vouchsafed mortals by the two angels who part the mystic veil. God the Father appears above, His hand raised in benediction, while over them hovers the Dove, symbol of the Holy Ghost. The "Madonna of the Violets" is ascribed to an earlier period of Lochner, and is in the archiepiscopal museum. This charming work is done in the style of "Master Wilhelm". The youthful Mother stands there, more than life-size, with the Infant Jesus on her arm; her left hand holds a bunch of violets; above are seen the Heavenly Father, the Holy Ghost, and an angel; Mother and Child look down upon a woman in prayer, who represents the donor of the painting. The "Last Judgment", which hangs in the museum of Cologne, seems at first glance to be in an entirely different style. Certain experts have contended against Master Stephan's authorship of this work, because of the realistic forms of the damned, and the distorted faces of the demons. Other critics have assumed that his pupils contributed the lost souls, and have recognized in the remainder of the work the hand of Lochner himself. Another painting, which is more likely to have emanated from his brush, is of "The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple", with saints portrayed on the side panels; it is the famous central picture at Darmstadt, so much admired by visitors. The youths standing before Simeon, and the maidens grouped behind Anna, make an array of figures full of grace and charm.

SCHEIBLER AND ALDENHOVEN, Gesch. der Kölner Malerschule (Lübeck, 1894); MERLO, FIRMENICH-RICHARTZ, AND KEUSSEN, Kölnische Künstler in alter und neuer Zeit (Düsseldorf, 1895).

G. GIETMANN.

Loci Theologici

Loci theologici or loci communes, are the common topics of discussion in theology. As theology is the science which places in the light of reason the truths revealed by God, its topics are, strictly speaking, coextensive with the whole content of revelation. Usage, however, and circumstance have restricted the loci to narrower but ill-defined limits. Melanchthon, the theologian of Lutheran Germany, published in 1521 "Hypotyposes theologicæ seu loci communes", a presentation of the chief Christian doctrines drawn from the Bible as the only rule of faith. His avowed intention was to improve on similar works by John Damascene and Peter Lombard. Leaving aside undisputed dogmas which do not bear directly on the salvation of man, he expounds with scanty commentary, or none at all, the state of fallen man, free-will, sin, the law of God, the law of man, the Gospel, the power of the Law and the power of the Gospel, grace, justification, faith, hope, and charity, the difference between the Old and New Testament, the abolition of the Law through the Gospel, the sacraments of Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist, authority, and scandal. Melanchthon's "Loci" became the textbook for Lutheran theology and the author has rightly been styled the prœceptor Germaniœ. Like Peter Lombard, he had his imitators and commentators, who formed a goodly body of Protestant Schoolmen. The greatest work of this kind is "Loci communes theologici", by John Gerard, professor at Jena, published in nine volumes (1610-1622); it is the greatest and also the last. After Gerard the loci theology gives place to systematic theology; the unconnected exposition of "topics" in the light of the Bible gradually disappears. On the Catholic side Melanchthon's" Loci" were countered by the "Enchiridion locorum communium" of Johann Eck (q. v.), which between 1525 and 1576 ran through forty-five editions. It was dedicated to Henry VIII of England. The topics which Eck expounds and defends against the Reformers are: the Church and her authority, the councils, the primacy of the Apostolic See, Holy Scripture, faith and works, confirmation, ordination, confession, communion under both kinds, matrimony, extreme unction, human laws, feasts, fasts, the worship of saints and their images, the Mass, vows, clerical celibacy, cardinals and legates, excommunication, wars against the Turks, immunities and temporalities of the Church, indulgences, purgatory, annates, the burning of heretics, discussion with heretics, and infant baptism. Other Catholic writers followed on the track of the Ingolstadt professor; e. g. Franciscus Orantes (died 1584), Konrad Kling (died 1566), Joseph V. Zambaldi (died 1722), and Cardinal Bellarmine (q. v.), whose "Disputationes de controversiis fidei" (1581-92) are still the chief arsenal and stronghold of Catholic controversy. But, whilst Protestants concentrated their best theological effort on the loci, Catholics soon returned to the systematic methods of the older Summœ.

Cano (died 1560) applied the term loci theologici to a treatise on the fundamental principles or sources of theological science. On the threshold of every science there stands a complex of preliminary principles, postulates, and questions, which must be elucidated before progress is possible. Some are common to all sciences, some are peculiar to each. Before Cano the questions preliminary to theology had never been treated as a science apart, general dialectics being deemed a sufficient introduction. Cano observes that the "Queen of sciences" draws its arguments and proofs chiefly from authority, and only calls in reason as the handmaid of faith. Accordingly he sets up ten loci — sources of theology — without, however, pretending to limit them to that number. They are: the authority of Holy Scripture, of Catholic tradition, of general councils, of the Roman Church, of the Fathers, of the Schoolmen; natural reason, the authority of philosophers and doctors in civil law, and the authority of history. The first seven are the proper places in which theology moves, the last three are useful auxiliaries. Melchior Cano's work gave a new turn to theological teaching. Much that before his time had been taken for granted, or, at best, only loosely investigated, became the favourite theme of the schools. The foundations of theology, which had lain embedded in the Christian mind, were laid bare, examined, strengthened, and rendered safe both for the believer inside the Church and against the foe without. The scientific method which takes nothing for granted, but investigates and probes to the very root every item of knowledge, is not a thing of yesterday, much less a child of anti-Catholic tendencies: Bishop Melchior Cano introduced it as the best weapon of offence and defence in religious warfare. The "Loci theologici" was first published in 1563, three years after the author's death, by the Grand Inquisitor Valdes. Twenty-six editions followed the first: eight in Spain, nine in Italy, seven in Germany, and two in France. Numerous writers during the following centuries produced works on the same lines: Seraphimus Ractius (Razzi) (died 1613), Petrus de Lorca (died 1606), Dominicus a S. Trinitate (died 1687), Ch. du Plessis d'Argentrée (died 1740), Franciscus Kranz, and many more. Gradually the subject-matter of the loci entered the body of theology under the title of "Prolegomena", general dogmatics, fundamental theology, or apologetics. In "A Manual of Catholic Theology", by Wilhelm and Scannell (London, 1906), the loci are treated in the first book under the following headings: the sources of theological knowledge; Divine revelation; transmission of revelation; the Apostolic deposit of revelation; ecclesiastical traditions; the rule of faith; faith; faith and understanding.

The necessity of meeting attacks on the Faith at the precise point on which they are directed has, of recent years, led to a modification in apologetic methods. Existing textbooks draw their proofs from Scripture, tradition and, when possible, from reason. The authority of these loci, or sources, having been previously proved, the demonstration is considered complete. But since evolutionism has taken hold of the modern mind and filled it with a never-satisfied desire to know the origin and the growth of all things in the realms of nature and of mind, the loci themselves have been submitted to fierce criticism by men who will be convinced by nothing but facts and experiments. They proceed by the positive, or historical, method which eliminates all supernatural factors, and retains only the bare facts linked together in an unbroken chain of causes and effects. The Bible to them is no longer the Word of God, but a mere collection of documents of various merit; the Church is an institution of human origin. It must be confessed that the historical method is fraught with danger even to those who use it in defence of the Church. The danger is real but so is the necessity of facing it, for it is useless to argue from authority with men who acknowledge no authority. What is wanted is that the Catholic apologist keep a steady eye on the landmarks fixed by the Church, and deviate neither to the right nor to the left. With that precaution, the historical method is likely to become an abundant source of light and understanding on points of doctrine and discipline hitherto viewed out of their historical frame and in a borrowed light. Thus the discovery of the Didache (q. v.) has been a revelation which has upset many fond calculations, and the excavations in Palestine, Assyria, Egypt, and other places, where they bear on Bible history, have done more good than harm to the traditional views. The French are at the present day the pioneers of the historical treatment of dogma; one need only point to the splendid series of "Studies in the History of Dogmas" published by Lecoffre in Paris.

WERNER, Gesch. d. apolog. u. polem. Literatur (Ratisbon, 1889); GASS, Gesch. d. prot. Dogmatik (1854); HEPPE, Dogmatik d. deutschen Protestantismus (Gotha, 1857); SCHMID in Kirchenlex., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator; see also bibliography under APOLOGETICS and THEOLOGY.

J. WILHELM.

Matthew Locke

Matthew Locke, composer; born at Exeter, in 1629; died August, 1677. He was a chorister of Exeter Cathedral from 1638 to 1641. His first effort was as part-composer of music for Shirley's masque "Cupid and Death" (26 May, 1653). In 1654, he became a Catholic, and, in 1656, furnished some of the music for Davenant's opera "The Siege of Rhodes". In addition to some minor orchestral works he scored the processional march for the coronation of Charles II, in April, 1661, and was appointed composer to the king's private band at a salary of forty pounds a year. He composed incidental instrumental music for Dryden's and Davenant's version of "The Tempest", produced 7 November, 1667. His "Melothesia" (1673) was a good theoretical treatise. Of greater interest is the "Macbeth" music, composed in 1672, but it is almost certain that the well-known score was really the work of Henry Purcell. The ascription of it to Locke was based on an error due to Dr. Boyce, but it must be noted that Purcell's music — the so-called "Locke's" — was written for a revival of "Macbeth" in 1689. Locke composed the music for Shadwell's "Psyche" in 1673, and several anthems and Latin hymns. From 1672 to 1674 he was engaged in an acrimonious controversy with Thomas Salmon, who advocated the writing of all music on one clef. Locke's views are still upheld, while Salmon's pamphlets are forgotten. He was "Deputy Master of the King's Musick" for the year 1676-77, but his salary at Court was so irregularly paid that on 24 July, 1676, he assigned £174. l0s. 7d. — three years' and three quarters' salary due to him — to one of his creditors. He was buried in the Savoy, in which parish he spent his last years.

HUSK in GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians (London, 1906); s. v.; MATTHEW, Handbook of Musical History (London, 1898); WALKER, History of Music in England (Oxford, 1907); DE LAFONTAINE, The King's Musick (London, 1909).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

William Lockhart

Son of the Rev. Alexander Lockhart of Waringham, Surry; b. 22 Aug., 1820; d. at St. Etheldreda's Priory, Eby Place, Holborn, London, 15 May, 1892. He was a cousin of J. G. Lockhart, the well-known biographer of Sir Walter Scott. After studying first at Bedford Grammar School and, afterwards under various tutors, he entered Exeter College, Oxford, in 1838. He there made the acquaintance of Edward Douglas, afterwards head of the Redemptorists at Rome, Father Ignatius Grant, the well-known Jesuit, and John Ruskin. Like so many others whose early life has been passed in a purely Protestant atmosphere, Lockhart had hitherto taken it for granted that Protestantism represented the religion of the Apostles, and that to the title Christian Catholics could, properly speaking, lay no claim. The reading of Froude's "Remains" and Faber's "Foreign Churches" showed him how mistaken this opinion was. To set his doubts at rest, he visited Manning at Lavington, but felt so awed in the archdeacon's presence that he did not dare to enter into a controversy. Subsequently, Manning urged Lockhart to accept Newman's kind invitation to stay with him at Littlemore and prepare for (Anglican) ordination. After graduating Bachelor of Arts in 1842, he rejoined Newman at Littlemore, and was assigned the task of translating a portion of Fleury's "History of the Church", and of writing a life of St. Gilbert of Sempringham for the Oxford Series (see Newman, John Henry). In this retirement his weakened faith in the Anglican Church was rudely shaken by the perusal of Milner's "End of Religious Controversy" given him by Grant, who had become a Catholic in 1841. Lockhart now realized for the first time what a Catholic doctrine was, and he saw all his doubts confirmed in the irresolution of Newman, at this time vainly seeking his Via Media between Catholicism and Anglicanism. After a few weeks' hesitation, he declared to Newman that he could not go on for Anglican ordination doubting its validity as he did; Newman sent him to W. G. Ward, who persuaded him to return to Littlemore for three years.

About a year later, however, his meeting with Father Gentili of the newly-formed Order of Charity, at Ward's rooms, brought matters to a crisis. In August, 1843, he visited Father Gentili at Loughborough, intending to stay only a few hours, but his visit resulted in a three-days' retreat and his reception into the Church. On 29 August he was received into the Rosminian Institute; he made his simple vows on 7 April, 1844, and his solemn profession 8 Sept., 1845. He was the first of the Tractarians to become a Catholic, and his conversion greatly affected Newman, who shortly afterwards preached at Littlemore his last sermon as an Anglican, "The Parting of Freinds". All communications between Lockhart and his mother ceased at first, by Manning's orders, but mother and son were soon reconciled, and in July, 1846, Mrs. Lockhart followed her son into the Catholic Church. In November, 1844, he was included in the new community at Calvary House, Ratcliffe–the first Rosminian foundation in England. He was ordained subdeacon at Oscott on 19 December, 1845, and deacon on 5 June, 1846, and on 19 Dec. of the same year was raised to the priesthood at Ratcliffe College. After some months devoted to the preaching of missions, Lockhart was entrusted with the pastoral charge of Shepshed, on 5 June, 1847. He was still occasionally employed for mission work, and in 1850 was definitely appointed for this duty. After some years' successful preaching in various parts of England and Ireland, he was compelled, owing to ill-health, to spend the winter of 1853 at Rome. On his return journey he paid a memorable visit to the celebrated Italian philosopher, Abbate Rosmini, at Stresa. In 1854 he was deputed to select a suitable place in London for the establishment of a house and church of his order. At the suggestion of Manning, he chose Kingsland, and until 1875 had to bear the burden of anxiety in connection with this foundation. In Dec., 1873, he purchased at his own expense St. Etheldreda's out of Chancery, and thus restored one of London's oldest churches (thirteenth century) to Catholic worship. Removing to St. Etheldreda's in 1879, when the work of repair was completed, he established himself there until his death, although he continued for many years to give missions and retreats. After 1881 he spent the winters in Rome as procurator general of the congregation, and was there frequently called upon to give a series of sermons in English. His death, of syncope, occurred very unexpectedly.

He was perhaps best known as the foremost English disciple of Rosmini, founder of the Institute of Charity. Several volumes of that philosopher's works were translated either by him or under his supervision, and in 1886 he wrote the second volume of the "Life of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati", of which the first volume had been written by G. S. MacWalter in 1883. He was an abale polemic and was closely connected with two well­known Catholic periodicals, "Catholic Opinion", which he founded and conducted until it was merged in "The Tablet', and "The Lamp", to which he was for twenty years the principal contributor. Besides his numerous contributions to these papers he wrote: "The Old Religion" (2nd ed., London, 1870); "Review of Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon" (2nd ed., London, 1866), reprinted from "The Weekly Register"; "Communion of Saints" (London, 1868); "Cardinal Newman. Reminiscences of fifty years since by one of his oldest living Disciples" (London, 1891). For some years before his death he had been engaged on a second volume to form a sequel to "The Old Religion", the best-known of his polemical works.

      Hirst, Biography of Father Lockhart (Ratcliffe College, 1893); Weekly Register, LXXXV, 657-58, 692; Cath. News (21 May, 1892); Cath. Times (20 and 27 May, 1892); The Times (London, 18 May, 1892); The Athenæum (London, 21 May, 1892); The Tablet (12 May, 1892); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.

Thomas Kennedy.

Venerable John Lockwood

Venerable John Lockwood, priest and martyr, born about 1555; died at York, 13 April, 1642. He was the eldest son of Christopher Lockwood, of Sowerby, Yorkshire, by Clare, eldest daughter of Christopher Lascelles, of Sowerby and Brackenborough Castle, Yorkshire. With the second son, Francis, he arrived at Reims on 4 November, 1579, and was at once sent to Douai to study philosophy. Francis was ordained in 1587, but John entered the English College, Rome, on 4 October, 1595, was ordained priest on 26 January, 1597, and sent on the mission, 20 April, 1598. After suffering imprisonment he was banished in 1610, but returned, and was again taken and condemned to death, but reprieved. He was finally captured at Wood End, Gatenby, the residence of Bridget Gatenby, and executed with Edmund Catherick.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, II, No. 168; KNOX, Diaries of the English College, Douay (London, 1878), 157; FOSTER, Visitation of Yorkshire (London, privately printed, 1875), 61, 549; Catholic Record Society's Publications (London, privately printed, 1905, etc.), V, 384.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT.

Diocese of Lodi

(LAUDENSIS)

A suffragan of Milan. Lodi, the capital of a district in the Province of Milan, and situated on the right bank of the Adda, is an important commercial centre for silk, wool, majolica ware, and works in cement. Noteworthy among the sacred edifices is the Lombard cathedral, built in 1158 by the Cremonese Tito Muzio de Gata. The interior was restored in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. The high altar belongs to the Seicento. There is also a subterranean crypt. The pictures are by Campi (the choir), Calisto, Procaccini, etc. A notable monument is that of the Pontani, husband and wife. The cathedral treasure possesses valuable miniature codices, a large silver ostensorium of the Quattrocento, and ornaments of the same period. The church of the Incoronata, a gem of Renaissance architecture, was built by the city on the plans of Giovanni Battogia. Other beautiful churches are: S. Francesco (Gothic facade), S. Bassiano, and the Abbey of Cerreto with an octagonal tower. Among the secular buildings are the bishop's residence, the great hospital, and the castle, erected by Barnabo Visconti, and converted into a barrack by Joseph II.

About four miles distant is Lodi Vecchia, the ancient Laus Pompeia, at first a city of the Gauls, and later colonized by the father of Pompey. In the Middle Ages its inhabitants were in frequent conflict with the Milanese, by whom it was destroyed (in 1025 under the Archbishop Ariberto d'Antimiano; again in 1111; also in 1158 for its hostility towards Frederick Barbarossa). The Marchioness Adelaide of Turin captured and burned the city to avenge herself on Henry IV. In 1160 Barbarossa built the modern city, which always remained faithful to him. Under Frederick II, however, Lodi joined the second Lombard League. It was then absorbed in the Duchy of Milan. In 1454 the peace between Milan, Venice, and Florence was confirmed at Lodi. The city is noted for the brilliant cavalry operations of 1796, when Napoleon took the bridge over the Adda, opposed by the Austrians under Beaulieu. Under Diocletian, according to the local legend, 4000 Christians with their bishop, whose name is unknown, were burned alive in their church. St. Bassianus, the patron of the city, was certainly bishop in 378. Other bishops were: Titianus (474), whose relics were discovered in 1640; St. Venantianus, a contemporary of St. Gregory the Great; Olderico (1024); Alberico di Merlino (1160); S. Alberto Quadrelli (1168); Blessed Leone Palatini (1318), peacemaker between the Guelphs and Ghibellines; Paolo Cadamosto (1354), legate of Urban VI in Hungary; Cardinal Gerardo di Landriana (1419), who discovered the "De Oratore" of Cicero; Cardinal Lodovico Simonetta (1537), who presided at the Council of Trent; Antonio Scarampi (1568), founder of the seminary and friend of St. Charles Borromeo; Carlo Ambrogio Mezzabarba (1725), Apostolic visitor for China and the Indies; Gian Antonio della Beretta (1758), who suffered exile for his opposition to the oath of the Cisalpine Constitution. The diocese has 102 parishes, with 200,000 souls; 4 religious houses of men, and 37 of women; 4 schools for boys, and 23 for girls.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XII (Venice); Historia rerum Laudensium, ed. PERTZ in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., VIII; VIGNATI, Codice diplomatico laudense (2 vols., Milan, 1883-86); Archivio di Lodi (1905), XXIV.

U. BENIGNI.

Jesu Logia ("Sayings of Jesus")

Found partly in the Inspired Books of the New Testament, partly in uninspired writings. The "Sayings" transmitted in works not inspired are also called Agrapha, i.e. "not written" (under inspiration).

The present article is confined to the canonical Logia Jesu. Even this title comprises a larger area than is technically covered by the term Sayings of Jesus. Strictly speaking, all the words of Christ contained in the Inspired Books of the New Testament are canonical Logia Jesu, while the technical expression comprises only the "Sayings of Jesus" of which Papias speaks in a passage preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxix, 16).

The question concerning the Logia Jesu, taken in this restricted meaning, has become important on account of its connexion with the so-called "Synoptic Problem". Lessing (Neue Hypothesen über die Evangelisten, ed. Lachmann, XI, § 53) considered the "Gospel of the Hebrews" as the source of the three Synoptic Gospels canonically received. Eichhorn (Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1804—) admitted a primitive gospel, containing the forty-two sections common to the Synoptics, as their source; composed by the Apostles shortly after Pentecost, in Aramaic, and later on translated into Greek, it gave a summary of Christ's ministry, and served as a guide to the early Evangelists in their preaching. Bleek and de Wette, in their "Introductions", substituted for Eichhorn's "Gospel of the Hebrews" a gospel composed in Galilee which was the source of Matthew and Luke; in our Second Gospel we have, then, a compendium of the First and the Third Gospel. A host of other writers endeavoured to solve the Synoptic Problem by the theory of mutual dependence of the first three Gospels; others again, by a recourse to unwritten traditions. It was at this juncture that Schleiermacher ("Ueber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unseren beiden ersten Evangelien" in "Studien und Kritiken", 1832, iv) tried to show that the texts of Papias concerning Matthew and Mark do not refer to our First and Second Gospels, but to a primitive Matthew and a primitive Mark. Shortly afterwards, Credner (Einleitung, 1836) found in the primitive Mark the source of all the historical matter contained in the Synoptics, and in the primitive Matthew the source of the discourses in the First and Third Gospels. Weisse ("Evangelische Geschichte", 1838; "Die Evangelien-Frage", 1856) agrees with Credner, but substitutes our canonical Mark for Credner's proto-Mark.

Credner's hypothesis was followed with slight modifications by Reuss ("Geschichte der heil. Schrift N. T.", 3rd ed., 1860), Holtzmann ("Die synoptischen Evangelien", 1863), Weizsäcker ("Untersuchungen über die evang. Gesch.", 1864), Beyschlag ("Die apostolische Spruchsammlung" in "Studien und Kritiken", 1881, iv), de Pressensé ("Jésus-Christ, son temps", etc., 7th ed., 1884), and others, all of whom accepted the Logia and the proto-Mark as the sources of the Synoptics. The Logia and our Mark have been considered as the sources of the first three Gospels, though with various explanations, by such scholars as G. Meyer ("La question synoptique", 1878), Sabatier (in Encycl. des sciences religieuses, XI, 781 sq.), Keim (Geschichte Jesu, I, 72, 77), Wendt (Die Lehre Jesu, 1), Nösgen (cf. Stud. u. Krit., 1876-80), Grau (Entwicklungsgeschichte des N. T. Schriftthums, 1871), Lipsius (cf. Feine, "Jahrb. f. prot. Theol.", 1885), and B. Weiss ("Jahrb. f. deutsch. Theol.", 1864; "Das Markusevang. u. seine synopt. Parallelen", 1872; "Das Matthäusevang.", 1876; "Einl. in das N. T.", 1886).

As to the contents of the Logia, the work must have contained most matter common to Matthew and Luke, excluding that which these Gospels share with Mark. This material amounts to about one-sixth of the text of the Third Gospel, and two-elevenths of the text of the First Gospel. In these portions, the First and the Third Evangelists depend neither on Mark nor on each other; they must have followed the Logia, a document now denoted by "Q". When Eusebius (loc. cit.) copied the words of Papias that "Matthew composed the Logia in Hebrew [Aramaic], and each one interpreted them as he was able", he probably understood them as referring to our First Gospel. But the critics insist that Papias must have understood his words as denoting a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus", or the Logia (Q). This hypothetical document Q has been much written about and investigated by Weiss, Holtzmann, Wendt, Wernle, Wellhausen, and recently by Harnack ("New Testament Studies", II: "The Sayings of Jesus", etc.; tr. Wilkinson, New York and London, 1908), and Bacon ("The Beginning of Gospel Story", New Haven, 1909). A reconstruction of the Logia is attempted in Resch's "Die Logia Jesu nach dem griechischen und hebräischen Text wiederhergestellt", 1898 (cf. also his "Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien" in "Texte und Untersuchungen", X, i-v, 1893-96), and in Harnack's work already quoted.

A number of questions has been raised in this investigation, but no altogether satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. Is it possible to settle the text of the Q source of the First and Third Gospels, seeing that one Gospel may have been corrected from the other? Did St. Matthew and St. Luke use the same translation or recension of Q? Did either Evangelist pay attention to the Aramaic original? In which of the two Gospels is Q best reproduced both in regard to extent and arrangement? How much of the material peculiar to either the First or the Third Gospel has been taken from Q? Again, was the original form of Q a gospel, or was it a collection of real Logia? These are some of the fundamental questions which the critics must answer. Then come the further questions as to the authorship of the Logia, the time and place of their origin, their relation to St. Paul, their influence on St. Mark, the cause, manner, and time of their disappearance, and other similar problems. The answer to many, if not to all, of these questions is thus far not satisfactory.

The student of the Eusebian record of the words of Papias will have his doubts as to the sense of logia advocated by the critics.

• (1) In several other ancient writers the word has not the narrow meaning of mere "sayings": Rom., iii, 2, applies it to the whole Old Testament; Heb., v, 12, to the whole body of Christ's doctrine; Flavius Josephus makes it equivalent to ta hiera grammata (Bel. Jud., VI, v, 4); St. Irenæus uses ta logia tou Kyriou of the Gospels; other instances of a wider meaning of logia have been collected by Funk (Patres Apostol., II, 280), and Schanz (Matthäus, 27-31).
• (2) The logia of Papias at least may refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxix, 16) understands the words in this sense. The context of Papias, too, suggests this interpretation; for speaking of St. Mark, Papias says that the Evangelist recorded "what had been said and done by Christ", and what he had heard from Peter, and not "as if he were composing an orderly account of the logia", so that the logia are equivalent to the recorded "words and deeds" of Christ. Again, the title of Papias's work is Logion Kyriakon Exegesis, though the writer does not confine himself to the explanation of the "sayings" of the Lord.
• (3) The logia of Papias must refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew:
• • (a) No writing of St. Matthew except his Gospel was generally known in the second century;
  • (b) there is no record of a work of the Evangelist that contained the Lord's words only;
  • (c) even Eusebius found no trace of the logia kyriaka, though he diligently collected all that had been written about Christ by the Apostles and the disciples;
  • (d) all antiquity could not have remained ignorant of a work of such importance, if it had existed;
  • (e) the First Gospel contains so many discourses of the Lord that it might well be called logia kyriaka (cf. Hilgenfeld, "Einl.", 456; Lightfoot in "Contemp. Review", Aug., 1867, 405 sqq.; Aug., 1875, 399 sqq., 410 sq.).

The Logia, or the document Q of the critics, rests therefore on no historical authority, but only on critical induction.

See literature under Agrapha; also the works quoted in this article.

A.J. MAAS

Logic

Logic is the science and art which so directs the mind in the process of reasoning and subsidiary processes as to enable it to attain clearness, consistency, and validity in those processes. The aim of logic is to secure clearness in the definition and arrangement of our ideas and other mental images, consistency in our judgments, and validity in our processes of inference.

I. THE NAME

The Greek word logos, meaning "reason", is the origin of the term logic--logike (techen, pragmateia, or episteme, understood), as the name of a science or art, first occurs in the writings of the Stoics. Aristotle, the founder of the science, designates it as "analytic", and the Epicureans use the term canonic. From the time of Cicero, however, the word logic is used almost without exception to designate this science. The names dialectic and analytic are also used.

II. THE DEFINITION

It is a curious fact that, although logic is the science which treats of definition, logicians are not agreed as to how logic itself should be defined. There are, in all, about two hundred different definitions of logic. It would, of course, be impossible to enumerate even the principal definitions here. It will be sufficient to mention and discuss a few typical ones.

A. Port Royal logic

The Port Royal logic ("L'Art de penser", published 1662) defines logic as "the art of using reason well in the acquisition of the knowledge of things, both for one's own instruction and that of others." More briefly "Logic is the art of reasoning." The latter is Arnauld's definition. Definitions of this type are considered too narrow, both because they define logic in terms of art, not leaving room for its claim to be considered a science, and because, by the use of the term reasoning, they restrict the scope of logic to one class of mental processes.

Hegel

Hegel (see HEGELIANISM) goes to the other extreme when he defines logic as "the science of the pure idea." By idea he understands all reality, so that for him logic includes the science of subjective reality (logic of mental concepts) and the science of objective reality (logic of being, metaphysics). In like manner the definitions which fail to distinguish between logic and psychology, defining logic as "the science of mental processes", or "the science of the operations of the mind", are too wide. Definitions which characterize logic as "the science of sciences", "the art of arts", are also too wide: they set up too large a claim for logic.

C. St. Thomas Aquinas

In his commentary on Aristotle's logical treatises (" In Post. Anal.", lect. i, Leonine ed., I, 138), he says: "Ars qutedam necessaria est, quae sit directiva ipsius actus rationis, per quam scilicet homo in ipso actu rationis ordinate faciliter et sine errore procedat. Et haec ars est logica, id est rationalis scientia." Combining those two sentences, we may render St. Thomas's definition as follows: "Logic is the science and art which directs the act of the reason, by which a man in the exercise of his reason is enabled to proceed without error, confusion, or unnecessary difficulty." Taking reason in its broadest sense, so as to include all the operations of the mind which are strictly cognitive, namely, the formation of mental images, judgment, and ratiocination, we may expand St. Thomas' definition and define logic as "the science and art which so directs the mind in the process of reasoning and subsidiary processes as to enable it to attain clearness (or order), consistency, and validity in those processes". Logic is essentially directive. Therein it differs from psychology, which is essentially speculative or theoretical, and which concerns itself only in an Incidental and secondary manner with the direction of mental processes. Logic deals with processes of the mind. Therein it differs from metaphysics, which has for its field of inquiry and speculation the whole universe of being (see METAPHYSICS). Logic deals with mental processes in relation to truth or, more particularly, in relation to the attainment and exposition of truth by processes which aim at being valid, clear, orderly, and consistent. Therein it differs from ethics, which treats of human actions, external deeds as well as thoughts, in relation to man's final destiny. Validity, clearness, consistency, and order are logical qualities of thought, goodness and evil are ethical qualities. Finally, logic is not to be confounded with rhetoric. Rhetoric, in the old meaning of the word, was the art of persuasion; it used all the devices, such as emotional appeal, verbal arrangement, etc., in order to bring about a state of mind which had reference to action primarily, and to conviction only in a secondary sense. Logic is the science and art of conviction it uses only arguments, discarding emotional appeal and employing merely words as the symbols of thoughts.

The question whether logic is a science or an art is now generally decided by asserting that it is both. It is a science, in so far as it not merely formulates rules for right thinking, but deduces those rules from general principles which are based on the nature of mind and of truth. It is an art, in so far as it is directly and immediately related to performance, namely, to the acts of the mind. As the fine arts direct the painter or the sculptor in the actions by which he aims at producing a beautiful picture or a beautiful statue, so logic directs the thinker in the actions by which he aims at attaining truth, or expounding truth which he has attained.

III. DIVISION OF LOGIC

The traditional mode of dividing logic, into "formal" and "material", is maintained in many modern treatises on the subject. In formal logic the processes of thought are studied independently of, or without consideration of, their content. In material logic the chief question is the truth of the content of mental processes. An example from arithmetic will serve to illustrate the function of formal logic. When we add two and two, and pronounce the result to be four, we are dealing with a process of addition in its formal aspect, without paying attention to the content. The process is valid whatever the content may be, whether the "two and two "refer to books, horses, trees, or circles. This is precisely how we study judgments and arguments in logic. From the judgment "All A is B" we infer "Therefore some B is A"; and the process is valid whether the original proposition be "All circles are round" or "All lions are carnivorous ". In material logic, on the contrary, we inquire into the content of the judgments or premises and endeavour to determine whether they are true or false. Material logic was styled by the old writers "major logic", "critical logic", or simply" criticism". In recent times the word epistemology (science of knowledge), meaning an inquiry into the value of knowledge, has come into general use, and designates that portion of philosophy which inquires into the objective value of our concepts, the import and value of judgments and reasoning, the criteria of truth, the nature of evidence, certitude, etc. Whenever this new term is adopted there is a tendency to restrict the term logic to mean merely formal logic. Formal logic studies concepts, and other mental images, for the purpose of securing clearness and order among those contents of the mind. It studies judgments for the purpose of showing when and how they are consistent or inconsistent, that is, when one may be inferred from another (conversion), and when they are opposed (opposition) . It studies the two kinds of reasoning, deductive and inductive, so as to direct the mind to use these processes validly. Finally, it studies sophisms (or fallacies) and method for the purpose of showing what errors are to be avoided, and what arrangement is to be followed in a complex series of reasoning processes. But, while it is true in general that in all these tasks formal logic preserves its purely formal character, and does not inquire into the content of thought, nevertheless, in dealing with inductive reasoning and in laying down the rules for definition and division, formal logic does take account of the matter of thought. For this reason, it seems desirable to abandon the old distinction between formal and material, to designate as logic what was formerly called formal logic, and to reserve the term epistemology for that portion of philosophy which, while inquiring into the value of human knowledge in general, covers the ground which was the domain of material logic.

There remain certain kinds of logic which are not included under the heads formal and material. Transcendental logic (Kant) is the inquiry into human knowledge for the purpose of determining what elements or factors in human thought are a priori, that is, independent of experience. Symbolic logic (Lambert, Boole) is an application of mathematical methods to the processes of thought. It uses certain conventional symbols to represent terms, propositions, and the relations among them, and then, without any further reference to the laws of thought, applies the rules and methods of the mathematical calculus (Venn, "Symbolic Logic", London, 1881). Applied logic, in the narrower sense, is synonymous with material logic in the wider sense, it means logic applied to the study of the natural sciences, Iogic applied to education, logic applied to the study of law, etc. Natural logic is that native power of the mind by which most persons are competent to judge correctly and reason validly about the affairs and interests of everyday life; it is contrasted with scientific logic, which is logic as a science and cultivated art.

IV. HISTORY OF LOGIC

The history of logic possesses a more than ordinary interest, because, on the one hand, every change in the point of view of the metaphysician and the psychologist tended to produce a corresponding change in logical theory and practice, while, on the other hand, changes in logical method and procedure tended to affect the conclusions as well as the method of the philosopher. Notwithstanding these tendencies towards variation, the science of logic has undergone very few radical changes from the beginning of its history.

A. The Nyaya

A system of philosophy which was studied in India in the fifth century B.C., though it is perhaps, of much older date, takes its name from the word nyaya, meaning logical argument, or syllogism. This philosophy, like all the Indian systems, busied itself with the Problem of the deliverance of the soul from bondage, and its solution was that the soul is to be freed from the trammels of matter by means of systematic reasoning. This view of the question led naturally to an analysis of the methods of thinking, and to the construction of a type of reasoning which bears a remote resemblance to the syllogism. The nyaya, or Indian syllogism, as it is sometimes called, consists of five propositions. If, for instance, one wishes to prove that the hill is on fire, one begins with the assertion: "The hill is on fire." Next, the reason is given: "For it smokes." Then comes an instance, "Like the kitchen fire"; which is followed by the application, "So also the hill smokes." Finally comes the conclusion, "Therefore it is on fire." Between this and the clear-cut Aristotelean syllogism, with its major and minor premises and conclusion, there is all the difference that exists between the Oriental and the Greek mode of thinking. It is hardly necessary to say that there is no historical evidence that Aristotle was in any way influenced in his logic by Gotama, the reputed author of the nyaya.

B. Pre-Aristotelean Logic in Greece

The first philosophers of Greece devoted attention exclusively to the problem of the origin of the universe (see IONIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY). The Eleatics, especially Zeno of Elea, the Sophists, and the Megarians developed the art of argumentation to a high degree of perfection. Zeno was especially remarkable in this respect, and is sometimes styled the Founder of Dialectic. None of these, however, formulated laws or rules of reasoning. The same is true of Socrates and Plato, although the former laid great stress on definition and induction, and the latter exalted dialectic, or discussion, into an important instrument of philosophical knowledge.

C. Aristotle, the Founder of Logic

In the six treatises which he devoted to the subject, Aristotle examined and analysed the thinking processes for the purpose of formulating the laws of thought. These treatises are

• "The Categories",
• "Interpretation",
• "Prior Analytics",
• "Posterior Analytics",
• "Topics", and
• "Sophisms". These were afterwards given the title of "Organon", or "Instrument of Knowledge"; this designation, however, did not come into common use until the fifteenth century.

The first four treatises contain, with occasional excursions into the domain of grammar and metaphysics, the science of formal logic essentially the same as it is taught at the present day. The "Topics" and the "Sophisms" contain the applications of logic to argumentation and the refutation of fallacies. In conformity with the fundamental principle of his theory of knowledge, namely, that all our knowledge comes from experience, Aristotle recognizes the importance of inductive reasoning, that is to say, reasoning from particular instances to general principles. If he and his followers did not develop more fully this portion of logic, it was not because they did not recognize its importance in principle. His claim to the title of Founder of Logic has never been seriously disputed the most that his opponents in the modern era could do was to set up rival systems in which induction was to supplant syllogistic reasoning. One of the devices of the opponents of scholasticism is to identify the Schoolmen and Aristotle with the advocacy of an exclusively deductive logic.

D. Post-Aristotelean Logicians Among the Greeks

Among the immediate disciples of Aristotle, Theophrastus and Eudemus devoted special attention to logic. To the former is sometimes attributed the invention of the hypothetical syllogism, although the same claim is sometimes made for the Stoics. The latter, to whom, probably, we owe the name logic, recognized this science as one of the constitutive parts of philosophy. They included in it dialectic and rhetoric, or the science of argumentation and the science of persuasion. They busied themselves also with the question of the criterion of truth, which is still an important problem in major logic, or, as it is now called, epistemology. Undoubtedly, they improved on Aristotle's logic in many points of detail; but to what extent, and in what respect, is a matter of conjecture, owing to the loss of the voluminous Stoic treatises on logic. Their rivals, the Epicureans (see EPICUREANISM) professed a contempt for logic-or "canonic", as they styled it. They maintained that it is an adjunct of physics, and that a knowledge of physical phenomena acquired through the senses is the only knowledge that is of value in the pursuit of happiness. After the Stoics and the Epicureans came the commentators. These may, for convenience, be divided into the Greeks and the Latins. The Greeks from Alexander of Aphrodisias, in the second, to St. John of Damascus in the eighth century of our era, flourished at Athens, at Alexandria, and in Asia Minor. With Photius, in the ninth century, the scene is shifted to Constantinople. To the first period belong Alexander of Aphrodisias, known as "the Commentator" Themistius, David the Armenian, Philoponus, Simplicius and Porphyry, author of the Isagoge (Eisagoge), or "Introduction" to the logic of Aristotle. In this work the author, by his explicit enumeration of the five predicables and his comment thereon, flung a challenge to the medieval logicians, which they took up in the famous controversy concerning universals (see UNIVERSALS). To the second period belong Photius, Michael Psellus the younger (eleventh century), Nicephorus Blemmydes, George Pachymeres, and Leo Magentinus (thirteenth century). All these did little more than abridge, explain, and defend the text of the Aristotelean works on logic. An exception should, perhaps, be made in favour of the physician Galen (second century), who is said to have introduced the fourth syllogistic figure, and who wrote a special work, "On Fallacies of Diction".

E. Latin Commentators

Among the Latin commentators on Aristotle we find almost in every case more originality and more inclination to add to the science of logic than we do in the case of the Greeks. After the taking of Athens by Sulla (84 B.C.) the works of Aristotle were carried to Rome, where they were arranged and edited by Andronicus of Rhodes (see ARISTOTLE). The first logical treatise in Latin is Cicero's abridgment of the "Topics". Then came a long period of inactivity. About A.D.160, Apuleius wrote a short account of the "Interpretation". In the middle of the fourth century Marius Victorinus translated Porphyry's "Isagoge". To the time of St. Augustine belong the treatises "Categoriae Decem" and "Principia Dialectica". Both were attributed to St. Augustine, though the first is certainly spurious, and the second of doubtful authenticity. They were very often transcribed in the early Middle Ages, and the logical treatises of the ninth and tenth centuries make very free use of their contents. The most popular however, of all the Latin works on logic was the curious medley of prose and verse "De Nuptiis Mercurii et Philologiae" by Marcianus Capella (about A. D. 475). In it dialectic is treated as one of the seven liberal arts (see ARTS, THE SEVEN LIBERAL), and that portion of the work was the text in all the early medieval schools of logic. Another writer on logic who exerted a widespread influence during the first period of Scholasticism was Boethius (470 524), who wrote two commentaries on the "Isagoge" of Porphyry, two on Aristotle's "Interpretation", and one on the "Categories". Besides, he wrote the original treatises,"On Categorical Syllogisms", "On Division", and "On Topical Differences", and translated several portions of Aristotle's logical works. In fact, it was principally through his translations that the early Scholastic writers, who as a rule, were entirely ignorant of Greek, had access to Aristotle's writings. Cassiodorus a contemporary of Boethius, wrote a treatise, "On the Seven Liberal Arts", in which, in the portion devoted to dialectic, he gave a summary and analysis of the Aristotelean and Porphyrian writings on logic. Isidore of Seville (died 636), Venerable Bede (673-735) and Alcuin (736-804), the forerunners of the Scholastics, were content with abridging in their logical works the writings of Boethius and Cassiodorus.

F. The Scholastics

The first masters of the schools in the age of Charlemagne and the century immediately following were not acquainted at first hand with Aristotle's works. They used the works and translations of Boethius, the pseudo-Augustinian treatises mentioned above, and the work by Marcianus Capella. Little by little their interest became centred on the metaphysical and psychological problems suggested in those treatises especially on the problem of universals and the conflict between Realism and Nominalism. As a consequence of this shifting of the centre of interest, very little was done towards perfecting the technic of logic, and there is a very noticeable dearth of original work during the ninth and tenth centuries. John Scotus Eriugena, Eric and Remi of Auxerre, and the teachers at St. Gall in Switzerland confined their activity to glossing and commenting on the traditional texts, especially Pseudo-Augustine and Marcianus Capella. In the case of the St. Gall teachers we have however, by way of exception, a work on logic, which bears evident traces of the influence of Eriugena, and a collection of mnemonic verses containing the nineteen valid syllogisms.

Roscelin (about 1050-1100), by his outspoken profession of Nominalism concentrated the attention of his contemporaries and immediate successors on the problem of universals. In the discussion of that problem the art of dialectical disputation was developed, and a taste for argumentation was fostered, but none of the dialecticians of the twelfth century, with the exception of Abelard, contributed to the advancement of the science of logic. This Abelard did in several ways. In his work to which Cousin gave the title "Dialectica", and in his commentaries, he strove to widen the scope and enhance the utility of logic as a science. Not only is it the science of disputation, but also the science of discovery, by means of which the arguments supplied by a study of nature are examined. The principal application of logic, however, is in the discussion of religious truth. Here Abelard, citing the authority of St. Augustine, contends that the methods of dialectic are applicable to the discussion of all truth, revealed as well as rational; they are applicable even to the mysteries of faith. In principle he was right, although in practice he went further than the example of St. Augustine would warrant him in going. His subsequent condemnation had for its ground, not the use of dialectic in theology, but the excessive use of dialectic to the point of rationalism. Abelard, it should be noted, was acquainted only with those treatises of Aristotle which had been translated by Boethius, and which constituted the logica vetus. His contemporary, Gilbert de la Porree (q.v.), added to the old logic a work entitled "Liber Sex Principiorum", a treatise on the last six of the Aristotelean Categories. Towards the middle of the twelfth century the remainder of the Aristotelean "Organon" became known, so that the logic of the schools, thenceforth known as logica nova, now contained:

• Aristotle's "Categories" and "Interpretation" and Porphyry's "Isagoge" (contents of the logica vetus);
• Aristotle's "Analytics", "Topics", and "Sophisms";
• Gilbert's "Liber Sex Principiorum".

This was the text in the schools when St. Thomas began to teach, and it continued to be used until superseded by the logica moderna, which embodied the contributions of Petrus Hispanus. The first writer of importance who reveals an acquaintance with the Aristotelean "Organon" in its entirety is John of Salisbury (died 1182), a disciple of Abelard, who explains and defends the legitimate use of dialectic in his work "Metalogicus".

The definite triumph of Aristotelean logic in the schools of the thirteenth century was influenced by the introduction into Christian Europe of the complete works of Aristotle in Greek. The occasion of this was the taking of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204. The Crusades had also the effect of bringing Christian Europe into closer contact with the Arabian scholars who, ever since the ninth century, had cultivated Aristotelean logic as well as the neo-Platonic interpretation of Aristotle's metaphysics. It was the Arabians who distinguished logica docens and logica utens. The former is logic as a theoretical science; the latter is logic as an applied art, practical logic. To them also is attributed the distinction between first intentions and second intentions. The Arabians, however, did not exert a determining influence on the development of Scholastic logic; they contributed to that development only in an external manner, by helping to make Aristotelean literature accessible to Christian thinkers. St. Thomas Aquinas and his teacher, Blessed Albertus Magnus (Albert the Great) did signal service to Scholastic logic, not so much by adding to its technical rules as by defining its scope and determining the limits of its legitimate applications to theology. They both composed commentaries on Aristotle's logical works and, besides, wrote independent logical treatises. The work, however, which bears the name "Summa Totius Logicae", and is found among the "Opuscula" of St. Thomas, is now judged to be from the pen of a disciple of his, Herve of Nedellac (Hervaeus Natalis). John Duns Scotus was also a commentator on Aristotle's logic. His most important original treatises on logic are "De Universalibus", in which he goes over the ground covered by Porphyry in the "Isagoge", and "Grammatica Speculativa". The latter is an interesting contribution to critical logic.

The technic of logic received special attention from Petrus Hispanus (Pope John XXI, died 1277), author of the "Summulae Logicales". This is the first medieval work to cover the whole ground of Aristotelean logic in an original way. All its predecessors were merely summaries or abridgments of Aristotle's works. In it occur the mnemonic lines, "Barbara, Celarent", etc., and nearly all the devices of a similar kind which are now used in the study of logic. They are the first of the kind in the history of logic, the lines in the ninth-century manuscript mentioned above being verses to aid the memory, without the use of arbitrary signs, such as the designation of types of propositlons by means of vowels. And the credit of having introduced them is now almost unanimously given to Petrus himself. The theory that he borrowed them from a Greek work by Psellus (see above) is discredited by an examination of the manuscripts, which shows that the Greek verses are of later date than those in the "Summulae". In fact, it was the Byzantine writer who copied the Parisian teacher, and not, as Prantl contended, the Latin who borrowed from the Greek. William of Occam (1280-1349) improved on the arrangement and method of the "Summulae" in his "Summa Totius Logicae". He also made important contributions to the doctrine of supposition of terms. He did not, however, agree with St. Thomas and St. Albert the Great in their definition of the scope and application of logic. His own conception of the purpose of logic was sufficiently serious and dignified. It was his followers, the Occamists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, who, by their abuse of dialectical methods brought Scholastic logic into disrepute. One of the most original of all the Scholastic logicians was Raymond Lully (1234-1315). In his "Dialectica" he expounds clearly and concisely the logic of Aristotle, together with the additions made to that science by Petrus Hispanus. In his "Ars Magna", however, he discards all the rules and prescriptions of the formal science, and undertakes by means of his "logical machine" to demonstrate in a perfectly mechanical way all truth, supernatural as well as natural.

Scholastic logic, as may be seen from this sketch, did not modify the logic of Aristotle in any essential manner. Nevertheless, the logic of the Schools is an improvement on Aristotelean logic. The Schoolmen made clear many points which were obscure in Aristotle's works: for example, they determined more accurately than he did the nature of logic and its place in the plan of sciences. This was brought about naturally by the exigencies of theological controversy. Moreover, the Schoolmen did much to fix the technical meanings of terms in the modern languages, and, though the scientific spirit of the ages that followed spurned the methods of the Scholastic logicians, its own work was very much facilitated by the efforts of the Scholastics to distinguish the significations of words, and trace the relationship of language to thought. Finally, to the Schoolmen logic owes the various memory-aiding contrivances by the aid of which the task of teaching or learning the technicalities of the science is greatly facilitated.

G. Modern Logic

The fifteenth century witnessed the first serious attempts to revolt against the Aristotelean logic of the Schools. Humanists like Ludovicus Vico and Laurentius Valla made the methods of the Scholastic logicians the object of their merciless attack on medievalism. Of more importance in the history of logic is the attempt of Ramus (Pierre de La Ramee, 1515-72) to supplant the traditional logic by a new method which he expounded in his works "Aristotelicae Animadversiones" and "Scholae Dialecticae". Ramus was imitated in Ireland by George Downame (or Downham), Bishop of Derry, in the seventeenth century, and in the same century he had a most distinguished follower in England in the person of John Milton, who, in 1672, published "Artis Logicae Plenior Institutio ad Petri Rami Methodum Concinnata". Ramus's innovations, however, were far from receiving universal approval, even among Protestants. Melanchthon's "Erotemata Dialectica", which was substantially Aristotelean, was extensively used in the Protestant schools, and exerted a wider influence than Ramus's "Animadversiones". Francis Bacon (1561-1626) inaugurated a still more formidable onslaught. Profiting by the hints thrown out by his countryman and namesake, Roger Bacon (1214-1294), he attacked the Aristotelean method, contending that it was utterly barren of results in science, that it was, in fact, essentially unscientific, and needed not so much to be reformed as to be entirely supplanted by a new method. This he attempted to do in his "Novum Organum", which was to introduce a new logic, an inductive logic, to take the place of the deductive logic of Aristotle and the Schoolmen. It is now recognized even by the partisans of Bacon that he erred in two respects. He erred in describing Aristotle's logic as exclusively deductive, and he erred in claiming for the inductive method the ability to direct the mind in scientific discovery and practical invention. Bacon did not succeed in overthrowing the authority of Aristotle. Neither did Descartes (1596-1649), who was as desirous to make logic serve the purposes of the mathematician as Bacon was to make it serve the cause of scientific discovery. The Port Royal Logic ("L'Art de penser" 1662), written by Descartes's disciples, is essentially Aristotelean. So, though in a less degree are the logical treatises of Hobbes (1588-1679) and Gassendi (1592-1655), both of whom underwent the influence of Bacon's ideas. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Father Buffier, Le Clerc (Clericus), Wolff, and Lambert strove to modify the Aristotelean logic in the direction of empiricism, sensism, or Leibnizian innatism. In the treatises which they wrote on logic there is nothing that one might consider of primary importance.

Kant and the other German Transcendentalists of the nineteenth century took a more equitable view of Aristotle's services to the science of logic. As a rule, they recognized the value of what he had accomplished and, instead of trying to undo his work, they attempted to supplement it. It is a question, however, whether they did not do as much harm to logic in one way as Bacon and Descartes did in another. By withdrawing from the domain of logic what is empirical, and confining the science to an examination of "the necessary laws of thought", the Transcendentalists gave occasion to Mill and other Associationists to accuse logic of being unreal, and out of touch with the needs of an age which was, above all things, an age of empirical science. Most of the recent German literature on logic is characterized by the amount of attention which it pays either to historical inquiries, or to inquiries into the value of knowledge, or to investigation of the philosophical foundations of the laws of logic. It has added very little to the technical portion of the science. In England, the most important event in the history of logic in the nineteenth century was the publication, in 1843, of John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic". Mill renewed all the claims put forward by Bacon, and with some measure of success. At least, he brought about a change in the method of teaching logic at the great English seats of learning. Carrying Locke's empiricism to its ultimate conclusion, and adopting the association theory of the human mind, he rejected all necessary truth, discarded the syllogism as not only useless but fallacious, and maintained that all reasoning is from particulars to particulars. He did not make many converts to these views, but he succeeded in giving inductive logic a place in every textbook on logic published since his time. Not so successful was the attempt of Sir William Hamilton to establish a new logic (the "new analytic"), on the principle that the predicate as well as the subject of a proposition should be quantified. Nor, indeed, was he quite original in this: the idea had been put forward in the seventeenth century by the Catholic philosopher Caramuel (1606-82). Recent logical literature in English has striven above all things to attain clearness, intelligibility, and practical utility in its exposition of the laws of thought. Whenever it indulges in speculation as to the nature of mental processes, it is, of course, coloured by the various philosophies of the time.

Indeed, the history of logic is interesting and profitable chiefly because it shows how the philosophical theories influence the method and the doctrine of the logician. The empiricism and sensism of the English school, descending from Hobbes through Locke, Hume, and the Associationists, could lead in logic to no other conclusion than that to which it does lead in Mill's rejection of the syllogism and of all necessary truth. On the other hand, Descartes's exaltation of deduction and Leibniz's adoption of the mathematical method have their origin in that doctrine of innatism which is the opposite of empiricism. Again, the domination of industrialism, and the insistence for recognition on the part of the social economist, have had in our own day the effect of pushing logic more and more towards the position of a purveyor of rules for scientific discovery and practical invention. The materialism of the last half of the nineteenth century demanded that logic prove its utility in a practical way. Hence the prominence given to induction. But, of all the crises through which logic has passed, the most interesting is that which is known as the "Storm and Stress of Scholasticism", in which mysticism on the one side rejected dialectic as "the devil's art", and maintained that "God did not choose logic as a means of saving his people", while rationalism on the other side set no bounds to the use of logic, going so far as to place it on a plane with Divine faith. Out of this conflict issued the Scholasticism of the thirteenth century, which gave due credit to the mystic contention in so far as that contention was sound, and at the same time acknowledged freely the claims of rationalism within the limits of orthodoxy and of reason. St. Thomas and his contemporaries looked upon logic as an instrument for the discovery and exposition of natural truth. They considered, moreover, that it is the instrument by which the theologian is enabled to expound, systematize, and defend revealed truth. This view of the theological use of logic is the basis for the charge of intellectualism which Modernist philosophers imbued with Kantism have made against the Scholastics. Modernism asserts that the logical nexus is "the weakest link" between the mind and spiritual truth. So that the contest waged in the twelfth century is renewed in slightly different terms in our own day, the application of logic to theology being now, as then, the principal point in dispute.

In every system of logic there is an underlying philosophical theory, though this is not always formulated in explicit terms. It is impossible to explain and demonstrate the laws of thought without falling back on some theory of the nature of mind. For this reason Catholic philosophers and educators, as well as those who by their position in the Church are responsible for the purity of doctrine in Catholic institutions, have recognized that there is in logic the Catholic and the non-Catholic point of view. Our objection to a good deal of recent logical literature is not based on an unfavourable estimate of its scientific quality: what we object to is the sensism, subjectivism, agnosticism or other philosophical doctrine, which underlies the logical theories of the author. Works on logic written by Catholics generally adhere very closely to the traditional Aristotelean logic of the schools. Yet that is not the reason why they are approved. They are approved because they are free from false philosophical assumptions. In many non-Catholic works on logic the underlying philosophy is not only erroneous, but subversive of the whole body of natural spiritual truth which the Catholic Church guards as carefully as she does the deposit of faith.

WILLIAM TURNER

The Logos

The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something.

I. THE LOGOS IN HELLENISM

It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. For him the Logos, which he seems to identify with fire, is that universal principle which animates and rules the world. This conception could only find place in a materialistic monism. The philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ were dualists, and conceived of God as transcendent, so that neither in Plato (whatever may have been said on the subject) nor in Aristotle do we find the theory of the Logos.

It reappears in the writings of the Stoics, and it is especially by them that this theory is developed. God, according to them, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He IS the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e. g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes.

At Alexandria, Hermes was identified with Thoth, the god of Hermopolis, known later as the great Hermes, "Hermes Trismegistus", and represented as the revealer of all letters and all religion. Simultaneously, the Logos theory conformed to the current Neoplatonistic dualism in Alexandria: the Logos is not conceived of as nature or immanent necessity, but as an intermediary agent by which the transcendent God governs the world. This conception appears in Plutarch, especially in his "Isis and Osiris"; from an early date in the first century of the Christian era, it influenced profoundly the Jewish philosopher Philo.

II. THE WORD IN JUDAISM

Quite frequently the Old Testament represents the creative act as the word of God (Gen., i, 3; Ps. xxxii, 9; Ecclus., xlii, 15); sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of Jahveh (Is. Iv, 11, Zach., v, 1-4; Ps. cvi, 20; cxlvii, 15). In all this we can see only bold figures of speech: the word of creation, of salvation, or, in Zacharias, the word of malediction, is personified, but is not conceived of as a distinct Divine hypostasis. In the Book of Wisdom this personification is more directly implied (xviii, 15 sq.), and a parallel is established (ix, 1, 2) between wisdom and the Word.

In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. The Memra resembles the Logos of Philo as little as the workings of the rabbinical mind in Palestine resembled the speculations of Alexandria: the rabbis are chiefiy concerned about ritual and observances; from religious scruples they dare not attribute to Jahveh actions such as the Sacred Books attribute to Him; it is enough for them to veil the Divine Majesty under an abstract paraphrase, the Word, the Glory, the Abode, and others. Philo's problem was of the philosophic order; God and man are infinitely distant from each other, and it is necessary to establish between them relations of action and of prayer; the Logos is here the intermediary.

Leaving aside the author of the Book of Wisdom, other Alexandrian Jews before Philo had speculated as to the Logos; but their works are known only through the rare fragments which Christian authors and Philo himself have preserved. Philo alone is fully known to us, his writings are as extensive as those of Plato or Cicero, and throw light on every aspect of his doctrine; from him we can best learn the theory of the Logos, as developed by Alexandrian Judaism. The character of his teaching is as manifold as its sources:

• sometimes, influenced by Jewish tradition, Philo represents the Logos as the creative Word of God ("De Sacrific. Ab. et Cain"; cf. "De Somniis", I 182; "De Opif. Mundi", 13);
• at other times he describes it as the revealer of God, symbolized in Scripture by the angel of Jahveh ("De Somniis", I, 228-39, "De Cherub.", 3; "De Fuga", 5; "Quis rer. divin. haeres sit", 201-205).
• Oftener again he accepts the language of Hellenic speculation; the Logos is then, after a Platonistic concept, the sum total of ideas and the intelligible world ("De Opif. Mundi", 24, 25; "Leg. Alleg.", I, 19; III, 96),
• or, agreeably to the Stoic theory, the power that upholds the world, the bond that assures its cohesion, the law that determines its development ("De Fuga", 110; "De Plantat. Noe," 8-10; "Quis rer. divin. haeres sit", 188, 217; "Quod Deus sit immut.", 176; "De Opif. Mundi", 143).

Throughout so many diverse concepts may be recognized a fundamental doctrine: the Logos is an intermediary between God and the world; through it God created the world and governs it; through it also men know God and pray to Him ("De Cherub.", 125; "Quis rerum divin. haeres sit", 205-06.) In three passages the Logos is called God ("Leg. Alleg.", III, 207; "De Somniis", I, 229; "In Gen.", II, 62, cited by Eusebius, "Praep. Ev.", VII, 13); but, as Philo himself explains in one of these texts (De Somniis), it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed, and he uses it only because he is led into it by the Sacred Text which he comments upon. Moreover, Philo does not regard the Logos as a person; it is an idea, a power, and, though occasionally identified with the angels of the Bible, this is by symbolic personification.

III. THE LOGOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The term Logos is found only in the Johannine writings: in the Apocalypse (19:13), in the Gospel of St. John (1:1-14), and in his First Epistle (1:1; cf. 1:7 - Vulgate). But already in the Epistles of St. Paul the theology of the Logos had made its influence felt. This is seen in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where Christ is called "the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (I Cor., 1:24) and "the image of God" (II Cor., 4:4); it is more evident in the Epistle to the Colossians (1:15 sqq.); above all in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the theology of the Logos lacks only the term itself, that finally appears in St. John. In this epistle we also notice the pronounced influence of the Book of Wisdom, especially in the description which is given of the relations between the Son and the Father: "the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance" (cf. Wis., vii, 26). This resemblance suggests the way by which the doctrine of the Logos entered into Christian theology; another clue is furnished by the Apocalypse, where the term Logos appears for the first time (19:13), and not apropos of any theological teaching, but in an apocalyptic vision, the content of which has no suggestion of Philo but rather recalls Wisdom 18:15.

In the Gospel of St. John the Logos appears in the very first verse without explanation, as a term familiar to the readers, St. John uses it at the end of the prologue (i, 14), and does not mention it again in the Gospel. From this Harnack concludes that the mention of the Word was only a starting-point for the Evangelist, and that he passed directly from this Hellenic conception of the Logos to the Christian doctrine of the only Son ("Ueber das Verhältniss des Prologs des vierten Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk" in "Zeitschrift fur Theol. und Kirche", II, 1892, 189-231). This hypothesis is proved false by the insistence with which the Evangelist comes back on this idea of the Word, it is, moreover, natural enough that this technical term, employed in the prologue where the Evangelist is interpreting the Divine mystery, should not reappear in the sequel of the narrative, the character of which might thus suffer change.

What is the precise value of this concept in the writings of St. John? The Logos has not for him the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men.

This difference is not the only one which distinguishes the Johannine theology of the Logos from the concept of Philo, to which not a few have sought to liken it. The Logos of Philo is impersonal, it is an idea, a power, a law; at most it may be likened to those half abstract, half-concrete entities, to which the Stoic mythology had lent a certain personal form. For Philo the incarnation of the Logos must have been absolutely without meaning, quite as much as its identification with the Messias. For St. John, on the contrary, the Logos appears in the full light of a concrete and living personality; it is the Son of God, the Messias, Jesus. Equally great is the difference when we consider the role of the Logos. The Logos of Philo is an intermediary: "The Father who engendered all has given to the Logos the signal privilege of being an intermediary (methorios) between the creature and the creator . . . it is neither without beginning (agenetos) as is God, nor begotten (genetos) as you are [mankind], but intermediate (mesos) between these two extremes "(Quis rer. divin. haeres sit, 205-06). The Word of St. John is not an intermediary, but a Mediator; He is not intermediate between the two natures, Divine and human, but He unites them in His Person; it could not be said of Him, as of the Logos of Philo, that He is neither agenetos nor genetos, for He is at the same time one and the other, not inasmuch as He is the Word, but as the Incarnate Word (St. Ignatius, "Ad Ephes.", vii, 2).

In the subsequent history of Christian theology many conflicts would naturally arise between these rival concepts, and Hellenic speculations constitute a dangerous temptation for Christian writers. They were hardly tempted, of course, to make the Divine Logos an impersonal power (the Incarnation too definitely forbade this), but they were at times moved, more or less consciously, to consider the Word as an intermediary being between God and the world. Hence arose the subordinationist tendencies found in certain Ante-Nicene writers; hence, also, the Arian heresy (see NICAEA, COUNCIL OF).

IV. THE LOGOS IN ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

The Apostolic Fathers do not touch on the theology of the Logos; a short notice occurs in St. Ignatius only (Ad Magn. viii, 2). The Apologists, on the contrary, develop it, partly owing to their philosophic training, but more particularly to their desire to state their faith in a way familiar to their readers (St. Justin, for example, insists strongly on the theology of the Logos in his "Apology" meant for heathens, much less so in his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"). This anxiety to adapt apologetic discussion to the circumstances of their hearers had its dangers, since it was possible that in this way the apologists might land well inside the lines of their adversaries.

As to the capital question of the generation of the Word, the orthodoxy of the Apologists is irreproachable: the Word was not created, as the Arians held later, but was born of the very Substance of the Father according to the later definition of Nicaea (Justin, "Dial.",128, Tatian, "Or.", v, Athenagoras, "Legat." x-xviii, Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, x; Tertullian "Adv. Prax.", vii). Their theology is less satisfactory as regards the eternity of this generation and its necessity; in fact, they represent the Word as uttered by the Father when the Father wished to create and in view of this creation (Justin, "II Apol.", 6; cf. "Dial.",6162; Tatian, "Or.", v, a corrupt and doubtful text; Athenagoras, "Legat.", x; Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, xxii; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", v-vii). When we seek to understand what they meant by this "utterance", it is difficult to give the same answer for all Athenagoras seems to mean the role of the Son in the work of creation, the syncatabasis of the Nicene Fathers (Newman, "Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism" in "Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical", London, 1902, 238), others, especially Theophilus and Tertullian (cf. Novatian, "De Trinit.", xxxi), seem quite certainly to understand this "utterance" as properly so called. Mental survivals of Stoic psychology seem to be responsible for this attitude: the philosophers of the Portico distinguished between the innate word (endiathetos) and the uttered word (prophorikos) bearing in mind this distinction the aforesaid apologists conceived a development in the Word of God after the same fashion. After this period, St. Irenaeus condemned very severely these attempts at psychological explanation (Adv. Haeres., II, xiii, 3-10, cf. II, xxviii, 4-6), and later Fathers rejected this unfortunate distinction between the Word endiathetos and prophorikos [Athanasius (?), "Expos. Fidei", i, in P. G., XXV, 201-cf. "Orat.", II, 35, in P. G., XXVI, 221; Cyril of Jerusalem "Cat.", IV, 8, in P. G., XXXIII, 465-cf. "Cat.", XI, 10, in P. G., XXXIII, 701-cf. Council of Sirmium, can. viii, in Athan., "De Synod.", 27-P. G., XXVI,

As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St. Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain subordination (Justin, "I Apol.", 13-cf. "II Apol.", 13; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 9, 14, 26).

The Alexandrian theologians, themselves profound students of the Logos doctrine, avoided thc above mentioned errors concerning the dual conception of the Word (see, however, a fragment of the "Hypotyposes", of Clement of Alexandria, cited by Photius, in P. G., CIII, 384, and Zahn, "Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons", Erlangen, 1884, xiii 144) and the generation in time; for Clement and for Origen the Word is eternal like the Father (Clement "Strom.", VII, 1, 2, in P. G., IX, 404, 409, and "Adumbrat. in Joan.", i, 1, in P. G., IX, 734; Origen, "De Princip.", I, xxii, 2 sqq., in P. G., XI, 130 sqq.; "In Jer. Hom.", IX, 4, in P. G., XIII, 357, "In Jo. ', ii, 32, in P. G., XIV, 77; cf. Athanasius, "De decret. Nic. syn.", 27, in P. G., XXV, 465). As to the nature of the Word their teaching is less sure: in Clement, it is true, we find only a few traces of subordinationism ("Strom.", IV, 25, in P. G., VIII, 1365; "Strom.", VII, 3, in P. G., IX, 421; cf. "Strom.", VII, 2, in P. G., IX, 408); elsewhere he very explicitly affirms the equality of the Father and the Son and the unity (" Protrept.", 10, in P. G., VIII 228, "Paedag.", I, vi, in P. G., VIII, 280; I, viii, in P. G., VIII, 325 337 cf. I, ix, in P. G., VIII, 353; III, xii, in P. d., V*I, 680). Origen, on the contrary, frequently and formally defended subordinationist ideas (" De Princip.", I, iii, 5, in P. G., XI, 150; IV, xxxv, in P. G., XI, 409, 410; "In Jo." ii, 2, in P. G., XIV, 108, 109; ii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 153, 156; vi, 23, in P. G., XIV, 268; xiii, 25, in P. G., XIV, 44144; xxxii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 817-20; "In Matt.", xv, 10, in P. G., XIII, 1280, 1281; "De Orat.", 15, in P. G., XI,464, "Contra Cels.", V, xi, in P. G., XI,1197); his teaching concerning the Word evidently suffered from Hellenic speculation: in the order of religious knowledge and of prayer, the Word is for him an intermediary between God and the creature.

Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenaeus, who condemns every form of the Hellenic and Gnostic theory of intermediary beings (Adv. Haer., II, xxx, 9; II, ii, 4; III, viii, 3; IV, vii, 4, IV, xx, 1), and who affirms in the strongest terms the full comprehension of the Father by the Son and their identity of nature (Adv. Haer., II, xvii, 8; IV, iv, 2, IV, vi, 3, 6). We find it again with still greater authority in the letter of Pope St. Dionysius to his namesake, the Bishop of Alexandria (see Athan., "De decret. Nic. syn.", 26, in P. G., XXV,461-65): "They lie as to the generation of the Lord who dare to say that His Divine and ineffable generation is a creation. We must not divide the admirable and Divine unity into three divinities, we must not lower the dignity and sovereign grandeur of the Lord by the word creation, but we must believe in God the Father omnipotent, in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, we must unite the Word to the God of the universe, for He has said: 'I and the Father are one', and again: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. Thus we protect the Divine Trinity, and the holy avowal of the monarchy [unity of God]." The Council of Nicaea (325) had but to lend official consecration to this dogmatic teaching.

V. ANALOGY BETWEEN THE DIVINE WORD AND HUMAN SPEECH

After the Council of Nicaea, all danger of Subordinationism being removed, it was possible to seek in the analogy of human speech some light on the mystery of the Divine generation; the Greek Fathers especially refer to this analogy, in order to explain how this generation is purely spiritual and entails neither diminution nor change: Dionysius of Alexandria (Athan., "De Sent. Dion.", 23, in P. G., XXV, 513); Athanasius ("De decret. Nic. syn.", 11, in P. G., XXV, 444); Basil ("In illud: In principio erat Verbum", 3, in P. G., XXXI, 476-77); Gregory of Nazianzus ("Or.", xxx, 20, in P.G., XXXVI, 128-29) Cyril of Alexandria (" Thes." iv, in P. G., LXXV, 56; cf. 76, 80; xvi, ibid., 300; xvi, ibid., 313; "De Trinit.", dial. ii, in P. G., LXXV, 768 69), John Damasc. ("De Fide Orthod.", I, vi, in P. G., XCIV, 804).

St. Augustine studied more closely this analogy between the Divine Word and human speech (see especially "De Trinit.", IX, vii, 12 sq., in P. L., XLII, 967, XV, x, 17 sq., ibid., 1069), and drew from it teachings long accepted in Catholic theology. He compares the Word of God, not to the word spoken by the lips, but to the interior speech of the soul, whereby we may in some measure grasp the Divine mystery; engendered by the mind it remains therein, is equal thereto, is the source of its operations. This doctrine was later developed and enriched by St. Thomas, especially in "Contra Gent.", IV, xi-xiv, opusc. "De natura verbi intellectus"; "Quaest. disput. de verit." iv, "De potent.", ii-viii, 1, "Summa Theol.", I-I, xxvii, 2; xxxiv. St. Thomas sets forth in a very clear way the identity of meaning, already noted by St. Augustine (De Trinit., VII, ii, 3), between the terms Son and Word: "eo Filius quo Verbum, et eo Verbum quo Filius" ("Summa Theol.", I-I, xxvii, 2, "Contra Gent.", IV, xi). The teaching of St. Thomas has been highly approved by the Church especially in the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia by Pius VI (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 1460). (See JESUS CHRIST; TRINITY.)

J. LEBRETON

Johann Lohel

(JOHANN LOHELIUS)

Archbishop of Prague, b. at Eger, Bohemia, 1549; d. 2 Nov., 1622. Of poor parentage, he was piously brought up; at fifteen he was engaged as a domestic in the Norbertine Abbey of Tepl, but was allowed to follow the classes in the abbey school; he soon surpassed his fellow students, and in 1573 received the Norbertine habit. After a two-years novitiate, Lohelius went to study philosophy at Prague. He was ordained in 1576 and was recalled to the abbey. The Lutheran heresy having made inroads into Bohemia, he gave a course of sermons at Tepl, in which he gained the hearts of the heretics, and brought many back to the Church.

In 1579 he became prior of Mount Sion Abbey, at Strahov. The abbot and he strove, with some success, to lift the abbey out of the unfortunate state into which it had fallen; but Lohelius was soon called back to Tepl. However, he was in 1583 allowed to resume the office of prior of Strahov.

Lohelius was elected Abbot of Strahov in 1586. With him a new era of progress and prosperity dawned on the sorely tried Abbey of Strahov. The emperor and the magnates of Bohemia generously assisted him in restoring the church and abbey buildings; the abbot-general, John Despruets, named him his vicar-general and visitor of the circles of Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland. In 1604 he was consecrated Bishop of Sebaste in partibus, as auxiliary to the Archbishop of Prague. During the illness of Archbishop von Lamberg, Paul V created Lohelius coadjutor in May, 1612. At the death of von Lamberg on 18 Sept., 1612, Lohelius became Archbishop of Prague.

The rescript of Rudolph in 1609 had emboldened the Protestants; having gained the upper hand in Prague, they persecuted the clergy and expelled many priests, regular and secular. The cathedral was altered to suit the Calvinistic worship; the altars were demolished, and the paintings and statues destroyed. Lohelius had taken refuge in Vienna, where he remained until 1620. After the battle of the White Mountain, the archbishop and his chapter, as well as the Jesuits and other religious, returned to Prague. The cathedral, cleansed and refurnished, was again consecrated on 28 Feb., 1621. Lohelius died soon after, of a slow fever; he was buried in the church of Strahov.

F.M. GEUDENS

Tobias Lohner

Born 13 March, 1619, at Neuötting in the Diocese of Salzburg; died 26 (probably) May, 1697. He entered the Society of Jesus on 30 August, 1637, at Lansberg, and spent his first years in the classroom, teaching the classics. Later at Dillingen he was professor, first of philosophy for seven years, then of speculative theology for four years, and finally of moral theology. He was rector of the colleges of Lucerne and Dillingen and master of novices. His zealous sermons won for him the reputation of a great preacher, and his versatility made him a remarkable man in many ways. His chief claim, however, to the gratitude of his contemporaries and of posterity is based mainly on the many works which he wrote, both in Latin and German, on practical questions, especially of asceticism and moral theology. More than twenty years before he died, his literary activity received flattering recognition in the "Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu," a work begun by Father Peter Ribadeneira, S. J., continued by Father Philip Albegambe, S. J., and brought up to date (1675) by Father Nathanael Sotwel, S. J. Of Father Lohner's many published works, those which have secured him most lasting remembrance are the "Instructissima bibliotheca manualis concionatoria" (4 vols., Dillingen, 1681-), and a series of volumes containing practical instructions, the more important of which are the following: "Instructio practica de ss. Missæ sacrificio;" "Instructio practica de officio divino;" "Instructio practica de conversatione apostolica;" "Instructio practica pastorum continens doctrinas et industrias ad pastorale munus pie, fructose et secure obeundum;" "Instructio practica de confessionibus rite ac fructose excipiendis" (complete edition of these instructions, in eleven vols., Dillingen, 1726-). He published many other similar works on preaching, on catechizing, on giving exhortations, on the origin and excellence of the priesthood, on the various states of life, on consoling the afflicted, on questions of polemical, ascetical, speculative, and moral theology, on the means of overcoming temptations, on the foundations of mystical theology. These and other works of like nature testify to his untiring zeal; almost all of them were printed in separate volumes, ran through many editions, and some of them are used and prized even at the present day.

J.H. FISHER

Diocese of Loja

(Lojana), suffragan of Quito, Ecuador, includes the greater part of the Provinces of Loja and El Oro. It thus occupies the southwestern portion of Ecuador, lying between the summit of the Andean Cordilleras and the Pacific Ocean. It has an area of about 10,000 square miles. The city of Loja is situated some 270 miles S.S.W. of Quito, in the Val de Canbamba. It was established about the year 1546 to protect travellers on the royal road from Quito to Peru against the attacks of the Indians, and is thus one of the oldest towns in the state. In 1580 the First Provincial Council of Ecuador was held there; at which time the city contained, in addition to its parish church, a Franciscan convent and a Dominican priory. It was at Loja that the valuable properties of the cinchona-bark, the source of quinine, were first discovered by a Spanish soldier who, having accidentally experienced its antipyretic qualities, by means of it cured the vice-reine of Peru, the Countess of Chichon (a quo cinchona), of a fever, and thus made it known to the world. Loja suffered much from earthquakes and Indian inroads. In 1861 it possessed a Jesuit church, a college, a consistorial house, and a hospital. Five years later a bishopric was erected at Loja, Mgr. Checa being the first occupant of the see; he was succeeded by Mgr. Riofrio, afterwards Archbishop of Quito: the third prelate was Mgr. José Masiá, O.F.M.; born on 14 January, 1815, at Montroig, in Tarragona, Spain, he was consecrated Bishop of Loja on 16 September, 1875. This illustrious prelate died in 1902 in Peru, a glorious exile for the Faith. After an interregnum of several years, Mgr. Juan José Antonio Eguiguren-Escudero was appointed. Mgr. Eguiguren was born at Loja on 26 April, 1867; he studied at the seminary of Quito, where he was ordained on 11 June, 1892. Shortly afterwards he became a professor in his Alma Mater; in 1901 he was named an honorary canon, and three years later was made Administrator Apostolic of Loja; on 6 March 1907, he was elected to fill the vacant see and was consecrated at Quito on 28, July, 1907.

With the exception of individual cases, there is no religion professed in the diocese but Catholicism (and paganism among some of the Indians); many of the Catholics, however, are lukewarm and the Church has suffered from the hostility of liberal political parties in Ecuador. Only a very small proportion of the population of the diocese is of European origin, the remainder being a hybrid race of mixed Spanish, Indian, and Negro blood, known as cholos, zambos, or mestizos, with many pure-blooded Indians. The climate of the diocese varies from a mean of 18 degrees Celsius in the higher regions to torrid heat on the slopes of El Oro to the ocean. The principal towns are Machala, Santa Rosa, Zaruma, and Loja.

A.A. MacErlean

Lollards

The name given to the followers of John Wyclif, an heretical body numerous in England in the latter part of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth century. The name was derived by contemporaries from lollium, a tare, but it has been used in Flanders early in the fourteenth century in the sense of "hypocrite", and the phrase "Lollardi seu Deum laudantes" (1309) points to a derivation from lollen, to sing softly (cf. Eng. lull). Others take it to mean "idlers" and connect it with to loll. We first hear of it as referring to the Wycliffites in 1382, when the Cistercian Henry Crumpe applied the nickname to them in public at Oxford. It was used in episcopal documents in 1387 and 1389 and soon became habitual. An account of Wyclif's doctrines, their intellectual parentage, and their development during his lifetime will be given in his own biography. This article will deal with the general causes which led to the spread of Lollardy, with the doctrines for which the Lollards were individually and collectively condemned by the authorities of the Church, and with the history of the sect.

Causes of the Spread of Lollardy

Till the latter part of the fourteenth century England had been remarkably free from heresy. The Manichean movements of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which threatened the Church and society in Southern Europe and had appeared sporadically in Northern France and Flanders had made no impression on England. The few heretics who were heard of were all foreigners and they seem to have found no following in the country. Yet there was much discontent. Popular protests against the wealth, the power, and the pride of the clergy, secular and regular, were frequent, and in times of disorder would express themselves in an extreme form. Thus, during the revolution which overthrew Edward II in 1327, mobs broke into the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds and attacked that of St. Albans. As the century proceeded there were many signs of national disorganization, and of religious and social discontent. The war in France, in spite of the glories of Crécy and Poitiers, was a curse to the victors as well as to the vanquished. The later campaigns were mere ravaging expeditions and the men who inflicted such untold miseries on the French, whether under the English flag, or in the Free Companies, brought home an evil spirit of disorder, while the military system helped to produce an "over-mighty," greedy, and often anti-clerical nobility. In the lower ranks of society there was a similar growth of an intemperate and subversive independence. The emancipation of the peasant class had proceeded normally till the Black Death threw into confusion the relations between landlord and tenant. By giving the labourer an enormous economic advantage in the depopulated country it led the landlords to fall back upon their legal rights and the traditional wages.

In the Church there was nearly as much disorder as in the State. The pestilence had in many cases disorganized the parish clergy, the old penitential system had broken down, while luxury, at least among the few, was on the increase. Preachers, orthodox and heretical, and poets as different in character as Langland, Gower, and Chaucer are unanimous in the gloomy picture they give of the condition of the clergy, secular and regular. However much may be allowed for exaggeration, it is clear that reform was badly needed, but unfortunately the French Avignon popes, even when they were reformers, had little influence in England. Later on, the Schism gave Englishmen a pope with whom their patriotism could find no fault, but this advantage was dearly purchased at the cost of weakening the spirit of authority in the Church.

It is to these social and religious distempers that we must look for the causes of the Peasant Revolt and the Lollard movement. Both were manifestations of the discredit of authority and tradition. The revolt of 1381 is unique in English history for the revolutionary and anarchic spirit which inspired it and which indeed partially survived it, just as Lollardy is the only heresy which flourished in medieval England. The disorganized state of society and the violent anti-clericalism of the time would probably have led to an attack on the dogmatic authority and the sacramental system of the Church, even if Wyclif had not been there to lead the movement.

The Beginnings of Lollardy

During the earlier part of his public career Wyclif had come forward as an ally of the anti-clerical and anti-papal nobility, and especially of John of Gaunt. He had asserted the right of temporal lords to take the goods of an undeserving clergy and, as a necessary consequence, he had attacked the power of excommunication. He was popular with the people, and his philosophical and theological teaching had given him much influence at Oxford. His orthodoxy had been frequently impeached and some of his conclusions condemned by Gregory XI, but he was not yet the leader of an obviously heretical sect. But about 1380 he began to take up a position of more definite hostility to the Church. He attacked the pope and the friars with unmeasured violence, and it was probably about this time that he sent out from Oxford the "poor priests" who were to carry his teaching to the country folk and the provincial towns. The necessity of giving them a definite gospel may well have led to a clearer expression of his heretical teaching, and it was certainly at this date that he began the attack on transubstantiation, and in this way inaugurated the most characteristic article of the Lollard heresy. Wycliffism was now no longer a question of scholastic disputation or even of violent anti-clericalism; it had become propagandist and heretical, and the authorities both of Church and State were able for the first time to make a successful assault upon it. In 1382 a council in London presided over by Archbishop Courtenay condemned twenty-four of Wyclif's "Conclusions": ten of them as heresies, fourteen as "errors."

Though little was done against Wyclif himself, a determined effort was made to purge the university. Oxford, jealous as ever of its privileges, resisted, but ultimately the leading Wycliffites, Hereford, Repingdon, and Ashton, had to appear before the archbishop. The two latter made full abjurations, but their subsequent careers were very different. Repingdon became in course of time Abbot of Leicester, Bishop of Lincoln, and a cardinal, while Ashton returned to his heretical ways and to the preaching of Lollardy. Nicholas Hereford must have been a man of an uncommon spirit, for at Oxford he had been much more extreme than Wyclif, justifying apparently even the murder of Archbishop Sudbury by the rebels, yet he went off to Rome to appeal to the pope against Courtenay, was there imprisoned, found himself at liberty again owing to a popular rising, returned to England and preached Lollardy in the West, but finally abjured and died a Carthusian. Though the Wycliffite hold upon Oxford was broken by these measures, the energy of the Lollard preachers, the extraordinary literary activity of Wyclif himself in his last years, and the disturbed conditions of the time, all led to a great extension of the movement. Its chief centres were London, Oxford, Leicester, and Coventry, and in the Dioceses of Hereford and Worcester.

Lollard Doctrines

In the fourteenth century the word "Lollard" was used in a very extended sense. Anti-clerical knights of the shire who wished to disendow the Church, riotous tenants of an unpopular abbey, parishioners who refused to pay their tithes, would often be called Lollards as well as fanatics like Swynderby, the ex-hermit of Leicester, apocalyptic visionaries like the Welshmen, Walter Brute, and what we may call the normal Wycliffite who denied the authority of the Church and attacked the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Never was Lollardy so widespread as in its early days; the Leicester chronicles wrote that every second man was a Lollard. But this very extension of the name makes it difficult to give a precise account of the doctrines connected with it, even in their more extreme form. Probably the best summary of Lollardy, at least in its earlier stages, is to be found in the twelve "Conclusions" which were presented to Parliament and affixed to the doors of Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's in 1395. They complain of the corruptions by appropriations etc. from Rome, "a step-mother;" they attack the celibacy of the clergy and the religious orders, the "feigned miracle of the sacrament", the "feigned power of absolution," and "feigned indulgences;" they call the sacramentals jugglery, and declare that pilgrimages are "not far removed from idolatry." Prayers for the dead should not be a reason for almsgiving, and beneficed clergymen should not hold secular offices. There is no allusion in these conclusions to Wyclif's doctrine that "dominion is founded on grace," yet most of the early Lollards taught in some form or another that the validity of the sacraments was affected by the sinfulness of the minister.

This refusal to distinguish the official from the personal character of the priesthood has reappeared at different epochs in the history of the Church. It is to be found, for instance, among the popular supporters of ecclesiastical reform in the time of Pope St. Gregory VII. Reforming councils forbade the faithful to accept the ministrations of the unreformed clergy, but the reforming mobs of Milan and Flanders went much further and treated with contumely both the priests and their sacraments. Wyclif gave some kind of philosophic basis to this point of view in his doctrine of "dominion," though he applied it more to the property and authority of the clergy than to their sacramental powers. To make the validity of baptism or the consecration of the Holy Eucharist depend on the virtue of the priest could only be a stepping-stone to a complete denial of the sacramental system, and this stage had been reached in these conclusions of 1395. Thus the doctrine of transubstantiation became the usual test in trials for Lollardy, and the crucial question was usually, "Do you believe that the substance of the bread remains after consecration?" The heretics were often ready to accept the vaguer expressions of the orthodox doctrine, but at times they would declare quite frankly that "the sacrament is but a mouthful of bread." Pilgrimages and other pious practices of Catholics often came in for very violent abuse, and Our Lady of Walsingham was known among them as the "Witch of Walsingham."

There is at least one striking omission in the "Conclusions" of 1395. Nothing is said of the Bible as the sole rule of faith, yet this doctrine was probably the most original which the movement produced. As the chief opponents of Lollardy in the fifteenth century, Thomas of Walden and Richard Pecock both pointed out that the belief in the sufficiency of Scripture lay at the basis of Wycliffite teaching, for it provided an alternative to the authority of the Church. It occupied, however, a less important position among the earlier than among the later Lollards, for there was at first much confusion of mind on the whole question of authority. Even the most orthodox must have been puzzled at the time of the Schism, as many were later by the struggle between pope and councils. The unorthodox were still more uncertain, and this may partly account for the frequent recantations of those who were summoned by the bishops. In the fifteenth century the Lollards became a more compact body with more definite negations, a change which can be explained by mere lapse of time which confirms a man in his beliefs and by the more energetic repression exercised by the ecclesiastical authorities. The breach with the tradition of the Church had now become unmistakable and the Lollard of the second generation looked for support to his own reading and interpretation of the Bible. Wyclif had already felt the necessity of this. He had dwelt in the strongest on the sufficiency of Scripture, and had maintained that it was the ultimate authority even in matters of civil law and politics. Whatever may have been his share in the work of translating it into English, there is no doubt that he urged all classes to read such translations, and that he did so, partly at any rate, in order to strengthen them in opposition to the Church authorities. Even the pope, he maintained, should not be obeyed unless his commands were warranted by Scripture.

As the Lollards in the course of the fifteenth century became less and less of a learned body we find an increasing tendency to take the Bible in its most literal sense and to draw from it practical conclusions out of all harmony with contemporary life. Objections were made for instance to the Christian Sunday or to the eating of pork. Thus, Pecock urged the claims of reason and common sense against such narrow interpretations, much as Hooker did in a later age against the Puritans. Meanwhile the church authorities had limited the use of translations to those who had the bishop's license, and the possession of portions of the English Bible, generally with Wycliffite prefaces, by unauthorized persons was one of the accepted evidences of Lollardy. It would be interesting, did space permit, to compare the Lollard doctrines with earlier medieval heresies and with the various forms of sixteenth-century Protestantism; it must, at least, be pointed out that there are few signs of any constructive system about Lollardy, little beyond the belief that the Bible will afford a rule of faith and practice. Much emphasis was laid on preaching as compared with liturgy, and there is evident an inclination towards the supremacy of the State in the externals of religion.

Outline of the History of the Lollards

The troubled days of Richard II at the close of the fourteenth century had encouraged the spread of Lollardy, and the accession of the House of Lancaster in 1399 was followed by an attempt to reform and restore constitutional authority in Church and State. It was a task which proved in the long run beyond the strength of the dynasty, yet something was done to remedy the worst disorders of the previous reign. In order to put down religious opposition the State came, in 1401, to the support of the Church by the Act "De Hæretico Comburendo", i.e. on the burning of heretics. This Act recited in its preamble that it was directed against a certain new sect "who thought damnably of the sacraments and usurped the office of preaching." It empowered the bishops to arrest, imprison, and examine offenders and to hand over to the secular authorities such as had relapsed or refused to abjure. The condemned were to be burnt "in an high place" before the people. This Act was probably due to the authoritative Archbishop Arundel, but it was merely the application to England of the common law of Christendom. Its passing was immediately followed by the burning of the first victim, William Sawtrey, a London priest. He had previously abjured but had relapsed, and he now refused to declare his belief in transubstantiation or to recognize the authority of the Church.

No fresh execution occurred till 1410, and the Act was mercifully carried out by the bishops. Great pains were taken to sift the evidence when a man denied his heresy; the relapsed were nearly always allowed the benefit of a fresh abjuration, and as a matter of fact the burnings were few and the recantations many. Eleven heretics were recorded to have been burnt from 1401 to the accession of Henry VII in 1485. Others, it is true, were executed as traitors for being implicated in overt acts of rebellion. Yet the activity of the Lollards during the first thirty years of the fifteenth century was great and their influence spread into parts of the country which had at first been unaffected. Thus the eastern counties became, and were long to remain, an important Lollard centre. Meanwhile the ecclesiastical authorities continued the work of repression. In 1407 a synod at Oxford under Arundel's presidency passed a number of constitutions to regulate preaching, the translation and use of the Scriptures, and the theological education at schools and the university. A body of Oxford censors condemned in 1410 no less than 267 propositions collected out of Wyclif's writings, and finally the Council of Constance, in 1415, solemnly declared him to have been a heretic. These different measures seem to have been successful at least as far as the clergy were concerned, and Lollardy came to be more and more a lay movement, often connected with political discontent.

Its leader during the reign of Henry V was Sir John Oldcastle, commonly known as Lord Cobham, from his marriage to a Cobham hieress. His Lollardy had long been notorious, but his position and wealth protected him and he was not proceeded against till 1413. After many delays he was arrested, tried, and sentenced as a heretic, but he escaped from the Tower and organized a rising outside London early in 1414. The young king suppressed the movement in person, but Oldcastle again escaped. He remained in hiding but seems to have inspired a number of sporadic disturbances, especially during Henry's absence in France. He was finally captured on the west border, condemned by Parliament, and executed in 1417. His personality and activity made a great impression on his contemporaries and his poorer followers put a fanatic trust in him. He certainly produced an exaggerated opinion of the numbers and ubiquity of the Lollards, for Thomas of Walden, who wrote about this time, expected that they would get the upper hand and be in a position to persecute the Catholics. This unquiet condition lasted during the earlier part of the reign of Henry VI. There were many racantations though few executions, and in 1429 Convocation lamented that heresy was on the increase throughout the southern province. In 1413 there was even a small rising of heretics at Abingdon. Yet from this date Lollardy began to decline and when, about 1445, Richard Pecock wrote his unfortunate "Repressor of overmuch blaming the Clergy," they were far less of a menace to Church or State than they had been in Walden's day. They diminished in numbers and importance, but the records of the bishops' courts show that they still survived in their old centres: London, Coventry, Leicester, and the eastern counties. They were mostly small artisans. William Wych, a priest, was indeed executed, in 1440, but he was an old man and belonged to the first generation of Lollards.

The increase in the number of citations for heresy under Henry VII was probably due more to the renewed activity of the bishops in a time of peace than to a revival of Lollardy. There was such a revival, however, under Henry VIII, for two heretics were burnt on one day, in 1511, and ten years later there were many prosecutions in the home counties and some executions. But though Lollardy thus remained alive, "conquered but not extinguished," as Erasmus expressed it in 1523, until the New Learning was brought into the country from Germany, it was a movement which for at least half a century had exercised little or no influence on English thought. The days of its popularity were long passed and even its martyrdoms attracted but little attention. The little stream of English heresy cannot be said to have added much to the Protestant flood which rolled in from the Continent. It did, however, bear witness to the existence of a spirit of discontent, and may have prepared the ground for religious revolt near London and in the eastern counties, though there is no evidence that any of the more prominent early reformers were Lollards before they were Protestants.

F.F. Urquhart

St. Loman

Bishop of Trim in Ireland, nephew of St. Patrick, was remarkable as being the first placed over an Irish see by the Apostle of Ireland. This was in the year 433. St. Loman had converted both Fortchern, the Prince of Trim (grandson of Laeghaire, King of Meath), and his father Foidilmid, and was given Trim for an episcopal see. Some say that he was a bishop before he came to Ireland, but this seems unlikely, as he would not accept a gift of Trim unless St. Patrick came to ratify it, and it is expressly stated in the "Tripartite Life", as also by Tirechan, that he was only a simple priest, but consecrated by St. Patrick for Trim. St. Loman did not long survive his promotion to the episcopate, and after a brief visit to his brother Broccaid at Emlach Ech in Connacht, he resigned his see to his princely convert Fortchern, with the permission of St. Patrick. Fortchern, however, through humility only ruled for three days after the death of St. Loman, and then ceded his office to Cathlaid, another British pilgrim. St. Loman is not to be confounded with St. Loman of Loch Gill, County Sligo, but he is said to have founded Port Loman in County Westmeath.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Peter Lombard

Archbishop of Armagh, b. at Waterford, about 1555; d. at Rome, 1625; belonged to a respectable and wealthy family. More than one of his relatives filled the position of mayor of Waterford, and others gained eminence in literature, among the latter being the famous Franciscan, Luke Wadding. After receiving his early education at Waterford, young Lombard was sent to Westminster School, whence, after some years, he went to Oxford. At Westminster School one of his professors was the historian Camden, and pupil and master seem to have got on well together. Camden's learning was great and Lombard was studious and clever and earned the praises of his master for his gentleness and docility. Camden also takes credit for having made his pupil a good Protestant. But the change. if it occurred at all, did not last, and Lombard, after leaving Oxford, went to Louvain, passed through his philosophic and theological classes with great distinction, graduated as Doctor of Divinity, and was ordained priest. Appointed professor of theology at Louvain University he soon attracted notice by the extent of his learning. In 1594 he was made provost of the cathedral at Cambrai. When he went to Rome, a few years later, Clement VIII thought so highly of his learning and piety that he appointed him, in 1601, Archbishop of Armagh. He also appointed him his domestic prelate, and thus secured him an income, which in the condition of Ireland at the time, there was no hope of getting from Armagh.

Henceforth till his death Lombard lived at Rome. He was for a time president of the "Congregatio de Auxiliis" (q. v.) charged with the duty of pronouncing on Molina's work and settling the controversy on predestination and grace which followed its publication (Schuceman, "Controversiarum de divinæ gratiæ liberique arbitrii concordia initia et progressos", Freiburg, 1881). Lombard was active and zealous in providing for the wants of the exiled Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, and was among those who publicly welcomed them to Rome. He was not however able to go to Ireland, for the penal laws were in force, and to set foot in Ireland would be to invite the martyrdom of O'Devanny and others. This would certainly have been Lombard's fate, for James I personally disliked him and publicly attacked him in the English Parliament. Armagh was thus left without an archbishop for nearly a quarter of a century. There was however an administrator in the person of the well-known David Rothe. He had for a time acted at Borne as Lombard's secretary and the primate appointed him Vicar-General of Armagh. Nor did Rothe cease to act in this capacity even after 1618, when he was made Bishop of Ossory. The Northerns bitterly complained of being left so long without an archbishop. In any case they disliked being ruled by a Munsterman, still more being ruled by one unwilling to face the dangers of his position. At Rome Lombard wrote "De Regno Hiberniæ sanctorum insula commentarius" (Louvain 1632: re-edited, Dublin, 1868 with prefatory memoir, by Bishop, now Cardinal Moran). This work gave such offence to Charles I that he gave special directions to his Irish viceroy, Strafford, to have it suppressed. Lombard also wrote a little work on the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, and in 1604 a yet unedited work, addressed to James I, in favour of religious liberty for the Irish (Bellesheim, "Gesch de Kath. Kirche in Irland", II (Mainz, 1890), 323-25, and passim.

STUART, Historical Memoirs of Armagh, ed. by COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); MEEHAN, Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell (Dublin. 1886): Spicilegium Ossoriense (Dublin, 1874-84); RENEHAN, Irish Archbishops Dublin, 1861).

E.A. D'ALTON

Lombardy

A word derived from Longobardia and used during the Middle Ages to designate the country ruled over by the Longobards, which varied in extent with the varying fortunes of that race in Italy. During their greatest power it included Northern Italy, part of Central Italy, and nearly all Southern Italy excepting only Calabria (inaccessible because of its mountainous character), and a narrow strip of land along the west coast including the cities of Naples, Gaeta, Amalfi, and Terracina. Geographically it was divided into eight regions:-Austria, to the north-east; Neustria, to the north-west; Flaminia and a portion of Emilia; Lombard Tuscia; the Duchy of Spoleto; the Duchies of Benevento and Salerno; Istria; the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the Pentapolis, a late conquest which did not remain long in the hands of the Longobards. Sometimes the country was divided into Greater Lombardy, including Northern, or Transtiberine, Italy with Pavia as its capital, and Lesser Lombardy, or Cistiberine Italy, namely the Duchies of Benevento and Spoleto. In the ninth century the name Lombardy was synonymous with Italy. Politically the country was divided into thirty-six duchies, of which we know with any certainty the names of only a few; these are: Pavia, Milan, Brescia, Bergamo, Verona, Vicenza, Treviso, Friuli, Trent, Istria, Asti, Turin, Parma, Piacenza, Chiusi, Reggio, Lucca, Florence, Fermo, Rimini, Spoleto, and Benevento. After the kingdom had passed into the hands of the Franks and the frontier duchies had asserted their independence, and new principalities had been set up, e.g. the Venetian territory in the east, Piedmont in the west, the States of the Church in the south, the old name shrank until it came to signify that extent of country comprised more or less within the Duchy of Milan, bordered on the north by the Swiss cantons; on the west by the River Ticino and Lake Maggiore, which separate it from Piedmont; on the south by the river Po, which separates it from Emilia; and east by on the River Mincio and Lake Garda, which sepearate it from the Venetian territory. These are its boundaries at the present time.

Actually, Lombardy is one of the thirteen regions into which Italy is divided and it contains eight provinces: Bergamo, Brescia, Como, Cremona, Mantua, Milan, Pavia, Sondrio. It is the most populous province of Italy, with 4,300,000 inhabitants and an area of 8973 sq. miles. The wealth of the country consists in the fertility of the soil, which in the main lies within the basin of the Po valley. Only on its northern reaches is it conterminous with the Alpine chain, where Bernese Alps keep watch over the Provinces of Sondrio and Bergamo, and advance among the wooded valleys of Camonica, Seriana, Brembara, and Valtellina. In these mountains many streams have their sources, the principal ones being the Ticino, the Olono, the Adda, the Oglio, and the Mincio, all tributaries of the Po on its left bank; while the Trebbia, fed from the Appennines, flows in on the right bank. Several of these rivers during their long course spread out into lakes famous for the beauty of their shores, rich in vegetation, and bordered by picturesque villages and lovely villas, the favourite summer haunts of the great and the wealthy. Such for instance is Lake Maggiore, or Verbano, formed by the Ticino; Lake Como, or Lario, formed by the Adda; Lake Isco formed by the Aglio; Lake Garda, or Benaco, from which the Mincio flows. Other similar lakes like Lake Varese and those nestling among the gentle slopes of the Brianza have won for this strip of Lombardy the name of "Garden of Italy".

The climate of Lombardy varies with its elevation; it is cold in the mountain districts, warm in the plains. At Milan, the mean annual temperature is 55° F. The chief products are grain, maize, rice. The pasture lands are many and the flocks numerous. Ever since the fifteenth century the greater part of Lombardy has been artifically irrigated. Innumerable canals branch off from the rivers and carry their waters over the fields on a gentle slope, so skilfully arranged that a thin sheet of water can be made to pass lightly over the surface, fertilizing the soil so that as many as seven crops of hay are taken in one year. Several of these canals, e.g., the Naviglio Grande (known also as the Ticinello, because it flows from the Ticino), the Naviglio della Martesana (so called from the district it passes through), are navigable by means of locks or planes which overcome the differences of level of the country they pass through. The mean annual crop of rice from 1900 to 1905 was 4,615,000 quintals (a quintal is about 220 lbs.). Milk is so plentiful that butter and cheese are among the chief exports: about 230,000 quintals of cheese, and 90,000 of butter are produced annually. The more famous cheeses are the Grana (wrongly called Parmigiano or Parmesan), Gorgonzola, and Stracchini.

With the introduction of the mulberry-tree during the Middle Ages the feeding of silkworms began and has gone on prospering, so that it now forms one of the staple sources of income, the average output per annum being about 15,000,000 kilos of cocoons. The silk is woven on the spot and gives employment (according to statistics for 1906) to 126,000 persons of both sexes who work 1,400,000 spindles for straight and twisted silk, feeding 16,000 looms that turn out 10,000,000 kilos of grey or unbleached silk. There are moreover in activity 36,000 looms, and 900,000 spindles for cotton and 10,000 looms for flax, hemp, jute, etc. Other industries are moulding wood and iron for machinery, carriage-building, railway works, furniture making, bleaching works, tailoring establishments, and printing. The country does not boast of great mineral wealth although there are iron pyrites and copper pyrites in the valleys of Bergamo and Brescia; zincblende and carbonate of zinc in Val Seriana; lignite in the same valley; and peat in the Varese valley and along Lake Garda. There are rich granite quarries at San Fedelino, porphyry in Val Ganna, black marble at Varenna, and limestone at Botticino. There are mineral springs at Trescorre, San Pellegrino, Salice, Bormio, etc. The growth of trade soon caused the need of means of rapid communication to be felt, and besides the public highways, there are about 850,000 miles of splendid roads in Lombardy, railways were soon opened, that from Milan to Monza in 1840 being the second in Italy. At present a network of 1,115,000 miles of railway lines and more than 600,000 miles of steam-tramways cover the surface of Lombardy.

RELIGIOUS DIVISION

In its ecclesiastical divisions Lombardy naturally exhibits the influence of its civil history. When the Longobards swarmed down from the Alps the peoples in that region had long been evangelized and the Church had a hierarchy in the chief cities. Among these Milan is certainly the most ancient of all Northern Italy; Aquileia comes next; then Verona and Brescia and the other sees that sprang up rapidly after peace had been given to the Church by Constantine. Milan was the metropolitan see of the region and its bishop took the title of archbishop as early as the middle of the eighth century. Within this jurisdiction were Alba, Alessandria, Asti, Turin, Tortona, Vercelli, Vigevano, Casale, Acqui, Savona, Ventimiglia, Genoa, Novara, Cremona, Como, Bergamo, Brescia, Lodi. It is doubtful whether Pavia belonged to Milan in ancient times, but from a very remote date until the beginning of the nineteenth century it depended directly on the Holy See. In the seventh century Como was separated from Milan and became subject to Aquileia but was joined to Milan when the Patriarchate of Aquileia was suppressed. The jurisdiction of Milan was gradually restricted. Genoa became an archdiocese in 1133 with Savona, Ventimiglia, and Tortona as suffragan sees. Likewise, in 1515 Turin became an archdiocese with Asti, Albi, and Acqui as suffragans. Finally, Vercelli in 1817 was made an archdiocese with Alessandria, Casale, Vigevano, and Novara as suffragans. At the present time Lombardy is divided into nine dioceses: Bergamo, Brescia, Como, Pavia, Cremona, Crema, Lodi, Mantua, under Milan as metropolitan. A noteworthy peculiarity in the liturgy is the special rite in use throughout all the Diocese of Milan with the exception of a few parishes, a rite that goes back to very primitive times, and known as the Ambrosian Rite (q. v.).

HISTORY

When the Longobards are first mentioned by Latin historians they are described as the fiercest of the German barbarians (Velleius Paterculus) while Tacitus praises them for their intrepidity. It would seem their original name was Winnili, and that they were called Longobards from the length of the beards they wore. It is quite true that in German mythology the name Longobard (longbärtr) was given to Odin, their chief god. We first meet them along the Elbe near the Baltic; according to Bluhime they came from Jutland. The "Longobard Chronicle" that precedes the edict of King Rotari (636) says "origo gentis nostræ Scandanan", i.e., the North. Their quarrels with the Vandals were of ancient date; afterwards they took possession of the lands of the Heruli when these tribes poured into Italy under Odoacer. Emperor Justinian gave them lands in Pannonia and Noricum on condition that they would not molest the Empire and that they would assist in the wars against the Gepidæ. They did make war against the Gepidæ, and under Alboin, who wanted to carry off Rosamunda, daughter of Cunimund, King of the Gepidæ, they succeeded with the help of the Avars in completely routing them. Alboin slew Cunimund, and as was the custom of his race, fashioned a drinking cup from the king's skull. Then, gathering together all the barbarians he could muster, Saxons, Suevi, Ostrogoths, the remnant of the Gepidæ, Saramati, Bulgars, and Thuringians, he set out from Pannonia towards Italy on 1 April, 568. Ill-defended, and torn by the rivalries of the Greek leaders or generals, Italy fell an easy prey. Alboin met with no resistance either in Friuli or in Veneta; he advanced as far as the Adda, taking possession of all the towns on his way, with the exception of Padua, Mantua, and Monselice. Many of the inhabitants fled for refuge to the islands in the lagoons. The following year, finding none to bar his progress, he pushed forward, occupied Milan, and invaded Liguria meeting resistance only in Pavia and Cremona. The inhabitants fled, even as far as Genoa. Pavia held out for three years, then fell, and became the capital of Alboin's short-lived kingdom. Rosamunda, whom the barbarian forced to drink out of her father's skull, in revenge had him assassinated, and then fled with her accomplices to Ravenna. The Longobards chose as his successor Clefi, chief of the troops which had remained at Bergamo; he was more cruel even than Alboin in oppressing the conquered, driving them from their lands and putting them to death under any pretext. During all this time the exarch, Longinus, sent from Constantinople to replace Narses, had been unable to defend Italy, and shut himself up in Ravenna leaving the people to their cruel fate. The Longobard invasion of Italy, the last stage in the Germanic invasion of the West, marks the end of the Roman world and the beginning of a new historical epoch, which was to bring about deep changes in the social life of those peoples, who, hitherto, under the domination of Heruli and Goths, had indeed changed their masters but not their customs or their manner of life.

With the new conquerors it was quite otherwise. At their head was a king usually chosen by the chiefs of the tribe nearly always from the stock of the same family. He was the civil and military head of the nation, but his power was shared with the leaders (heerzoge) chosen by him for life, one for each territorial division, and subject to him de jure, though de facto independent and even hereditary, as was the case in Friuli, Spoleto, and Beneventum. Those nearer at hand, however, found it more difficult to escape his authority, but outbreaks were not infrequent and were the cause of weakness and decay from within. Viceroys pure and simple were the gastaldi nominated and dismissed by the king, administering his possessions and representing him in the various territories to which they were appointed. On the other hand the gasindi were part of his household and members of his Court. By playing off the one against the other, and by increasing their power the royal authority was augmented and the throne consolidated. Then again the dukes had their gasindi and skuldahis to assist them, and among those nobles and favourites the conquered lands were distributed. Whether these lands were part of the imperial domain or belonged to private individuals who had been slain or who fled, they were parcelled out in fiefs or given away in freehold. The conquered became tributary, and had to pay thirds of all fruits and in most cases they seem to have been reduced to the state of aldii, or villains, who passed from owner to owner with the land. Only one citizenship was recognized, the Longobardic, and all had to belong to it, the barbarian auxiliaries, the Romans who remained freemen, and later the priests and the guargangi, or strangers who came to settle in Longobard territory. The quality of being a freeman (frei) was inseparable from that of soldier (heermann: exercitalis) and the nation itself in the royal edicts is styled the exercitus. We can form an idea of the social and legal condition of the conquered peoples from the wieder-geld, or fine imposed for a murder or any damage done by one inhabitant to another. The fine was always increased when a Longobard was the injured party. The Roman was cut off from all government positions and was always looked upon as an inferior. Among the list of offices and honours, and even in the public documents of the Longobards, there never once appears the name of an Italian inhabitant. The main consequence of this antagonism was that the two peoples remained politically apart. In spite of the heavy disadvantages under which they laboured it must not be imagined that the conquered were civilly dead. The Longobards numbered hardly more than 130,000 souls without a code of laws, and without unity of governing methods to oppose to those already in existence, and which it was only natural they should go on using in their dealings with the Italians on all points not foreseen by their own barbarian customs. That this was the case is seen from the fact that hardly had the oppression come to an end when we find the Roman municipium once more arising and thriving in the comune. But the preservation of the traditions of Rome was due to another cause-religion. The Longobards at the time of the invasion were for the most part pagan; a few had imbibed Arianism, and hence their ferocity against priests and monks whom they put to death. They destroyed churches and monasteries; they hunted and killed many of the faithful who would not become pagan; they laid waste their property, and seized Catholic places of worship, to hand them over to the Arians. The holy pontiff, Gregory the Great, does not cease to lament the desolation caused by the Longobard slaughter throught Italy. Slowly however the light of faith made way among them and the Church won their respect and obedience. This meant protection for the conquered. Gradually the Church's constitution and customs spread among the barbarians the ideas of Roman civilization, until at last, in defence of her own liberty and that of the people which the Longobards continued to imperil, she was forced to call in the aid of the Franks, and thus change the fate of Italy. occurred This occurred only after two centuries of Longobardic domination. The succession of the Longobard kings is as follows:-Alboin from 561; Clefi, 573; interregnum, 575; Autari from 584; Agilulf, 591; Adaloald, 615; Ariovald, 625; Rothari, 636; Rodoald, 652; Aribert, 653; Gondibert and Pertarit, 661; Grimoald, 662; Garibald, 671; Pertarit (a second time), 671; Cunibert (as co-ruler), 678; Cunibert (alone),686; Luitpert, 700; Regimbert, .701; Aribert., 701; Ausprand, 702; Liutprand, 712; Hildebrand, 744; Ratchis, 744; Astulf, 749; Desiderius, 756 till 774. In this list of kings prime importance attaches to the civil and religious influence of Queen Theodolinda, a Frank by birth, a Catholic in faith, the wife of Autari and afterwards of Agilulf whom she won over from barbarism and converted to Christianity. To her is due the foundation of many churches and monasteries, among others St. John's at Monza, where the iron crown was kept and protection granted to the Irishman, St. Columbanus, founder of Bobbio (q. v.) and apostle of the religious life in Gaul, Britain, Switzerland, and Italy. Agilulf had much trouble with his dukes; who had grown haughty in their independence, and were perhaps angered at his conversion to the religion of the conquered.

The son of Adaloald was deposed and his place taken by an Arian, Ariovald, Duke of Turin. Rothari was also an Arian; during his reign the first Lombard code was published. With much carnage and devestation he overthrew Genoa and conquered the Ligurian coast. For sixty years following Rothari and until the time of Liutprand intense anarchy prevailed. During this period control was in the hands of Grimoald, Duke of Beneventum, converted through the zeal of Saint Barbatus, bishop of that town. Grimoald enlarged Rotari's code by the addition of laws concerning prescription and voting, in which the influence of Roman law is manifest, as such ideas were altogether foreign to Teutonic legislation. Liutprand finaIly overcame this anarchy. He was the greatest and perhaps the best of the Lombard princes. His legislation bears increasing traces of Christian and Roman influences. He totally suppressed paganism, introduced the right of sanctuary in churches, and forbade marriage among blood relations, etc. He was more or less mixed up in the politics of the Greek Empire against Rome; but his moderation was most praiseseworthy, and his quarrel was never against the pope as head of the Church, but as head of the government of Rome.

Liutprand and his successor Rachis were sincere and pious Catholics; Rachis even renounced the throne in favour of his brother Astulf and retired as a monk to Monte Cassino. But Astulf was of a different stamp; he seized the exarchate and the Pentapolis, and invaded the Duchy of Rome, whereupon the popes were constrained to seek aid for themselves and for the people who looked to them for protection. Constantinople was appealed to in vain; then the popes turned to the Franks. King Pepin went down into Italy and laid siege to Pavia; Astulf came to terms, but hardly had Pepin retired before Astulf was trying once more a coup de main against Rome (755) he besieged the city for two months, putting monks and farm-hands to death until Pepin returned once more (756) and again laid siege to Pavia, forcing the perjured king to pay tribute to Rome and to restore the territory he had invaded. His death forestalled further perjury, but the struggle was continued by his successor Desiderius, who placed more faith in diplomacy than arms, and sought to win the good graces of Charlemagne, Pepin's successor, by giving him in marriage his daughter Desiderata. When she was sent back to him he declared war on the pope, seized Comanchio, and hastened towards Ravenna and Rome. Charlemagne, seeing the evident dishonesty of the Longobards, went down into Italy, captured Chiusi, and besieged Desiderius in Pavia and his son in Verona. Pavia fell after a ten months' siege, Desiderius was sent to France where he was shut up in a monastery, but his son succeeded in making good his escape to Constantinople. Thus ended the Longobard Kingdom in 774. Barbarous and daring by nature, their government always remained barbarous, even after Christianity had taught their rulers some gentleness.

Treacherous and overbearing towards those they conquered the fierce warrior Longobards never united with the Italians until both had to bear together a common yoke. The popes did all they could to prevent their domination so as to rescue what remained of liberty and the culture of Rome; to them it is due that in this period Italy did not utterly perish. Charlemagne took the crown and the title of King of the Longobards, and later at the division of his empire he assigned their kingdom to his eldest son, Pepin. In the constitutions he drew up each nation or people was left the use of its own laws; gradually the duchies were divided into countships, the counts being vassals iof the king, and having in turn valvassori (vassi-vassorum) who looked up to them as liege-lords, while ranking over all were the missi dominici who in the king's name saw to it that justice was meted out to everyone. Such was the feudal hierarchy. The government of the towers was in the hands of the local count, who exercised it through his representatives, to whom were added later scabini, or assessors, chosen from among the more worthy citizens. The old Lombard law, set down originally in the edict of King Rothari (636) and enlarged under later kings, was later known as the "Liber Langobardorum" or "Liber Papiensis", and eventually as "Lombarda" (Lex) was taught and commented at Bologna. The bishops ranked as vassals of the king, by reason of the church fiefs (weichbild) they held from him, but they were exempt from any other subjection.

For two centuries Lombardy followed the fortunes of the Carlovingian Empire, and eventually under Otho (964) it fell under the direct sway of the Saxon emperors. The Lombard Duchy of Beneventum, after various divisions, was conquered by the Normans in the eleventh century, while the city of Beneventum passed (1051-52) under papal sway. During this long lapse of time, however, and throughout all the struggles that marked that epoch, the sap of a new life was working in the cities of Lombardy, destined before long to take their fitting place in the story of Italy. Two main forces were at work; one the prerogative of honour that by universal consent the bishops enjoyed over the laity. When fiefs began to become hereditary in families it was to the emperor's interest to increase the number of ecclesiastical lords, seeing that they could not assert independence and that the imperial authority had some weight in the selection of their successors. The other cause was frequency of immunities and franchises. In the long struggle between the Church and the Empire concerning investitures, and during the disputed elections of popes and bishops, the opposing parties were liberal in concessions to win over the various towns to their side, and the towns were not slow in claiming payment for the obedience and loyalty they rendered to a master sometimes absent and often doubtful. At times too, the emperors, detained by affairs in Germany, did not concern themselves with Italy, and the cities drew up their own code of laws, without, however, shaking off the imperial yoke; the emperors, either through love or necessity, when they could not do otherwise, remained satisfied. Thus the cities multiplied their privileges and their population increased with the privileges on account of the security they afforded over the less protected country. In this way the comune took the place of the countship of the feudal lord. It is only too true that the communes made bad use of their early liberty, and of their budding civil and commercial life, waging war against one another through sheer greed of power, until they mutually destroyed their power.

The part played by Milan in these troubles was the most important of all. Its conflicts with Como, Pavia, and Lodi furnished pretext for the intervention of Frederick I who led two expeditions into Italy. The first brought about the destruction of Asti, Chieri, and Tortona; in the second Milan itself was besieged, forced to surrender and to renounce its claims over Lodi and Como, and to submit the names of its consuls for approval to the emperor, to whom they had to take an oath of fealty. In the Diet of Roncaglia (1158) Frederick constrained the Bolognese jurisconsults to acknowledge his supreme authority over the empire. This autocracy which destroyed the constitutions of the communes rallied the towns of Lombardy for a life and death struggle: Milan was again besieged, razed to the ground, and its inhabitants dispersed throughout the neighbouring villages (1161). But while Frederick persisted in making war on Rome, and creating antipopes, Verona, Vicenza, and Padua in 1163 formed what is known as the League of Venice, and in 1167 the Lombard League, or the League of Pontida, was set on foot between Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, and Mantua to oppose the inroads of Germany and to defend their own civil and religious liberties, as well as to assert their loyalty to the legitimate pope. Milan was rebuilt and in 1168, Alessandria (called after Alexander III) was founded in opposition to Pavia, which persistently sided with the emperor. Finally in 1176 at Legnano, the Milanese assisted by the Brescians, Novarese, Vercellese, and Piacentians, defeated the imperial troops; and Frederick was glad to make peace with the pope and the Lombards. At Venice a truce of six years was concluded, and confirmed by the Treaty of Constance (1183), which recognized the franchises of the communes, their right to free election of consuls, to administer justice according to their own laws, and to assess taxes, so that they came to be as it were vassal states, which recognized the supreme overlordship of the emperor. Once the struggle for freedom was over, the communes began once more their unfortunate rivalries, and they found only too ready an occasion in the endless struggles between Guelphs and Ghibellines. Milan, Brescia, and nearly all the communes in which the burghers held control, were on the Guelph side; those wherein the nobles and the classes privileged by the emperors had the upper hand, like Pavia and Cremona, declared for the Ghibellines. From these civil dissensions a few changes in the constitution of the communes arose, the principal one being the creation of the podesta, or chief magistrate, necessitated by the urgency of putting an end to the dispute arising from the political and judicial powers exercised by the consuls.

The podesta was elected by the general assembly of the people, and had to be a foreigner, that is, a citizen from some other commune; he belonged to the same political colour and had to be of knightly family. He sat in judgment in all criminal cases, saw that sentences were carried out, commanded the army, and declared war or peace. Hence arose the prominence of certain families, especially when the same citizen was chosen by more than one town, and this led to dictatorships which gave rise to the signorias, to be found in the towns of Lombardy and elsewhere. The league of the communes was a thorn for the empire and in 1220 Frederick II tried once more to break it and to conquer the Guelph republics of Lombardy. To prevent assault, when Frederick came in 1225 to hold a diet at Cremona, the cities of Lombardy formed another league at San Zeno di Mosio in the neighbourhood of Mantua. The emperor placed the confederate towns under a ban, and with the help of a Saracen army, which he brought from Sicily, and of the troops of the Ghibelline cities, despite the interposition of Honorius III and Gregory IX, he laid waste the country of the League, and in 1247 defeated it at Cortenova. But his victory was of small avail. In vain did he besiege Brescia; Genoa and Venice rallied to the League, which had its revenge at Parma and elsewhere, until Frederick died excommunicated in 1250, and the Lombards could draw breath. In the period that follows we find the more powerful families quartering themselves in the various cities. The Torriani and the Visconti at Milan; the San Bonifacios and the Scaligers at Verona; the Vitali and the Rusconi at Como; the Este at Ferrara; the Bonaccolsi at Mantua; the Correggeschi at Parma, etc.

Among these the Visconti quickly became the most powerful and for two centuries were lords of Lombardy. At first they sought to have themselves appointed imperial vicars whenever the emperors were formidable or were coming into Italy, as did Henry VII and Louis the Bavarian; but afterwards they cared little for the emperor and acted as though independent lords. Matthew I, styled the Great, was created lord in perpetuity in 1295, had himself made count in 1311, placed himself at the head of the Ghibellines and added to his dominions Pavia, Bergamo, Piacenza, and Tortona. Seventy years later Gian Galeazzo ruled over the whole of Lombardy including Parma and Riggio, to which he added Verona and Vicenza which he took from the Scaligers, and Bologna, Siena, and Pisa, and then he purchased from the Emperor Wenceslaus the title of duke. He gave his daughter, Valentina, in marriage to Louis I, Duke of OrlÈans, brother of Charles VI of France, and as a dowry he gave her the cities of Asti and Cherasco, which later formed the basis of the pretensions of France to rights over the country around Milan. At the death of Filippo-Maria in 1447 without heirs other than a daughter, married to Sforza, a condottiere of mercenary troops, of whom there were many in Italy, Sforza succeeded him in 1450 and thus began a new dynasty that lasted nearly a century. About this time France began to assert its claims. Louis XII and Francis I occupied the duchy, driving out Ludovico il Moro and Maximilian his son. Emperor Charles V drove back France at the battle of Pavia, and restored Milan to the Sforzas, but only for a short time, as Francis, the last son of Ludovico, died without issue in 1535. Then the duchy became a fief of Spain, and as such it remained till 1706 when it passed to Austria, which took possession of it during the War of Succession, at the death of Charles II. A few years later the death of Emperor Charles VI of Austria reopened the War of Succession, and Milan fell into. the hands of the Spaniards (1745); at the peace of 1748 it was given back to Austria, which held it until the outbreak of the French Revolution, when Bonaparte established there the Cisalpine Republic and later the Kingdom of Italy. At the fall of Napoleon it went back to Austria and together with the territory of the Venetian Republic it made up what was known as the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom. The wars of Piedmont, allied with France in 1859 and with Prussia in 1866, took away Lombardy and Venice from Austria, and helped to make the present Kingdom of Italy.

The earliest historian of Lombardy is PAULUS WARNEFRID (730-797), known as Paulus Diaconus, a Benedictine of Monte Cassino, and chancellor of King Desiderius. His Historia. Langobardorum is an important authority for the traditions, customs, and political history of his people to the end of the eighth century (P.L., XCV; Mon. Ger. Hist.: Script. Rer. Langob., Berlin, 1878). See also TROYA, Codex diplom. Longobard. (Naples, 1852), and besides the histories of LEO, HARTMANN, CANTÙ, SCHMIDT, and others, the valuable work of. HODGKIN, Italy and her Invaders, V-VI (London, 1895); POUPARDIN, Hist. des principautÈs lombardes de l'italie mÈrid. (Paris, 1907); IDEM, Instit. polit. Et adm. des princip. lombardes (Paris, 1907). For the relations of the Roman Church with the Lombards see Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE (Paris, 1885), passim, and DUCHESNE, Les Èvîchís d'Italie et l'invasion lombarde in MÈlanges d'archÈol. et d'hist., XXIII, XXIV (Paris, 1903); also CRIVELLUCCI, Le chiese cattoliche ed i Lombardi ariani in Studi Storici, IV (6), XIII. On the Lombard communes see DANTIER in Revue Europíenne, 1859, III-IV, and WILLIAMS, The Communes of Lombardy, VI to X century, in Johns Hopkins, Univ. Hist. Studies (Baltimore, 1891). The medieval chroniclers of Lombardy are to he found in MURATORI, Script. rer. Ital. (1725), 28 vols., folio, passim; see also the Mon. Germ. Hist., the Hist. Patria Monumenta, and the Archivo Storico Lombardo-Veneto (Milan, 1874, sqq.). For Lombard art see MALVEZZI, Le glorie dell'arte Lombarda (Milan, 1892), 590-1850, also the histories of ecclesiastical art by KRAUS, KUHN, and others. On the medieval financial operations of the Lombards see PITOU, Les Lombards en France et à Paris (1892), and all economical histories of the Middle Ages, e.g., CUNNINGHAM, Western Civilization.

PAOLO SILVA

Etienne-Charles de Loménie de Brienne

French cardinal and statesman; b. at Paris, 1727; d. at Sens, 1794. He was of noble lineage, studied at the Collège d'Harcourt and then at the Sorbonne, where, in spite of certain suggestions of unorthodoxy, he was given the doctorate of theology. Ordained priest in 1752, he became successively Vicar-General of Rouen (1752), Bishop of Condom (1760), and Archbishop of Toulouse (1762). Forced by the philosophers upon Louis XVI, who feared his ambition and despised his private life, he was made in 1788 ministre principal and Archbishop of Sens, the second richest see in France. As a minister, he was popular with the Assembly of the Notables, but failed to win the Parlement over to his financial schemes, and fell after announcing the convocation of the States General for 1 May 1789. In order to offset his downfall, he succeeded by clever intrigue in gaining for himself the cardinal's hat, and in having his nephew, Martial de Loménie, appointed coadjutor of Sens. The influence and wealth attached to his see he used to have Sens made the seat of the new ecclesiastical department of Yonne -- instead of Auxerre, the natural metropolis. Having taken the constitutional oath on 30 January 1791, he drew after him a large portion of his clergy, submitted to popular election, and, being returned both in Toulouse and Sens, chose the latter place because of its being near the French capital.

When Pius VI, by a Brief of 23 February 1791, severely rebuked him for his disloyalty, he replied by renouncing the cardinalate, and was formally deposed at the Consistory of 26 September 1791. He then retired with his family to St.-Pierre-le-Vif, a confiscated abbey which he had purchased from the spoliators and shamefully desecrated, and there awaited events. Owing to his nobility, wealth, and ecclesiastical rank, he was naturally made the object of denunciations. For a time his prodigality in bribing the local authorities saved him from harm. On 15 November 1793, when the Convention was at its fiercest, and denunciations meant imminent danger, he apostatized for safety's sake, but was nevertheless arrested on 18 February 1794. The following day he was found dead in his prison -- some say from suicide, and some from a stroke of apoplexy. His nephew and former coadjutor, Martial de Loménie, who had also apostatized, was sentenced to death on 10 May 1794, but the Christian fortitude of Madame Elisabeth and the warm exhortations of the dean of Sens, both of whom were in the same van with him, softened his heart, and he died repentant. Loménie de Brienne was a member of the French Academy. The "Canal de Brienne," which connects the river Garonne with the Canal du Midi, is called after him. He wrote the "Oraison funèbre du Dauphin" (Paris, 1776), "Compte rendu au Roi" (Paris, 1788), and, in collaboration with Turgot, "Le Conciliateur" (Paris, 1754).

Perrin, Le card. Lomènie de Brienne (Sens, 1896); Fisquet in France pontificale: Métropole de Sens (Paris, s.d.); Pisani in Répertoire biographique de l'Episcopat constitutionnel (Paris, 1907), s.v.; Monin in La Grande Encyclopedie, s.v.

J.F. SOLLIER

London

London, the capital of England and chief city of the British Empire, is situated about fifty miles from the mouth of the Thames, Lat. 51°30', Long. 0°5'. The word London is used in widely different senses for administrative purposes:--

• The City of London, with a population of 26,923, occupying an area of 668 statute acres, little more than one square mile.
• London, as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act, now the County of London, with a population (last census 1901) of 4,536,541 and an area of 75,462 statute acres, or about 117 square miles. London district as referred to in the Registrar-General's Tables of Mortality coincides very nearly with this.
• London, in reference to the Parliamentary Boroughs, has a population of about 4-1/2 millions and an area of about 80,126 statute acres, or 125 square miles.
• London, as the Metropolitan Police District, together with the City has a population of 6,581,372 and an area of nearly 700 square miles. It extends over a radius of 15 miles from Charing Cross.
• London, as an Anglican diocese, comprises Middlesex, Essex, and part of Hertfordshire.

London will here be treated under the following heads: I. General History. II. Ancient Catholic Diocese. III. London Catholics after the Reformation. IV. Modern Civil Administration.

I. GENERAL HISTORY

Pre-Norman Times

The origins both of the name and the very existence of the "great burh, Lundunaborg, which is the greatest and most famous of all burhs in the northern lands" (Ragnar Lodbrog Saga) lie hidden in antiquity. Both name and town alike are popularly accounted for in the wonderful legend of Geoffrey of Monmouth which found wide credence in the Middle Ages. According to this, Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas who was the son of Venus, founded this city after the fall of Troy, eleven hundred years before Christ came, and called it Troynovant, or New Troy. And after a thousand years there reigned King Lud who built walls and towers to his city, and whose name yet lives in Ludgate; so that the town was called Câer Lud. Thus Lud's-Town became London. But in the light of topography this legendary explanation must give way to the natural derivation from Llyn-din, the Lake-fort. For the nucleus of London, the ground which the city proper still occupies, was composed of two hills rising with steep sloping sides from the north bank of the Thames, separated from each other by the stream known later as Walbrook, and shut in on the north by the great moor and fen the memory of which survives in the names Moorfields and Finsbury.

The river Fleet bounded the western hill on its western side, and all around lay the marshes through which the Thames flowed, not shut in by embankments, but at high water flooding all the low lying land and making it one vast lake. From this lake rose a few islets known still to us by place-names in "ey" or "ea" such as Bermondsey, Thorney, Battersea, and Chelsea. The western island, that between the rivers Walbrook and Fleet with the eminence now crowned by St. Paul's cathedral, was the site of a British settlement which existed before the coming of the Romans. The discovery of prehistoric remains and some inscribed coins of Cymbeline have established the fact of this pre-Roman city against the theories of J. R. Green (Making of England), Dr. Guest (Origines Celticae), and some others. It probably was a collection of round thatched cottages built of clay and branches and surrounded by an earthwork which enclosed about one hundred acres. In time the Thames brought the boats of traders and it became a place of primitive trade and commerce. This was probably its condition when the Romans arrived in A.D. 43. Unless it had already been established as a known mart it is difficult to believe that by the year A.D. 61 when it finds its first mention in history in the "Annals" of Tacitus it could be described as "Londinium, not dignified with the name of a colony but celebrated for the gathering of dealers and commodities". (Annals, A.D. 61.)

The Roman settlement seems to have been first made on the eastern hill, to the east of Walbrook. Here they built their fortress, a walled enclosure such as that still surviving at Richborough. Under the protection of this the town grew in size and became a busy mercantile centre, with the villas of its wealthier citizens, traces of which are still discovered, lying round its citadel. For nearly four hundred years it formed the Roman city of Augusta, though the old Celtic name still survived. During this period it was captured by Boadicea who massacred the inhabitants (A.D. 61), was restored by the Romans, was the scene of the successive usurpations of Carausius (286) and Allectus (293), and of the defeat in battle of the last named. During the latter part of the Roman occupation it was Christianized. The fact that all the churches in Thames Street, the oldest part of the city, were dedicated to the Apostles and not to later saints, suggests that they occupied the sites of early Christian churches. In 314 Restitutus, Bishop of London, was present at the Council of Arles, and legend purports to have preserved the names of several of his predecessors and successors (Geoffrey of Monmouth), a claim which the modern historian, Dr. Stubbs (Episcopal Succession), treats with respect.

When the Saxons drove out the Romans and Britons during the fifth century, London was one of the few places which preserved a continuous existence. Probably it had fallen into the hands of the East Saxons before 571 (Lethaby, op. cit. inf., 29-31). In 604 St. Mellitus was sent by St. Augustine to be the first Bishop of London of the restored hierarchy, and with him begins the line of bishops that lasted nearly a thousand years (see list of bishops below). In the time of St. Mellitus the cathedral church of St. Paul and the abbey church of St. Peter at Westminster were founded. But little is known of London during early Saxon times. It suffered much from fires and much from the Danes, being sacked by the latter in 839 and again in 895. Under Alfred however the Londoners defeated the Danes and enjoyed a period of prosperous tranquillity, so that by the time of Athelstan, his grandson, London required as many as eight moneyers, to produce the necessary coinage. But in the eleventh century the Danes again harassed it and it suffered much in the struggle between Canute and Edmund Ironside, though it retained its wealth, as during the reign of Canute one-seventh of his entire revenue came from London. From this time it disputed with Winchester the priority among English cities. St. Edward the Confessor during his reign (1042-1066) resided chiefly at Westminster where he rebuilt Westminster Abbey, in which his relics are still enshrined. In this minster the coronation of all English sovereigns takes place, and it is the national burying place for great men, statesmen and warriors lying in the north transept, "Poets' corner" occupying the south transept, while nearly thirty kings and queens rest in the choir and side chapels.

London under the Normans

After the Battle of Hastings the citizens of London, after an indecisive engagement with the troops of William the Conqueror in Southwark, submitted to him at Berkhamstead (Herts), and he was crowned in Westminster Abbey. In a charter of four and a half lines addressed to the bishop, the portreeve, and the burgesses, he declared that: "I grant them all to be law-worthy as they were in the days of King Edward, and I grant that every child shall be his father's heir after his father's days and I will not suffer any man do you wrong." Not trusting the citizens, however, William built the White Tower, the keep of the Tower of London, to overawe them, and also Baynard's Castle at the western extremity of the city. London at this time consisted of a collection of low wooden houses thatched with reeds or straw, thus affording combustible material for the numerous and destructive fires which frequently broke out, as in 1087 when the greater part of the city, including St. Paul's, was burnt. Bishop Maurice immediately began a new cathedral which was one of the largest churches in Europe being 600 feet long. It contained the shrine of St. Erconwald to which great crowds of pilgrims journeyed, reaching the cathedral by the thoroughfare still called Pilgrim Street.

At this time a period of building activity set in during which London was enriched with many churches, religious houses and public buildings erected in stone. William Rufus built Westminster Hall, the Tower ramparts and a new London Bridge to replace that which was washed away by the great floods in 1091. In 1100 the citizens obtained a new charter from Henry I, which was confirmed by Stephen in 1135. In Henry's reign many religious houses were built, including the Priory of St. John of Jerusalem at Clerkenwell, and the Priory of St. Bartholomew founded by Rahere in Smithfield, the noble church of which still survives. The Knights Templars established themselves in Holborn in 1118, removing to Fleet Street later in the century, where the Temple church (consecrated 1185) yet remains. Another great fire broke out in 1136, destroying the city from Ludgate, then the west end of the town, to St. Paul's. The Civil War between Stephen and Matilda with which the Norman period was brought to a close marked the epoch at which London rose to the position of a capital. For unlike Winchester it did not suffer in the war, and when Matilda deprived it of its charters the citizens rose and drove her from their city.

London under the Plantagenets

Under Henry II, who viewed the Londoners with disfavour owing to their repulse of his mother, we have our first contemporary account of London, the vivid description of Fitzstephen, monk of Canterbury, and friend and biographer of St. Thomas. He tells us of a city walled round with the White Tower on the east and Montfichet and Baynard's Castle on the west where Blackfriars now is. There are seven double gates, Aldgate, Bishopsgate, Cripplegate, Aldersgate, Newgate, Ludgate, and the Bridge. Two miles up the river lay the Royal Palace and Abbey of Westminster connected with the city by the riverside thoroughfare called the Strand. He describes the wealth and power of the citizens, and grows enthusiastic over the plenty in the markets, the Chepe -- now Cheapside -- Eastcheap, Billingsgate, and Dowgate. The various trades were assigned their own localities as the ancient surviving names tell us, -- Milk Street, Bread Street, Wood Street, Fish Street, Poultry Street, and others. Friday Street was the market for Friday fare -- dried fish. In the Chepe were the mercers, goldsmiths, armourers, glovers, and many others. He lingers with delight on the sports of the young citizens, hunting in Middlesex Forest, wrestling, leaping, and playing at ball; and in winter skating and sliding on frozen Moorfields. He describes the beautiful garden and houses occupied by the prelates and barons when they were summoned to great councils by the king. Above all he bears witness to the orderly government and careful social observance practiced. "I do not think that there is any city with more commendable customs of church attendance, honour to God's ordinances, keeping sacred festivals, almsgiving, hospitality, confirming, betrothals, contracting marriages, celebration of nuptials, preparing feasts, cheering the guests, and also in care for funeral and the interment of the dead. The only pest of London are the immoderate drinking of fools and the frequency of fires" ("Descriptio nobilissimae civitatis Londiniae" in preface to "Vita St. Thomae").

The city then contained thirteen larger conventual churches and one hundred and twenty-six parish churches. In 1176 Peter of Colechurch, a priest, began the rebuilding of London Bridge with stone. It took thirty-three years to build and lasted for seven hundred years. At this time the city was governed by a portreeve, two sheriffs, and the aldermen of the various wards. In 1189 Henry Fitz-alwyne became the first Mayor of London under the title of "bailiff" and he held the office till 1212. During his tenure of office the citizens obtained from King John a charter empowering them to elect a lord mayor annually. They had previously obtained from Richard I jurisdiction over and conservancy of the Thames. In 1189 the court of aldermen decreed that in future houses should be built of stone instead of wood so as to check the disastrous fires, but wooden houses continued to be built, though by this time they were plastered and whitewashed. During the thirteenth century the conventual establishments were increased by the coming of the friars, who unlike the Benedictines and Augustinians, preferred to live in the midst of cities. The Dominicans established themselves in Holborn (1221), and in the district still bearing their popular name, Blackfriars (1276), on which occasion the city boundaries were enlarged so as to include their property. The Franciscans (Grey friars) settled in Farringdon Without in 1224; the Carmelites (White Friars) near Fleet Street (1241); the Austin friars in Broad Street Ward (1253); the Crutched friars (1298). The same period witnessed the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey, begun by Henry III in 1245 and finished in 1295, and of St. Paul's where a new Gothic choir was begun in 1240, and other additions including a tower were made till in 1315 the cathedral was complete. Another noteworthy church of this period was St. Saviour's, Southwark (1250). In 1285 the citizens were deprived by Edward I of their right of electing the lord mayor and they did not regain it till 1297. In 1290 the Jews, who since the time of William the Conqueror had lived in what is still called Old Jewry, were expelled from England.

The fourteenth century was signalized by the great plague of 1349 which carried off one-half of the entire population of England. Close to the spot where many of the victims were buried Sir Walter Manny built the Charterhouse in 1371. The remains of this Carthusian house are the only extensive monastic buildings of medieval London which have survived the Reformation and the Great Fire. In 1381 the peace of London was disturbed by Wat Tyler's rebellion when much damage was done in the city till the citizens arrayed themselves in arms against the rebels and for the defence of the king. The close of the century witnessed the first mayoralty of Sir Richard Whittington, the popular hero of London and a munificent benefactor to the city. He filled the office three times (1397, 1406 and 1419) and built Newgate, Christ's Hospital and a considerable part of St. Bartholomew's hospital as well as the chapel and library at the Guildhall. Contemporary with him was one of London's greatest sons, Geoffrey Chaucer, who died at Westminster (1400). The fifteenth century witnessed little development in London. Repeated attacks of plague, especially that in 1407, checked the growth of the population. In 1411 the Guildhall was rebuilt, and during the century the walls and gates were strengthened. That this was a wise precaution in a disturbed age is shown by the failure of the attack on London during the Wars of the Roses when Thomas Neville assaulted each gate in succession and was repulsed at every one. In 1473 Caxton set up the first English printing press at Westminster, and was soon followed by Wynkyn de Worde, Pynson, and other great printers. The usurpation of Richard III and the murder of Edward V and his brother in the Tower (1483) were the last events in the history of London under the Plantagenets.

London under the Tudors

The opening of this period was marked by repeated outbreaks of the "sweating sickness" which was so common in England that it was known as the Sudor Anglicanus. This first appeared in 1485 and broke out again in 1506, 1517, 1528, and 1551, carrying off thousands at each visitation; while in 1500 thirty thousand Londoners fell victims to the plague. Nevertheless the city continued to prosper under the firm Tudor rule, and frequent royal pageants were seen in its streets. Henry VII added to Westminster Abbey the finest building in the Perpendicular Style in England. His chapel was begun in 1502 and finished in 1517. In 1512 the royal palace at Westminster was burnt, and Henry VIII was left without a London residence until in 1529 he took possession of Wolsey's palace, York Place, and renamed it Whitehall. In 1530 he began to build St. James's Palace.

And now a great change was in store for London, though it came about little by little. In 1534 Henry obtained the schismatical Act of Parliament abolishing the authority of the pope, and in the following year the Act of Supremacy gave him the title "Supreme Head of the Church in England." London was reddened with the blood of martyrs; the Carthusians of the London Charterhouse, Blessed John Fisher and Blessed Thomas More suffered in the summer of 1535. Others followed in succeeding years. In 1536 the smaller religious houses were suppressed; in 1539 the greater monasteries fell. The Benedictine Abbeys of Westminster and Bermondsey; the Cistercians of St. Mary Graces; the Augustinians of the Priories of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, Holy Trinity, Aldgate, and St. Mary Overy, Southwark; the convents at Clerkenwell, Holywell, St. Helen's Bishopsgate, Kilburn, and Stratford, and all the houses of the friars were seized by the king and the religious were dispersed. On Henry's death (1547) things went from bad to worse. Protector Somerset and the Reformation party were in the ascendant, the substitution of English for Latin was ordered in all the churches, and crucifixes and images were pulled down. All property belonging to colleges and chantries were seized for royal uses, and even the great city guilds which held lands for the purposes of providing stipends for priests, obits, and lights, had to redeem such lands at a total cost of 20,000 pounds, and to apply the rents arising therefrom to other charitable purposes.

The Catholic life of London thus received blow after blow. There can be little doubt moreover that a considerable section of the populace was in sympathy with the Reformers, a fact which was largely due to the frequent communication between London and the Continent. The brief Catholic revival under Mary met with considerable opposition in London, and comparatively little had been done in the way of restoration when the accession of Elizabeth, in 1558, led to the complete overthrow of the Catholic religion. From the feast of St. John Baptist on 24 June, 1559 the Mass was forbidden and the Holy Sacrifice ceased to be offered in London churches; St. Paul's cathedral under the energetic influence of Bishop Bonner being one of the last where Mass was said. The bishop himself and many of his clergy were imprisoned and after the excommunication of Elizabeth, in 1570, the martyrdoms began again, reaching their height in point of numbers in 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada. From this time forward London became a Protestant city and the history of the dwindling number of Catholics will be described later.

It is at this time that the first maps of London were produced. Anthony van den Wyngaerde produced his panorama between 1543 and 1550. Probably the first actual map is that of Hoefnagel, sometimes known as Braun and Hogenberg's map from the work in which it appeared. It is dated 1572. Others give priority to the undated map, attributed to Agas, which must have been made between 1570 and 1600. The city at this time was at the height of its prosperity. The brilliant Court of Elizabeth attracted men of action and men of letters, so that there never was a time when London held more distinguished Englishmen. Theatres now began to be built, though always outside the city boundaries: the "Theatre" and the "Curtain" at Shoreditch; the "Globe", "Rose" and "Hope" on the Bankside. There was also a theatre at Blackfriars. In 1566 the Royal Exchange was founded by Sir Thomas Gresham, receiving its name from Elizabeth in 1571. Attempts were now made to restrict the growth of London, but in vain, for its ever-increasing material prosperity made it a centre which drew men from all sides. Moorfields was drained and laid out as a pleasure-ground. The wealthier citizens began to build country houses, while courtiers built mansions in the neighbourhoods of Westminster, Whitehall, The Strand, and Lincoln's Inn Fields. This extension of the city led to the beginnings of a regular water-supply, the water being conveyed from the Thames in leaden pipes. The river itself was then the great highway of London, the streets being unmade and often foul and muddy. Drainage and refuse alike poured into the river and the question of a fresh water supply became an urgent one, especially in view of the rapid growth of London. To meet the want, Sir Hugh Myddleton devised and executed a wise scheme by which he provided London with a canal which brought water from Hertfordshire. This was completed in 1613. The population of London in the last years of Elizabeth was estimated at 145,000.

London under the Stuarts

Between 1603 and 1714 a very great change came over London, for during this period the centre of social life slowly passed from the City to the west end of town, leaving the City as the centre of municipal and commercial life only. The suburbs grew until they became a vast town encircling this centre, and many times larger and more populous. Little by little the old walls were pulled down and many of the open spaces were covered with a network of streets many houses in which were now built of brick. Pavements for foot-passengers were also introduced. During the Civil War, London was the strength and mainstay of the Parliamentarians, and new fortifications consisting chiefly of earthworks were necessary. The execution of Charles I, which took place at the banqueting hall of the royal palace of Whitehall, in presence of vast crowds of Londoners, was a memorable event in London history. It was followed by the Commonwealth, during which Jews were allowed by Cromwell to return to London, and in 1660 by the Restoration when the separation between the fashionable court life of the West End and the commercial life of the City was completed. In 1664 London was stricken by the Great Plague, last and worst of the pestilences, which raged with increasing violence throughout the following year. The number of victims is not known for certain. Nearly 70,000 deaths from plague were actually registered, but in this time of horror the registers could not be efficiently kept, and it is probable that at least 100,000 persons perished. A year after the plague had ceased, in 1666, the Great Fire occurred when for three days the whole city was in flames. It is not easy to overestimate the damage caused by this conflagration in which almost all the remains of medieval London were destroyed. The great Gothic cathedral and eighty-six of the old Catholic churches perished, together with the palaces and mansions of the City and the dwellings of the citizens. One good result ensued: the seeds of the plague were destroyed and the old insanitary streets were no more. In rebuilding the City a great opportunity was lost. For Wren's noble plan was not adopted and the old lines of streets were adhered to, though the new houses were all of brick. Owing to this decision, many of the ancient topographical and historical associations have been preserved, it is true, but at the cost of both appearance and convenience.

In 1675 Wren began the rebuilding of St. Paul's which was not finally completed till 1711. Built in the classical style its beauty lies in its proportions and in the noble and massive simplicity of the great dome which lifts the cross 404 feet above the pavements of London. In it lie buried Nelson, Wellington, and others chiefly of military and naval renown, though many famous painters and musicians are also interred there. Besides this masterpiece Wren designed thirty-five of the new City churches all distinguished by their fine steeples or towers and the harmonious proportions of their interiors, enriched as they are also by the noble carving of Grinling Gibbons. In 1671 the Monument was erected to commemorate the fire; it is a noble column 202 feet high, originally disfigured by an inscription explaining that the fire was "begun and carried on by the treachery and malice" of the Catholics, a calumny which was deservedly pilloried in Pope's lines:--

"Where London's column, pointing to the skies,
Like a tall bully lifts its head, and lies."

The offensive inscription was removed during the reign of James II, but having been replaced after the Revolution was finally obliterated in 1831, consequent on the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. By the time of the Revolution London was acknowledged as the greatest capital in Europe and boasted half a million inhabitants. In 1694 the Bank of England was founded, and in 1698 the old palace of Whitehall was burnt down. The rebuilding of London was still proceeding when the century drew to a close.

London in the Eighteenth Century

London under the Hanoverian kings lost the beauty it formerly had and became a vast collection of houses, plain but comfortable, a condition from which it is only now successfully emerging. There was a great extension of building in the West end and in the neighbourhoods of Bloomsbury, Marylebone, and May Fair, but unfortunately the architecture of the period was heavy and tasteless. At this time many hospitals were founded or rebuilt to meet the wants of the increasing numbers of the poor. Among these were Westminster Hospital (founded 1719), Guy's (1725), St. Bartholomew's (rebuilt 1730-1733), St. Thomas's (1732), the London Hospital (instituted 1741), and the Middlesex Hospital (1745). Besides these, that noble charity the Foundling Hospital was instituted in 1738 and was moved to the present building in 1754.

Till this time London had only one bridge, but in 1738 Westminster Bridge was begun and in 1750 it was opened. Blackfriars Bridge followed in 1769. In 1758 the houses on London Bridge had been demolished and shortly after, five of the old city Gates, Moorgate, Aldersgate, Aldgate, Cripplegate, and Ludgate, were pulled down. The Westminster Paving Act, passed in 1762, introduced many improvements in the thoroughfares; pavements were laid, and obstructions removed from the streets. About this time people commenced to place their names on their doors and the system of numbering houses began. There was, however, indescribable squalor and filth in many parts of the town, as may be seen in the pictures of Hogarth, and the moral corruption of the people was indescribable. The term "Rookery" was by no means unapt. The city had many troubles to encounter during the latter part of the century, such as the Silk-weavers riots (1765); the quarrel with the Court and Parliament about the election of John Wilkes (1768), and the terrible Gordon Riots (1780) which were the outcome of the first Catholic Relief Act (1778). During the same period newspapers began to appear, several of which still exist: the "Morning Post" (1772), "Times" (1788), "Observer" (1791), "Morning Advertiser" (1794), and "Globe" (1803). This century also witnessed the rise of the British Museum (1753), the Royal Academy (1768), and the Royal Institution (1799).

London in the Nineteenth Century

In 1801 the first census was taken and showed that the total population of London was 900,000 and of the city, 78,000. As the population in 1901 was returned as 4-1/2 millions it will be seen how rapid has been the growth of London during the past hundred years. Another fact illustrating this is that during the period 1879-1909 more than 1500 miles of new streets were built. It is clearly impossible within these limits to give any but the most salient facts. In 1801 the first attempts at steam navigation were made on the Thames. The London docks were begun four years later. They cover an area of 120 acres and cost four million pounds. In 1806 three great funerals took place in London, Nelson being buried in St. Paul's, Pitt and Fox in the Abbey. In 1807 gas was first used to light the public streets, and five years later a charter was granted to the Gas Light and Coke Company, the oldest of the lighting companies. Once more there was activity in bridge building; Old Vauxhall Bridge was opened in 1811, Waterloo Bridge in 1817, Southwark Bridge in 1819, and new London Bridge, a little farther west than its predecessor, was begun in 1825 and finished in 1831. The bridges at Westminster and Blackfriars have since been rebuilt, and the magnificent Tower Bridge was opened in 1894, so that the seven chief London bridges are of nineteenth-century construction. Among the new buildings of this period were the Mint (1811), Regent Street (1813), the British Museum (1823), General Post Office (1824), while others were necessitated by the fires which destroyed the Old Houses of Parliament in 1834 and the Royal Exchange in 1838. The new Houses of Parliament, designed by Barry with much assistance from the Catholic architect Pugin, were begun in 1840, the House of Lords being opened in 1847, the House of Commons in 1852.

In the great revolutionary year of 1848 London was threatened by the Chartists, and extensive preparations were made for defence, but the movement came to nothing. Two great international exhibitions took place in the years 1851 and 1862 with useful results to the commerce of the capital. This was further helped by the development of the railways, which brought about further alterations in London and necessitated the erection of the great terminal railway stations: Euston, L.& N.W.R.; King's Cross, G.N.R.; St. Pancras, M.R.; Paddington, G.W.R.; Marylebone, G.C.R.; Waterloo, L. and S.W.R.; Liverpool St., G.E.R.; Holborn, S.E. and C.R.; Cannon St., S.E. and C.R.; Charing Cross, S.E. and C.R.; Victoria, S.E. and C.R., and L.B. and S.C.R.; London Bridge, L.B. and S.C.R.; Fenchurch St., London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. One of the immediate results of the facilities offered by railways has been the desertion of the City as a residential quarter, and the growth of the suburbs in which most business people now live, going into town daily for business and returning home at night. This separation of the commercial man's home from his business has considerably altered the nature of London family life. New inventions also helped in accentuating this change. The first London telegraph from Paddington to West Drayton was opened in 1839, and a year later penny postage was introduced. In 1843 the Thames tunnel from Wapping to Rotherhithe was opened. In 1860 the volunteer movement arose under public apprehension of a French invasion. Many other additions to the buildings and thoroughfares of London were made during Queen Victoria's reign, among them being South Kensington Museum and the Public Record Office (1856); the Holborn Viaduct (1869); the Thames Embankment (1870); the Albert Hall and Burlington House (1871); the New Law Courts (1882); the Imperial Institute (1893) and the National Portrait Gallery (1896). The important changes which took place during this time in the administration of London, the formation first of the Metropolitan Board of Works and then of the London County Council, and the creation of numerous boroughs will be described later (see MODERN CIVIL ADMINISTRATION). Since the death of Queen Victoria, in 1901, London has added but little to its history, though street improvements, such as the opening of Kingsway and Aldwych and the widening of the Strand, continue to add to the convenience and beauty of the metropolis. The opening of the cathedral at Westminster in 1903 was not only noteworthy to Catholics, but has enriched London with one more impressive architectural feature, remarkable as being the only building in the Byzantine style in the capital.

Some few historical notes on matters which have not been included in this outline of London's history may here be added, as falling more conveniently under separate heads.

The City Corporation and Guilds

In the Middle Ages the Merchant Guilds and Craft Guilds (see GUILDS, IN ENGLAND) were numerous and powerful in London. By a law of Edward III membership in a guild was a necessary condition for obtaining the freedom of the city. Thus everyone belonged to a guild, and the guilds governed the city, even electing the lord mayor. The city was divided into twenty-six wards, which still exist: Aldersgate, Aldgate, Bassishaw, Billingsgate, Bishopsgate, Bread Street, Bridge, Bridge Without, Broad Street, Candlewick, Castle Baynard, Cheap, Coleman Street, Cordwainer, Cornhill, Cripplegate, Dowgate, Farringdon Within, Farringdon Without, Langbourn, Lime Street, Portsoken, Queenhithe, Tower, Walbrook, and Vintry. Each of these wards was and is represented by an alderman originally elected annually, but since the year 1394 for life. Each alderman is, by virtue of his office, a judge and magistrate for the whole city. The aldermen were assisted by common councillors, who were first appointed in the reign of Edward I, and in 1384 they were formed into the common council. Originally each ward elected two councillors, but the number has been increased and now the wards elect various numbers from four to sixteen. In 1840 the number of common councilmen was fixed at 206. They are elected annually.

Though the common council has succeeded to the powers of the ancient "Folk Mote", that assembly is also represented by the Court of Common Hall, composed of the lord mayor, four aldermen and the liverymen of the city guilds. This body formerly elected the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, but since 1888 the election of the sheriff of Middlesex has been vested in the London County Council, and the Corporation elects two sheriffs of London. The Court of Common Hall also annually elects two aldermen who have served as sheriffs from whom the Court of Aldermen chooses the lord mayor for the coming year. Thus even now some power remains vested in the members of the guilds or, as they are now called, City Companies. Twenty-six of these companies still survive. They have but little connection with the crafts or trades whose names they bear, but they meet for social and ceremonial purposes, and for the administration of their charities, for many of them are very wealthy and contribute largely to benevolent objects, technical instruction and the like. Twelve of these guilds are known as the Greater Companies. They are:-- Goldsmiths (founded in 1327), Skinners (1327), Grocers (1345), Vintners (1363), Fishmongers (1363), Drapers (1364), Mercers (1393), Haberdashers (1448), Ironmongers (1464), Merchant Taylors (1466), Clothworkers (1480), and Salters (1530). Other important companies are Saddlers (1364), Cordwainers (1410), Armourers (1452), Barbers (1462), Stationers (1556), and Apothecaries (1615). Of these the Mercers, the first in order of civil precedence, have an income of 111,000 pounds a year, and fifteen of the companies have over 10,000 pounds a year.

The city meetings are held in the Guildhall (erected 1411, rebuilt 1789, with a Gothic facade added in 1867). It contains the great hall used for banquet and other ceremonial occasions, the common council chamber and some courts of justice. The official residence of the lord mayor, known as the Mansion House, was built in 1740. The chief civic officials are the recorder (first appointed in 1298), the chamberlain or treasurer, the town clerk, and the common serjeant. The jurisdiction and administration of the corporation is restricted to the ancient limits of the City of London which cover about one square mile. As London grew beyond these in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, the corporation made no effort to expand its activities. So greater London has now its own government, and the "City of London" is a city within a city, retaining its autonomy, but in no way controlling the rest of the metropolis. The arms of the city are argent, a cross gules charged on the first quarter, with a sword erect gules.

The Trained-bands of London

The lord mayors as heads of the corporation from the earliest days of their office exercised military command, and the corporation has always been ready to contribute grants of ships, men and money in moments of national emergency. The trained-bands formed for the defence of the city were originally divided into six regiments consisting of eight companies each. These regiments known as the Blue, Yellow, Green, Orange, White, and Red regiments, included at their full strength ten thousand men. From them emanated five regiments which hold the privilege of marching through the city with "the pomp of war", colours flying and bayonets fixed. These were 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards, 3rd East Kent (Buffs), Royal Marines, Royal West London Militia, and Royal East London Militia. The two last named were united in 1820 as the Royal London Militia which about 1880 was made the 4th Battalion Royal Fusiliers.

II. ANCIENT CATHOLIC DIOCESE

The consecration of St. Mellitus as Bishop of London by St. Augustine in 604 has already been mentioned. Venerable Bede adds that "when this province received the word of truth by the preaching of Mellitus, King Ethelbert built the church of St. Paul in the city of London where he and his successors should have their episcopal seat" (H. E., II, iii). Unfortunately we do not know whether this cathedral was built on the site of the ancient church in which the Romano-British bishops of London had previously had their seat. Of those bishops nothing is known but the list of names already referred to. Theanus, Eluanus, Cadar, Obinus, Conanus, Palladius, Stephanus, Iltutus, Theodwinus, Theodredus, and Hilarius are said by vague tradition to have been predecessors of Restitutus who attended the Council of Arles in 314, while he, it is said, was succeeded by Guitelinus, Fastidius, Wodinus, and Theonus. A century and a half had elapsed between the flight of the last British bishop and the coming of Mellitus, and after his death nearly half a century elapses before we find the name of St. Cedd (q. v.) as Bishop of the East Saxons exercising episcopal jurisdiction, though he does not seem to have been called Bishop of London. After him the line is unbroken:--

• Wine, 666
• St. Erkenwald, 675
• Waldhere, 693
• Ingwald, 705
• Eggwulf, 745
• Sighaeh, 772
• Eadbert, 774
• Eadgar, 785 or 789
• Coenwalh, 789 or 791
• Eadbald, 793
• Heathobert, 794
• Osmund, 802
• Aethilnoth, 811
• Coelberht, 824
• Deorwulf, 860
• Swithwulf, 861
• Heahstan, 898
• Wulfsige, 898
• Theodred, 926
• Byrrthelm, 953
• St. Dunstan, 958
• Aelstan, 961
• Wulfstan, 996
• Aelfhun, 1004
• Aelfwig, 1014
• Aelfward, 1035
• Robert, 1044
• William the Norman, 1051
• Hugh de Orivalle, 1075
• Maurice, 1085
• Richard de Belmeis I, 1108
• Gilbert the Universal, 1128
• vacancy, 1135
• Robert de Sigillo, 1141
• Richard de Belmeis II, 1152
• Gilbert Foliot, 1163
• Richard de Ely (Fitzneale), 1189
• William de S. Maria, 1198
• Eustace de Fauconberg, 1221
• Roger Niger, 1229
• Fulk Basset, 1242
• Henry de Wingham, 1259
• Henry de Sandwich, 1263
• John de Chishul, 1274
• Richard de Gravesend, 1280
• Ralph de Baldock, 1306
• Gilbert de Segrave, 1313
• Richard de Newport, 1317
• Stephen de Gravesend, 1319
• Richard de Bentworth, 1338
• Ralph de Stratford, 1340
• Michael de Northburg, 1354
• Simon de Sudbury, 1362
• William Courtenay, 1375
• Robert Braybrooke, 1381
• Roger Walden, 1405
• Nicholas Bubbewich, 1406
• Richard Clifford, 1407
• John Kempe, 1422
• William Grey, 1426
• Robert Fitzhugh, 1431
• Robert Gilbert, 1436
• Thomas Kempe, 1450
• Richard Hill, 1489
• Thomas Savage, 1496
• William Wareham, 1501
• William Barnes, 1504
• Richard Fitz James, 1506
• Cuthbert Tunstall, 1522
• John Stokesley, 1530
• Edumund Bonner, 1539 (schismatical)
• Nicholas Ridley, 1550 (schismatical)
• Edmund Bonner, 1553, with whose death on 5 Sept., 1569, the line of Catholic bishops of London ended.

Of this long list two stand out as canonized saints, St. Erkenwald (14 Nov.), whose shrine was the centre of devotion in the cathedral, and St. Dunstan (19 May). Another, Roger Niger, was popularly venerated as a saint. Six of the bishops became archbishops of Canterbury; St. Dunstan, Robert of Jumieges, Simon de Sudbury, Courtenay, John Kempe, and Wareham. The Saxon cathedral was burnt in 962 and rebuilt to be destroyed again in the fire of 1087. Bishop Maurice then erected a great Normal cathedral, served like its predecessors by secular canons. By the end of the twelfth century there were 30 endowed prebends and the chapter held 24,000 acres of land as its corporate property. The Norman nave was again rebuilt after the fire of 1136. Here it was that John resigned his kingdom to the pope and received it back from Pandulph as a vassal. In St. Paul's, too, the nobles offered the kingdom to Louis the Dauphin in 1216. In 1232 the Council of St. Paul's was held, when Otho, the papal legate, published the Constitutions which formed so important a part of English ecclesiastical law until the Reformation. During this time the new choir was being built and this was consecrated in 1240 in the presence of King Henry III, St. Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cardinal Otho the Legate. The cathedral was completed early in the fourteenth century by the erection of a very high steeple surmounted by a cross containing relics of the saints. In 1262 a long-standing dispute between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chapter of St. Paul's concerning jurisdiction sede vacante was settled, the agreement being that the archbishop should appoint one out of certain canons presented by the chapter to rule the diocese till the election of the new bishop. In the fourteenth century Bishop Braybrooke vainly endeavoured to suppress the abuse by which the nave of St. Paul's was used as a market and common resort for business and even for amusements. Abundant references in English literature show that this evil practice continued till the destruction of the cathedral in 1666.

Up to the early years of the fifteenth century St. Paul's had preserved its own liturgical use, known as Usus Sancti Pauli, but on 15 Oct., 1414, the Sarum Rite, then commonly used through the greater part of England, was substituted for it, and remained in use till the Reformation. The bishop presided at the greater festivals, the dean on ordinary days. The dean with the precentor, the treasurer, the chancellor, and the prebendaries formed the chapter. Next came the twelve petty canons and six vicars choral, while there were fifty chantry priests attached to the cathedral. The diocese, divided into the four archdeaconries of London, Essex, Middlesex, and Colchester, included the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and part of Hertfordshire. The foundation of St. Paul's School by Dean Colet, in 1512, was the only other important event concerning the cathedral church of London until the reign of Henry VIII. When the religious troubles began none of the cathedral clergy made any stand against the king. In August, 1538, the Great Rood and the statue of Our Lady of Grace were removed; in 1547 all the altars were demolished and the church plate and vestments were sold by the Protestant Dean May. Under Mary, Bishop Bonner was restored to his see and the Mass was again celebrated till the first year of Elizabeth. With the imprisonment of the Bishop and the deprivation of the London clergy who remained faithful to the Holy See the history of London as a Catholic diocese closes.

III. LONDON CATHOLICS AFTER THE REFORMATION

For the first few years of Elizabeth's reign the existing clergy, who became known as "Marian" priests, administered to the needs of the Catholics, saying Mass and giving the sacraments in secret. When they began to die out their numbers were reinforced by the "seminary priests" sent from the college founded by Cardinal Allen at Douai (1568), from the English College at Rome and from later foundations at Valladolid, Seville, Lisbon, and elsewhere. Under Elizabeth more than eighty priests and laymen went to martyrdom in London alone, and a far larger number perished in the various prisons. After the death of Bishop Bonner as a prisoner in 1569 there was no episcopal government, and the priests did as best they could, not only in London but throughout England. In 1598 the Holy See appointed an archpriest, George Blackwell, with jurisdiction over all England. He was succeeded in turn by George Birkhead (1608-1614) and William Harrison (1615-1621). During this period a fierce controversy divided English Catholics, some desiring and other opposing the appointment of a bishop as vicar Apostolic. The pope decided this in 1623 by appointing Dr. William Bishop (q. v.) as vicar Apostolic of England. In that same year there occurred in London the "Fatal Vespers", when a large body of Catholics and others, who were assembled at the French Embassy to hear a sermon by Father Drury, S.J, were precipitated from the upper floor to the ground, and very many of them killed. About the same time an apostate named Gee published a pamphlet, "The Foot out of the Snare", in which he gave a list of 263 priests then secretly resident in London. As there were probably others he knew nothing of, the number of Catholics must still have been very considerable, though we have no means of estimating their numbers at this period.

In 1624 Dr. Bishop died and was succeeded by Dr. Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, but his position became so difficult that in 1631 he withdrew to Paris, where he lived till his death in 1655. From that time till the accession of James II no vicar Apostolic was appointed and jurisdiction continued to be exercised by the chapter, a body appointed by Dr. Bishop and which was chosen from the most experienced priests from all parts of England. The chapter held deliberative assemblies from time to time in London. In the reign of Charles I martyrdoms had ceased altogether in London, though after the king's departure they again commenced and fourteen priests were executed then and under the Commonwealth. The Restoration brought another respite, but the Titus Oates Plot of 1678 caused a fresh outbreak of persecution and fourteen more priests and laymen were martyred at Tyburn or Tower Hill, including Ven. William Howard, Viscount Stafford, and Ven. Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh, who was the last martyr to suffer in London (1 July, 1681). The accession of James II raised new hopes among the Catholics of the metropolis and the presence of a papal envoy, Mgr. d'Adda, and the public attendance of the king and queen at Mass were evident signs of toleration. Chapels and schools were opened and Catholic writers and printers readily seized the opportunity of producing devotional and controversial works in increased numbers. Once more the Holy See appointed a vicar Apostolic of England, Bishop John Leyburn (q. v.), who was consecrated 9 Sept., 1685.

Two years later the jurisdiction was divided between him and Bonaventure Giffard, but almost immediately a fresh arrangement was made and on 30 Jan., 1688, Pope Innocent XI created four vicariates, London, Midland, Northern and Western. Bishop Leyburn became the first vicar Apostolic of the London District, which included the counties of Kent, Middlesex, Essex, Surrey, Sussex, Hants, Berks, Bedford, Bucks, and Hertford, and the islands of Wight, Jersey, and Guernsey; while in process of time they acquired jurisdiction over all British possessions in North America, of which Maryland and Pennsylvania and some of the West Indian islands contained most Catholics. Unfortunately the Revolution in the same year put a sudden and complete end to the short-lived hopes of Catholics. Chapels and schools were closed, one chapel and a printing-press were wrecked by the mob, and Catholics had to withdraw once again into concealment. A penal system was now devised to crush Catholicism without bloodshed by civil and political disabilities. With this aim fresh persecuting statutes were passed under William and Mary, under which common informers were entitled to a reward for procuring convictions, a provision which was a fruitful source of trouble for nearly a century to come. One of these laws (I William & Mary, c. 9, s. 2) required all Catholics, with certain exceptions, to take the oath of allegiance, which was so phrased as to be unlawful in conscience, or in default to be convicted of recusancy. This act, however, was not very rigorously enforced, but the penal code as a whole weighed heavily on Catholics, especially after the abortive Stuart rising in 1745.

The vicars Apostolic of the London District during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were:--

• John Leyburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1688-1702
• Bonaventure Giffard . . . . . . . . . . . . 1703-1734
• Benjamin Petre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1734-1758
• Richard Challoner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1758-1781
• James Talbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1781-1790
• John Douglass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1790-1812
• William Poynter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1812-1827
• James Yorke Bramston . . . . . . . . . . . . 1827-1836
• Thomas Griffiths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1836-1847
• (Nicholas Wiseman, pro-vicar-Apostolic . . . 1847-1848)
• Thomas Walsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1848-1849
• Nicholas Wiseman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1849-1850, when he became first Archbishop of Westminster.

The chief events concerning London Catholics during the eighteenth century were the long episcopate of the Venerable Bishop Challoner (q.v.); the petty persecution carried on by common informers (1767-1778); the First Catholic Relief Act (1778), and the Gordon Riots which broke out in consequence thereof (1780); the Second Catholic Relief Act (1791); the dissensions arising from the action of the Catholic Committee, and the influx of French émigré clergy and laity during the French Revolution. Chapels and schools now began to be opened without concealment. The refugees from Douai went to Old Hall, in Hertfordshire, where a small school had secretly existed since 1769, and there Bishop Douglass established St. Edmund's College as the place of education for the clergy of the London District. His successor opened the large church at Moorfields, which long served as the Pro-cathedral of London (1820-1865). In 1829 the Catholic Emancipation Act removed from Catholics nearly all their remaining restrictions and since then they have taken their places in Parliament, on the judicial bench, and at the bar. Among ministers of the Crown there have been Sir Charles Russell (afterwards Lord Russell of Killowen), Attorney General (1892-1894), Mr. Henry Matthews, now Lord Llandaff, Home Secretary (1885-1892), the Duke of Norfolk, Postmaster General (1885-1900), and the Marquess of Ripon, Viceroy of India (1880-1884), First Lord of Admiralty (1886), Secretary for the Colonies (1892-1895), Lord Privy Seal (1905-1908). In the High Court of Justice there have been five Catholic judges:-- Sir William Shee (1863-1868), Sir James Mathew (1881-1906), Sir John Day (1882-1901), Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England (1895-1900), and Sir John Walton (1901). Two Catholics, father and son, have attained the position of Lord Mayor of London, Sir Stuart Knill (1892-1893) and Sir John Knill (1909-1910). Since the Emancipation Act there has been an extraordinary development of Catholic life in every direction, greatly helped by two movements, the large Irish immigration in 1847 and the conversions resulting from the Oxford Movement. The increase in numbers is shown by the episcopal reports to Propaganda previous to the restoration of the hierarchy:

• 1746: 25,000 total Catholics in the London District; 60 priests (Source: Bishop Petre's Report)
• 1773: 24,450 total Catholics in the London District; 20,000 Catholics in London; 120 priests (Source: Bishop Challoner's Report)
• 1814: 68,776 total Catholics in the London District; 49,800 Catholics in London; 104 priests (Source: Bishop Poynter's Report)
• 1837: 157,314 total Catholics in the London District; 146,068 Catholics in London; 126 priests (Source: Bishop Griffith's Report)

In 1840 Pope Gregory XVI redistributed England into eight vicariates, on which occasion the London District lost Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Ten years later Pope Pius IX restored the hierarchy; the London District ceased to exist and its place was taken by the new Dioceses of Westminster and Southwark, the former including all London north of the Thames and the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and Hertford, the latter embracing London south of the Thames and the rest of the old vicariate. The progress of Catholicism since 1850 will be found under WESTMINSTER and SOUTHWARK. The prelates having jurisdiction over London since that date have been:-- Archbishops of Westminster:-- Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, 1850-1865; Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, 1865-1892; Cardinal Herbert Vaughan, 1892-1903; Francis Bourne, 1903. Bishops of Southwark:-- Thomas Grant, 1851-1870; James Danell, 1871-1881; Robert Coffin, C.SS.R., 1882-1885; John Butt, 1885-1897; Francis Bourne, 1897-1903; Peter Amigo, 1904. The following figures refer to London itself, including only the postal district:--

• Westminster: 367 priests; 92 churches and chapels (excluding convent chapels)
• Southwark: 166 priests; 64 churches and chapels (excluding convent chapels)
• Total: 533 priests; 156 churches and chapels (excluding convent chapels)

There are no means of ascertaining even approximately the total number of Catholics now in London, but it is estimated variously from 300,000 to 400,000. All other particulars will be found under WESTMINSTER and SOUTHWARK.

IV. MODERN CIVIL ADMINISTRATION

Local Government

It has already been seen that the extent of the city of London, properly so-called, was limited by the ancient walls, and that there grew up a vast new city surrounding the ancient one and gradually absorbing all the outlying villages. Until 1855 the city itself was governed by ancient charters, and the rest of the metropolis by parochial systems under various Acts of Parliament. The Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855 created the Metropolitan Board of Works, the 45 members of which were elected by thirty-nine vestries, or district boards. Originally established for the construction of sewers, it was entrusted by later Acts with very many other duties and powers, including all street improvements, the care of parks and open spaces, and the maintenance of the fire-brigade. But this new body in no way affected the City corporation, which preserved all its original rights within the City boundaries. This state of things continued until 1889, when the Local Government Act of 1888 came into operation. This Act created an administrative county of London, which covers an area of 121 square miles. The City of London was very slightly affected by the Act and is still governed by the City corporation. For non-administrative purposes, such as quarter-sessions and justices, the City and the rest of the metropolis form two counties, known respectively as the County of the City of London and the County of London.

(a) The City of London

The government of the City proper by the lord mayor, aldermen and common councilmen has already been described. The lord mayor is elected annually on 29 Sept. from the aldermen who have served as sheriffs. The electors are the "livery" consisting of the freemen of London. The new lord mayor is sworn into office on 8 Nov., and on the following day makes his final declaration of office before the Lord Chief Justice of England. The state procession on this occasion is popularly known as the Lord Mayor's Show. The City corporation retains within its proper limits its civil and criminal jurisdiction and full rights of local government. It returns two members to Parliament.

(b) The London County Council

The County of London consists of twenty-eight boroughs, each of which is ruled by a mayor and corporation -- Battersea; Bermondsey; Bethnal Green; Camberwell; Chelsea; Deptford; Finsbury; Fulham; Greenwich; Hackney; Hammersmith; Hampstead; Holborn; Islington; Kensington; Lambeth; Lewisham; Paddington; Poplar; St. Marylebone; St. Pancras; Shoreditch; Southwark; Stepney; Stoke Newington; Wandsworth; Westminster, City of; Woolwich. These boroughs form the local administrative authorities, and act as local sanitary authorities, are the overseers of the poor, collect the rates, are responsible for making, lighting, and regulating the streets, and providing public baths and libraries. But the central administration remains in the London County Council, consisting of 138 members, viz., a chairman, 19 aldermen, and 118 councillors. The powers of this council are very wide, including all duties formerly belonging to the Metropolitan Board of Works in connexion with drainage, parks and open spaces, fire-brigades, street improvements, tramways, artisans' dwellings, infant life protection, etc. Secondly, those transferred from the former county-justices with regard to reformatory and industrial schools, lunatic asylums, music and dancing licenses, coroners, etc. Thirdly, powers as to highways, supervision of common lodging-houses and licensing of slaughter-houses. Fourthly, new powers conferred by recent Acts of Parliament as to registration of electors, public health, historic buildings and monuments, suppression of nuisances, reformatories for inebriates, and the administration of Acts such as the Shop Hours Act, Employment of Children Act, and Midwives Act. Fifthly, under the Education (London) Act 1903, the Council became the authority for all public education in the county. Sixthly, powers connected with the raising and loaning of money and the sanctioning of loans required for all the local authorities in the county. Most of the business is done by committees and the Council meets weekly to consider their reports. Its annual expenditure is about 16,000,000 pounds, of which 5,000,000 pounds are spent on education. The outlay is met by two main sources of supply, capital money raised by the issue of stock, and current income raised by a county rate. The rating for the year 1908-9 amounts to three shillings in the pound (15 per cent), and the assessable value of the County of London, on 6 April, 1908, was 44,332,025 pounds.

Education

(a) London University

This university was instituted in 1836 as an examining body for conferring degrees, and was reconstituted in 1900. Since then it has possessed an "academic" department for the organization and control of higher education, and an "external" department for continuing its former functions of examining students and conferring degrees. Its teaching is conducted (i) by the University itself; (ii) by several "Schools of the University"; (iii) at other institutions in which there are "Recognized Teachers of the University". In 1900 University College (Gower Street), an institution founded in 1828 on undenominational principles, was made a "School of the University" in the faculties of arts, law, medicine, science, engineering, and economics, and on 1 Jan., 1907, it was transferred to the university of which it is now an integral part. The university also maintains the Physiological Laboratory at South Kensington and Goldsmiths' College at New Cross.

(b) Higher Education

Other institutions for higher education are King's College, founded as a Church of England establishment in 1828, also a "School of the London University", in the same faculties as University College, with the addition of theology, and Gresham College, founded in 1597 by Sir Thomas Gresham, where lectures are given in divinity, law, science, music, and medicine. Professional education is afforded in connexion with various bodies; medical schools are attached to all the great hospitals; lectures in law are given at the Inns of Court and the Incorporated Law Society; music is taught at the Royal Academy of Music (founded 1822), Royal College of Music (1883), Guildhall School of Music and elsewhere; art at the Royal Academy Schools of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, as also at the London University.

(c) Secondary Education

The chief London schools are St. Paul's and Westminster. The former was established by Dean Colet in 1512, and was removed about 1880 from St. Paul's church-yard to Hammersmith. The latter was endowed by Queen Elizabeth in 1560, and provides for forty king's scholars on the foundation in addition to the day boys. Christ's Hospital, the Blue Coat School, founded by Edward VI in 1533 [sic] with nearly 1200 children on the foundation, is now situated at Horsham; and the Charterhouse School, established by Sir Thomas Sutton in 1611, has been removed to Godalming, the site of the old school being now occupied by the Merchant Taylors School, a medieval foundation. Mention must also be made of the City of London School (founded 1835), University College School, King's College School, Dame Owen's School, Islington, the Mercers' Grammar School, and St. Olave's School, Southwark. Catholic schools include the college of the Brothers of Mercy at Highgate, the Benedictine School at Ealing, St. Ignatius's College, Stamford Hill, and the Sacred Heart College at Wimbledon, both conducted by the Jesuits, and the Salesian school at Battersea.

(d) Elementary Education

Until 1870, when a School Board for London was instituted, the only organizations for educating the poorer classes were the British and Foreign School Society (founded 1808) and the National Society (1811). Under the Education Act 1903, the London County Council became the authority for all public education, both secondary and elementary. The Education committee consists of thirty-eight members of the council and twelve co-opted members. The estimates for the year 1908-9 amounted to 5,437,908 pounds, of which 4,442,007 pounds is for elementary and 995,901 pounds for higher education. In addition to the council schools there are a large number of "provided" schools established by Catholics or by the Church of England. In 1905 there were 554,646 scholars in the council schools, 205,323 in the "provided" schools.

Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction

The High Court of Justice for the whole of England is situate in The Strand. It includes the Appeal Court and the Chancery, King's Bench, and Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Divisions. For the special requirements of London there is the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, the Court of Quarter Sessions held at Newington and Clerkenwell, the Police Courts presided over by metropolitan police magistrates, and for civil causes of minor importance the County Courts. The City of London has its own Court of Quarter Sessions, and the Lord Mayor, sitting at the Mansion House or Guildhall, has the powers of justices in petty session of a police magistrate.

Trade and Commerce

The position of London and its intercourse with every part of the world have combined to make it financially rather than commercially the world's metropolis. Being a market far removed from any great manufacturing centre, there is a great excess of imports over exports. The port of London in spite of some drawbacks is still the greatest port in the world in respect of the amount of shipping and goods which enter it. In 1907 the tonnage of British and foreign vessels engaged in the foreign trade entered and cleared was 11,160,367 tons entered and 8,598,979 tons cleared, as against Liverpool's record of 8,167,419 tons entered and 7,257,869 tons cleared. The total shipping entering it is about one-fifth of the total shipping of the United Kingdom; the value of imports one-third, and the value of exports one-fourth of the total value of the national imports and exports. Steps are now being taken for dock extension and a reconstitution of the port and dock authorities.

London Charities

Even a bare enumeration of the various charitable agencies which labour for the relief of distress in London would be beyond the limits of this article. For detailed information reference should be made to the "Annual Charities Register and Digest", which is a classified register of charities in or available for the metropolis, together with a digest of information respecting the legal, voluntary, and other means for the prevention and relief of distress, and the improvement of the condition of the poor. For Catholic charities see the "Catholic Social Year Book", and the "Handbook of Catholic Charitable and Social Works", both published by the Catholic Truth Society. As, in addition to non-sectarian organizations, every religious body has its own agencies, and the public authorities are now empowered by statute to exercise responsibilities which narrow the field of charity, there is considerable overlapping. At the present moment there is a crying need for systematic co-ordination among the various charities, and could this be effectually arranged, efficiency and economy would gain alike. Turning first to statutory provision for charitable relief, this is divided among various bodies. The administration of Poor Law relief is vested in the Board of Guardians, subject to the direction and control of the Local Government Board; the Metropolitan Asylums Board is responsible for the insane, and some classes of the sick, and the London County Council has also certain duties, especially with regard to the suitable housing of the poor. The Charity Commissioners have large statutory powers over endowed charities, but much remains to be done in the direction of remodelling some of these charitable trusts on wise principles.

Turning to voluntary charities, a very important part is played by the London Charity Organisation Society, a federation of thirty-eight district committees, and a central council. Its object is to direct into the most effectual channels the forces of benevolence. All agencies and persons interested in charity in each Poor Law Union are invited to the local district committee. These committees form centres of information, and investigate and deal with cases brought before them on the twofold principle that thorough investigation should precede relief, and that relief given should be suitable and adequate. Cases to which adequate relief cannot be supplied are left to the Poor Law. The various organizations which, in co-operation with this society, or independently, relieve distress may be divided into several classes:

• Relief in affliction, involving the care of the blind, deaf, dumb, cripples, lunatics, inebriates, idiots, imbeciles, the mentally defective, epileptics, and incurables.
• Relief in sickness, which embraces the work of the general hospitals, special hospitals, surgical aid societies, medical and surgical homes, convalescent homes, dispensaries, and nursing institutions.
• Relief in permanent distress, which includes homes for the aged and incapacitated, pensions, homes for the employed (working boys, etc.), homes for children, and day nurseries.
• Relief in temporary distress, affording shelter of various kinds, relief in money, and relief in kind.
• Reformatory relief, including reformatories, certified industrial schools, prisoners' aid societies, and institutions for fallen women.
• Miscellaneous relief, under which head may be grouped the various emigration societies, life protection societies, training farms for the unemployed, and social and physical improvement societies.

Purely Catholic charities are very numerous. The Aged Poor Society (founded in 1708), and the Benevolent Society for the Aged and Infirm Poor (established 1761) both give pensions. At Nazareth House, Hammersmith, and the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor at Notting Hill, there are homes for the aged poor. There are almshouses at Brook Green, Chelsea, and Ingatestone. Homes and orphanages for boys and girls are very numerous, and a great work is done by the "Crusade of Rescue and Homes for Destitute Catholic Children", which now maintains over a thousand children. The visiting and relief of the poor is chiefly in the hands of two societies, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Ladies of Charity. There are four Catholic hospitals: that of St. John and St. Elizabeth, in St. John's Wood, under the Sisters of Mercy; the French hospital, under the Servants of the Sacred Heart; the Italian hospital, under the Sisters of Charity; and the Hospital for the Dying, at Hackney, under the Irish Sisters of Charity. There is a home for epileptic children, under the Daughters of the Cross, at Much Hadham. There are industrial schools for boys at Manor Park; for girls, at Isleworth; a reformatory school for boys at Walthamstow; and the Prisoners' Aid Society visits Catholic prisoners and helps them on release. The charitable clubs for Catholics are too numerous to recapitulate.

EDWIN BURTON

London (Ontario)

DIOCESE OF LONDON (LONDINENSIS)

Diocese in Canada, established 21 February, 1855; see transferred to Sandwich, 2 February, 1859, transferred back to London, 3 October, 1869; comprises Middlesex, Elgin, Norfolk, Oxford, Perth, Huron, Lambion, Kent, and Essex Counties in the south-western section of Ontario, Canada. The incorporation of the city of London and its selection as the see of a new diocese in 1856 were contemporaneous. It then had a population of about 10,000, a fifth of whom were Catholics. As first bishop the Rev. Pierre-Adolphe Pinsonnault, a Sulpician, was chosen. He was born at Saint-Philippe, Quebec, 23 November, 1815, made his studies in Montreal and in Paris, and was ordained in the latter city in 1840. He was consecrated in Montreal, 13 May, 1856. On 2 February, 1859, he procured a pontifical Brief altering the title of the diocese to Sandwich, and authorizing the change of residence to that location. He resigned the see on 18 December, 1866, and died at Montreal, 30 January, 1883. As his successor, the Very Reverend John Walsh, V.G., Toronto, was chosen and consecrated on 10 November, 1867. Born in Mooncoin, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, 24 May, 1830, he was ordained priest on 1 November, 1854, and spent the years previous to his elevation to the episcopate in parish work. He was promoted to the Archbishopric of Toronto (q.v.), 25 July, 1889, and died there on 31 July, 1898. In October, 1869, he transferred his residence from Sandwich to London, and on 15 November procured from Rome a decree making London once more the name of the diocese. He began the erection of a new cathedral May, 1881, and largely increased the number of churches and institutions throughout the diocese.

The third bishop was the Rev. Denis O'Connor, a Basilian, and superior of the Assumption College, Sandwich, consecrated on 19 October, 1890. He was born at Pickering, Ontario, 28 March, 1841, and ordained priest on 8 December, 1863. Like his predecessor, he was elevated to the Archbishopric of Toronto, 24 January, 1899. To fill the vacancy thus created the Rev. Fergus Patrick McEvay, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Hamilton, was named and consecrated on 6 August, 1899. Bishop McEvay was born at Lindsay, Ontario, on 8 December, 1852, and ordained priest on 9 July, 1882. Again, Toronto made a vacancy in the See of London, for Archbishop O'Connor resigned and Bishop McEvay was transferred to Toronto, and took possession on 17 June, 1908. As fifth Bishop of London, the pope appointed on 14 December, 1909, the Very Rev. Michael M. F. Fallon, provincial of the American province of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. He was born at Kingston, Canada, 17 May, 1867, and entered the Oblate congregation at the conclusion of his course at Ottawa University. His theological studies were completed at Rome, after which he became professor and vice-rector of his Alma Mater. At the end of three years he began parish work at Ottawa continuing it at Buffalo. In 1903 he was chosen provincial of the Oblates.

The religious communities now established in the diocese are:— men: Basilians, Franciscans; women: Religious of the Sacred Heart, Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, Sisters of Loretto (Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary), Sisters of St. Joseph, Ursulines, Hospitalier Nuns of St. Joseph at Hotel Dieu, Windsor. Statistics: Priests 70 (religious 18); there are 45 churches with resident priests, and also 29 missions with churches, total number of churches 78; 1 college, 150 students; 4 academies, 470 pupils; 85 parochial schools, 11,500 pupils; 1 orphan asylum, 75 inmates; 3 hospitals. Catholic population 60,000.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

James Longstreet

Soldier and Catholic convert. Born 8 January, 1821, at Edgefield, South Carolina, U.S.A.; died at Gainesville, Georgia, 2 January, 1904. In 1831 he moved to Alabama with his parents, and was thence appointed to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated in 1842. For his services in the Mexican War he was brevetted major and in 1852 was commissioned captain.

At the outbreak of the Civil War he resigned his commission in June, 1861, and entered the Confederate service, in which he afterwards attained the distinction of being one of its greatest fighters and of winning the unbounded confidence and affection of his soldiers. He received at once the rank of brigadier general, and participated with distinction in the first battle of Bull Run, after which he was made a major general in 1862. At Antietam (17 September, 1862) he commanded the right wing of Lee's army, and with the rank of lieutenant general he was at the head of a corps at Gettysburg (2-3 July, 1863). In the battle of the Wilderness on 6 May, 1864, he was severely wounded, but resumed his command during the siege of Petersburg.

At the close of the war he engaged in business in New Orleans, and accepted the political situation, becoming a Republican in politics. President Grant appointed him surveyor of customs at New Orleans, and later he was made supervisor of internal revenue and postmaster. In 1875 he removed to Georgia, and in 1880-81 was sent as U.S. Minister to Turkey. In 1898 he was appointed U.S. railway commissioner. He left a valuable chapter of war history in From Manasses to Appomattox (Philadelphia, 1904). He became a Catholic in New Orleans, 7 March, 1877.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Félix de Lope de Vega Carpio

Poet and dramatist, b. at Madrid, 1562; d. 23 Aug., 1635. With Lope de Vega begins the era of dramatic glory in Spanish literature of the Golden Age. He seems to have been an extraordinarily precocious child, whence the term "monstruo de la naturaleza", "freak of nature", which clung to him throughout his life. At the age of fourteen he wrote a play. Like Cervantes, he saw service in the Spanish navy, and even took part in the disastrous expedition of the Armada against England. While aboard of his vessel, he spent his spare time composing his poem "Angélica", a continuation of the adventures of that capricious lady already related by the Italian poet Ariosto in his "Orlando Furioso" Married by 1590 to Isabel de Urbina he returned to the service of the Duke of Alba, With whom he had been prior to the time of the Armada. His first wife died in 1597, and then, after some amorous adventure he contracted a second marriage, about 1600, with Juana del Guardo. By this time he had become the acknowledged arbiter of the Spanish stage, and such he remained until shortly before his death. His seconds wife died in 1612 or 1614, greatly saddened, doubtless by the immorality of her husband, constantly intriguing with this or that actress. The result of one of these liaisons, that with María de Luján, was the birth of a son, Lope Félix, who bade fair to become a good poet. About 1610 Lope had made his home at Madrid. For some time before that year, he had led a wandering life, in Valencia, Toledo, Seville, etc everywhere stimulating dramatic composition. This roving was in part due to a decree of banishment issued against him in punishment of a base libel published by him upon a certain actress and her family.

After the death of his second wife, Lope became a priest, with the express purpose of correcting the disorders of his life. Unfortunately it cannot be said that the taking of Holy orders led to improvement; his aberrations continued, and he intensified his baseness by playing the part of a poetical panderer for his patron, the Duke of Sessa. Lope was well aware of the vileness of his own behaviour, as his correspondence clearly shows; but he was too weak to reform. Retribution, however, came upon him before his end, for his heart was broken by the early death of his brilliant son Lope and the elopement of his daughter Antonia Clara with a court noble. His magnificent funeral cortege was so directed as to pass before the windows of the convent in which another daughter of his was a nun.

The fertility of Lope de Vega as an author almost surpasses belief. Practically all forms of literary composition were attempted by him. In the epic he tried his fortunes with the "Angélica", already mentioned; he repeated the experiment in "Jerusalen Conquistada", in which he sought to rival Tasso as previously he had emulated Ariosto. More successful than these,. attempts was the "Gatomaquia", which revives the spirit of the ancient "Battle of the Frogs and Mice", and therefore belongs to the category of the mock-heroic. The mythological in five poems: "Circe", "Andromeda", "Philomela", "Orfeo", and "Proserpina". He wrote several historical poems, among them the "San Isidro Labrador", celebrating the patron saint of Madrid, and the "Dragontea", an attack on the English adventurer, Sir Francis Drake. He essayed the didactic in an ars poetica, or code of literary principles, which he entitled the "Arte nueva de hacer comedias". In this he reveals his acquaintance with the strict Aristotelean rules of dramatic composition, the unities, etc., but acknowledges that, in order to cater to the popular craving of his time, he disregards those classic precepts. Furthermore, we have from him a mass of sonnets, romances (lyrics in the ballad metre), odes, elegies, verse epistles, and so on, of which some are religious in their inspiration and others profane. Thus it is that in 1602 there appeared, as part of his "Rimas", some two hundred sonnets, a number of which give expression to the poet's genuine sentiments. In 1612 there was published the "Quatro Soliloquios", full of devout expressions in verse which contrast sharply with the author's mode of life. To that same year belongs the publication of his beautiful sacred pastoral, perlaps his most finished work in point of style, the "Pastores de Belén ". Of this he himself said: "I have written I book, which I call the 'Shepherds of Bethlehem', in sacred prose and verse, after the plan of the 'Arcadia.'" The last-named is his particular contribution to the output of pastoral romances, which had begun in Spain with the "Diana" of Montemayor, and had been carried on by Cervantes in his "Galatea". Like all the pastoral romances, the "Arcadia" of Lope harks back eventually to the "Arcadia" of the Neapopolitan Sannazzaro, which established the fashion of combining prose and verse. The pastoral loves celebrated in the works of this category are conventional: the shepherds and shepherdesses are gentlemen and ladies of fashion masquerading. The whole genre is very artificial, and Lope's work is certainly so. The "Pastores de Belén" has in it the beautiful lullaby to the infant Jesus, "Pues andais en las palmas"; the whole work was dedicated to his son Carlos, who soon died. Of Lope's other compositions, besides his plays, there may be mentioned the "Filomena" (1621), the "Triunfos divinos" (religious lyrics), the "Corona trágica" (1627 — an epic in five cantos celebrating Mary, Queen of Scots), the "Laurel de Apolo" (1630 — a rhymed review and eulogy of about three hundred poets, like Cervantes's "Viage del Parnaso", uncritical and partisan), and the "Rimas de licenciado Tomé de Burguillos" (1634). The "Filomena", the first of the works just mentioned, is in part Lope's poetic defence of himself and his methods against the attacks of a certain Torres Rámila. The defence occupies its second part; the first contains, in three cantos of octaves, the fable of Filomena. Among other compositions incorporated into the volume is the prose tale, "Las fortunas de Diana". This tale was followed later by three others: "La desdicha por la honra", "La prudente venganza", and "Guzmin el Bueno", all published in 1624, along with the poem "Circe and Ulysses". Certain "Epístolas" found in the "Filomena" give information regarding Lope's life and work, and also give utterance to an attack Upon the school of Gongora.

Among the prose works, besides the tales already listed, are the "Peregrino en su patria" (1604), the "Triunfo de la fe en el Japón" (1618), and the "Dorotea" (1632). The "Peregrino" is a somewhat tedious romance of adventurous travel. It is interesting, however, for the lyrics and autos (religious plays) contained in it, and also for the list of over two hundred of his plays which the author indicates as already composed. The "Triunfo" deals with the Xaverian missions in Japan, and is devout in tone. The "Dorotea" is a dramatic novel in form. Begun in Lope's early years, it was kept by him throughout his life, and received final embellishments in his old age. It is practically an autobiography.

The real Lope of fame, however, is the dramatist, for it was as dramatist that he dominated the whole Golden Age (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). According to his own account, he composed 1500 Comedias, i.e., more than 5,000,000 verses of assonance and rhyme in all the native and the borrowed Italian measures. Besides the comedias he wrote hundreds of autos, loas (prologues, curtain-raisers), and entremeses (interludes). Of the comedias some 500 remain, and. they are made the subject of treatment in the great edition published under the auspices of the Spanish Academy by Menéndez y Pelayo. Among the convenient groupings devised by this eminent scholar are these: plays based upon matters of the Old and the New Testament; plays on lives of the saints; plays dealing with legends or devout traditions; mythological plays; plays treating of classical history; plays treating of foreign history; plays dealing with the national history; pastoral plays; chivalrous plays; romantic plays; and plays of manners. No attempt may here be made to give an idea of the nature and subject-matter of even the more striking among Lope's dramatic masterpieces. It may be said definitively that in qualities of style his dramas are deficient; they lack the finish and the evenness that only deliberation and slowly matured execution can give to a work of art. Lope's theatre is mainly one of improvisation. He wrote hastily, to answer an imperious and never sated popular demand for something new. It is remarkable that he remained ever inventive. His dramatic imagination was a gift of nature, and did not fail him no matter how much he abused it. In depth of thought he is all too often lacking; and with good sense he avoided philosophical themes, for he would I have failed in the treatment of them. Lope had the people at large in mind when he wrote. This is seen especially in his plays of manners and intrigue (Comedias de capa y espada), which represent his best dramatic achievement. The peculiarly Spanish punctilio, or point of honour, receives full consideration in these. To the part of the clown he gives great prominence. But it is the woman that becomes all important in Lope's plays; as Fitzmaurice-Kelly has said: "He placed her in her true setting, as an ideal, as the mainspring of dramatic motive and of chivalrous conduct." As leading examples of Lope's skill in the tragedy there may be mentioned "El Castigo sin Veniganza" (on the same subject as Byron's "Parisina"), and "Porfiar hasta Morir"; in the historical drama, "La Estrella de Sevilla" and "El mejor Alcalde el Rey"; in the use of the old Spanish heroic legend, "La fuerza lastimosa"; and in the comedy of manners, "El Acero de Madrid", "Amar sin Saber Quien", "La Moza del Cántaro", etc. Lope has had many imitators. Those who imitated him in Spain are legion. Among the foreigners who drew from him there may be recorded especially the Frenchmen Hardy and Rotrou, and, in more recent times, the Austrian Grillparzer.

Obras, ed. MENÉNDEZ PELAYO for the Academia Española (Madrid, 1890—); Comedias escogidas in Biblioteca de autores españoles, XXIV, XXXIV, XLI, LII, LVIII; Obras sueltas (21 vols., Madrid, 17769); Obras no dramáticas in Biblioteca de autores españoles, XXXVIII; Poesias, ibid., XVI, XXXV, XXXVI, and LII; TOMILLO AND PÉREZ PASTOR, Proceso de Lope de Vega; PÉREZ PASTOR in Homenaje á Menéndez y Pelayo, I (Madrid, 1899), 589; IDEM, Nuevos datos (Madrid, 1901); Pérez Pastor remains one of the best authorities on the life and works of Lope de Vega. RENNERT, The Life of Lope de Vega (Glasgow, London, and Philadelphia, 1904); IDEM, The Spanish Stage in the Time of Lope de Vega (The Hispanic Society, New York, 1910); FITZMAURICE-KELLY, Littérature espagnole I (Paris, 1904), especially 250 sqq. and the full bibliography on pages 478-80.

J.D.M. FORD

Francisco Lopez-Caro

Spanish artist, b. at Seville in 1598; d. at Madrid in 1662; he was a pupil of Juan de Las Roelas, the painter of the great altar-piece in the church of St. Isidore in Seville, of the "Martyrdom of St. Andrew" in the museum at Seville, and of the pictures in the university chapel. Of his pupil we know exceedingly little, save that with indifferent success he practised the art of painting in Seville until about 1660, when he went to Madrid where he spent the remainder of his life, and died in 1662. His works were mainly portraits, some of which are in private collections in Madrid, Salamanca, Granada, and Seville, but none of them is now considered of specially high merit.

FRANCISCO CARO, his son and pupil, b. at Seville in 1627; d. at Madrid in 1667; he entered the studio of Alonso Cano in Madrid, and considerably surpassed his father in ability and skill. His most important works are those representing scenes from the life of Our Lady, which adorn the chapel of St. Isidore in St. Andrew's church in Madrid; but his largest work refers to the indulgence of the Portiuncula and the jubilee of its grant. It was painted for the Franciscan convent at Segovia, and contains the portraits of the donor of the picture and of his wife, Señor and Señora de Contreras. Both father and son are spoken of in Palomino's work with high praise on account of their devotion to their faith and the serious way in which they made use of their artistic abilities.

PALOMINO DE CASTRO Y VELASCO, El Museo Pictorico y Escala (Madrid, 1715); MAXWELL, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1848); QUILLIET, Dictionnaire des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1816); HOARD, Vie Complète des Peintres Espognols (Paris, 1839).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

The Lord's Prayer

Although the Latin term oratio dominica is of early date, the phrase "Lord's Prayer" does not seem to have been generally familiar in England before the Reformation. During the Middle Ages the "Our Father" was always said in Latin, even by the uneducated. Hence it was then most commonly known as the Pater noster. The name "Lord's prayer" attaches to it not because Jesus Christ used the prayer Himself (for to ask forgiveness of sin would have implied the acknowledgment of guilt) but because He taught it to His disciples. Many points of interest are suggested by the history and employment of the Our Father. With regard to the English text now in use among Catholics, we may note that this is derived not from the Rheims Testament but from a version imposed upon England in the reign of Henry VIII, and employed in the 1549 and 1552 editions of the "Book of Common Prayer". From this our present Catholic text differs only in two very slight particulars: "Which art" has been modernized into "who art", and "in earth" into "on earth". The version itself, which accords pretty closely with the translation in Tyndale's New Testament, no doubt owed its general acceptance to an ordinance of 1541 according to which "his Grace perceiving now the great diversity of the translations (of the Pater noster etc.) hath willed them all to be taken up, and instead of them hath caused an uniform translation of the said Pater noster, Ave, Creed, etc. to be set forth, willing all his loving subjects to learn and use the same and straitly commanding all parsons, vicars and curates to read and teach the same to their parishioners". As a result the version in question became universally familiar to the nation, and though the Rheims Testament, in 1581, and King James's translators, in 1611, provided somewhat different renderings of Matthew 6:9-13, the older form was retained for their prayers both by Protestants and Catholics alike.

As for the prayer itself the version in St. Luke, xi, 2-4, given by Christ in answer to the request of His disciples, differs in some minor details from the form which St. Matthew (vi, 9-15) introduces in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, but there is clearly no reason why these two occasions should be regarded as identical. It would be almost inevitable that if Christ had taught this prayer to His disciples He should have repeated it more than once. It seems probable, from the form in which the Our Father appears in the "Didache" (q.v.), that the version in St. Matthew was that which the Church adopted from the beginning for liturgical purposes. Again, no great importance can be attached to the resemblances which have been traced between the petitions of the Lord's prayer and those found in prayers of Jewish origin which were current about the time of Christ. There is certainly no reason for treating the Christian formula as a plagiarism, for in the first place the resemblances are but partial and, secondly we have no satisfactory evidence that the Jewish prayers were really anterior in date.

Upon the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer, much has been written, despite the fact that it is so plainly simple, natural, and spontaneous, and as such preeminently adapted for popular use. In the quasi-official "Catechismus ad parochos", drawn up in 1564 in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent, an elaborate commentary upon the Lord's Prayer is provided which forms the basis of the analysis of the Our Father found in all Catholic catechisms. Many points worthy of notice are there emphasized, as, for example, the fact that the words "On earth as it is in Heaven" should be understood to qualify not only the petition "Thy will be done", but also the two preceding, "hallowed be Thy name" and "Thy Kingdom come". The meaning of this last petition is also very fully dealt with. The most conspicuous difficulty in the original text of the Our Father concerns the inter pretation of the words artos epiousios which in accordance with the Vulgate in St. Luke we translate "our daily bread", St. Jerome, by a strange inconsistency, changed the pre-existing word quotidianum into supersubstantialem in St. Matthew but left quotidianum in St. Luke. The opinion of modern scholars upon the point is sufficiently indicated by the fact that the Revised Version still prints "daily" in the text, but suggests in the margin "our bread for the coming day", while the American Committee wished to add "our needful bread". Lastly may be noted the generally received opinion that the rendering of the last clause should be "deliver us from the evil one", a change which justifies the use of "but" in stead of "and" and practically converts the two last clauses into one and the same petition. The doxology "for Thine is the Kingdom", etc., which appears in the Greek textus receptus and has been adopted in the later editions of the "Book of Common Prayer", is undoubtedly an interpolation.

In the liturgy of the Church the Our Father holds a very conspicuous place. Some commentators have erroneously supposed, from a passage in the writings of St. Gregory the Great (Ep., ix, 12), that he believed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were consecrated in Apostolic times by the recitation of the Our Father alone. But while this is probable not the true meaning of the passage, St. Jerome asserted (Adv. Pelag., iii, 15) that "our Lord Himself taught His disciples that daily in the Sacrifice of His Body they should make bold to say 'Our Father' etc." St. Gregory gave the Pater its present place in the Roman Mass immediately after the Canon and before the fraction, and it was of old the custom that all the congregation should make answer in the words "Sed libera nos a malo". In the Greek liturgies a reader recites the Our Father aloud while the priest and the people repeat it silently. Again in the ritual of baptism the recitation of the Our Father has from the earliest times been a conspicuous feature, and in the Divine Office it recurs repeatedly besides being recited both at the beginning and the end.

In many monastic rules, it was enjoined that the lay brothers, who knew no Latin, instead of the Divine office should say the Lord's Prayer a certain number of times (often amounting to more than a hundred) per diem. To count these repetitions they made use of pebbles or beads strung upon a cord, and this apparatus was commonly known as a "pater-noster", a name which it retained even when such a string of beads was used to count, not Our Fathers, but Hail Marys in reciting Our Lady's Psalter, or in other words in saying the rosary.

HERBERT THURSTON

Lorea

Titular see in the province of Arabia, suffragan of Bostra. The city figures in the different manuscripts of the "Notitiae episcopatuum" of Antioch in the tenth century under the names of Lourea, Dourea, and Lorea (Echos d'orient, II, 170; X, 95). This is all that is known concerning the city, which is not mentioned by and geographer, and the location of which is unknown.

S. VAILHÉ

Francisco Antonio de Lorenzana

Cardinal, b. 22 Sept., 1722 at Leon in Spain; d. 17 April, 1804, at Rome. After the completion of his studies at the Jesuit College of his native city, he entered the ecclesiastical state and was appointed, at an early date, to a canonry in Toledo. In 1765 he was named Bishop of Plasencia (not Palencia, as sometimes erroneously stated). The following year he was called upon to assume the difficult charge of the vast Archdiocese of Mexico. He displayed great energy in advancing not only the religious, but also the scientific and social interests of the new district confided to his care. As a monument of his beneficience may be mentioned an asylum for foundlings which he established at his own expense. He collected and published the acts of the first three provincial councils of Mexico held respectively in 1555, 1565, and 1585: "Concilios provinciales, I, II, III, de Mexico" (Mexico, 1769-70). In 1771 he himself held the fourth Mexican provincial synod. Unfortunately its decrees, which he forwarded to Madrid for confirmation, were buried in the royal archives. He also brought together valuable historical documents relating to the profane and religious history of Mexico and published them in a richly illustrated work under the title, "Historia de Nueva Espana" (Mexico, 1770). In 1772 the indefatigable archbishop was recalled to Spain and placed at the head of the Archdiocese of Toledo. He built a great library for this city and collected the works of the principal writers of the Church of Toledo. These writings appeared in a magnificent edition, "SS. Patrum Toletanorum opera" (Madrid, 1782-93). He likewise published a new and very beautiful edition of the Gothic or Mozarabic Breviary, "Breviarium Gothicum" (Madrid, 1775), and Mozarabic Missal, "Missale Gothicum" (Rome, 1804). In the introductions to these publications he discussed with great erudition the Mozarabic liturgy. Editions of Spanish conciliar decrees, the Roman Catechism, and the Canons of the Council of Trent also engaged his attention, and the works of Isidore of Seville were published at his expense by the Spanish Jesuit, Arevalo: "S. Isidori Hispalensis Opera Omnia" (Rome, 1797-1803).

Along with these scientific pursuits he actively carried on social work, founding hospitals and asylums and extending a helping hand to the needy. During the French Revolution he was a generous benefactor of the exiled French clergy, over five hundred of whom he received into his own diocese. In 1789 he was created cardinal by Pius VI, and in 1797 was appointed envoy extraordinary from Spain to the Holy See. In this capacity he supported the pope in the difficulties attendant on the French invasion. On the death of Pius VI he made possible the holding of the conclave at Venice (1 Dec., 1799) by providing travelling expenses for some of the cardinals who were utterly penniless. He accompanied the newly elected pope, Pius VII, to Rome and in order to remain at his side resigned in 1800 his archiepiscopal see. No less active at Rome than at Mexico or Toledo, he was in 1801 one of the founders of a new Catholic Academy in the Eternal City. An inheritance of 25,000 scudi which fell to him he assigned to the poor, whom he designated as his heirs.

N.A. WEBER

Pietro and Ambrogio Lorenzetti

Sienese painters. The time of their birth and death is not known. Their dated works extend over a period of thirty years, from 1316 to 1348. Pietro was the elder. He was the pupil of Simone di Martino, some of whose formulæ he has preserved faithfully; but he was profoundly influenced by Giotto. He introduced the dramatic into the Sienese school. Unfortunately he could not control his wonderful feeling for the lifelike and in the end he sometimes failed to distinguish history from the passing events of everyday life. His first known work is the "History of St. Humilitas", a religious of Vallombrosa (d. 1310). The picture dated 1316 at the Academy of Florence bears the impress of the liveliest sense of reality. It abounds in small, but often delightful genre scenes. In his Assisi frescoes, where he continued Giotto's "Life of Jesus", this realism strangely loses tone. In the "Cenacle", for example, Pietro devotes an entire piece to a kitchen interior where lads wash the dishes while a dog licks the plates. This lack of dignity is perhaps mere familiarity coupled with good humour. Fondness for this sort of picture is in part the cause of our liking for the creations of the Dutch school; it cannot even be said that details of this kind may not be impressive as is seen in Veronese's "Marriage at Cana". But Pietro, like most of the artists of the Middle Ages, is too lacking in style and in art. Or rather he has only an intermittent sense of them. Some of his pieces at least show of what he was capable; such as the admirable painting at Assisi, which represents the Blessed Virgin in half-life size between St. John and St. Louis, and in which the fresco work attains the beauty of enamelling and of the goldsmith's art, while the countenance of the Virgin, tearfully regarding the Divine Child, expresses most beautifully maternal anguish, reminding us of the darkouoen gelasasa of Homer. In presence of such a canvas it is impossible not to deplore the frivolity of a master who sacrificed his lofty plastic faculties and gift of moral expression to the painting of so many trivial realities and insignificant emotions.

Though still more gifted than his brother, Ambrogio also wasted his talents, but owing to a different error, viz., a craze for the allegoric and didactic. He was however one of the most delicately poetic minds of his generation, and no one at Florence could rival the serious and dreamy beauty of his female faces, as in the "St. Dorothy" of the Academy of Siena (1326), in which seems to be revived the soul of the adorable saints of Simone di Martino. There is not in the art of the fourteenth century a more impressive canvas than that of the Academy of Florence in which St. Nicholas of Bari, on the shore of a cliff-bordered sea, contemplates the sunset (1332). He excelled in lyric subjects but he attempted painting in a grand philosophical manner. His most important work is that at the Palazzo della Signoria of Siena, the allegory of "Good and Evil Government" (1338-40). The taste of the Middle Ages for these "moralities" and psychomachies is well-known. There is hardly a French cathedral in which we do not find sculptured representations of the contest between vice and virtue, allegories of the virtues, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, the figures of the Church and the Synagogue. Already Giotto had painted at Assisi the allegories of the Franciscan virtues, and Petrarch was soon to compose his "Triumphs" of Love, Glory, Time, and Eternity.

For the past sixty years the Republic of Siena had been at the summit of its fortunes. It was desirous of immortalizing the memory of its greatness. From this point of view the frescoes of Ambrogio are of great interest; this is perhaps the first example of lay painting and of art used to represent ideas and life, without any religious conception. It was a course in Aristotelean philosophy and at the same time a hymn to the city. The composition is developed on three walls, forming a sort of triptych. The middle fresco displays under a dogmatic form the ideal of democracy. The Virtues which direct the State are seated on a platform; this is the tribunal or the legislative assembly. The most famous of these figures is that of Peace, which, reclining on her throne in magnificent drapery and resting on her arms, is certainly imitated from an antique medal or statue (such imitations are not rare in the thirteenth century: cf. the sculptures of Capua, the work of Giovanni Pisano, and some statues at Reims). But the other figures are little more than abstractions and can be identified only with the adventitious aid of a multitude of inscriptions, devices, and phylacteries.

On the other two walls are similarly developed the effects of good or evil social hygiene. After the theory follows the application. The left wall (Evil Government) is unfortunately almost ruined. But the opposite one, which is more intelligible, suffices to convey an idea of the painter's method. The length of the painting is divided into two halves, one of which shows the city and the other the country. And in each of these parts is a host of episodes, a great collection of little pictures of manners, which analyse in a thousand ways the condition of a happy society. The general idea is resolved into a multitude of anecdotes. We see dances, banquets, children at school, weddings, some peasants leading their asses to market while others are tilling the ground; in the distance is a port whence vessels are sailing away. All these various scenes are most entertaining and furnish much information about Sienese life and customs in the Middle Ages. But one is lost in the complexity of this chronicle and the confusion of this journal. The result is an extremely curious work, though one almost devoid of artistic value.

To sum up, Ambrogio remains one of the most interesting minds of his time by the very variety of his contradictory talents and the turn of mind at once idealistic and realistic which he displayed, without, unfortunately, succeeding in bringing them into unity. As a whole the work of the Lorenzetti (starting from very different points of view) consists in an attempt to reconcile art with observation and familiar reality. Pietro's aim is to move, Ambrogio's rather to instruct. The former is a dramatist, the latter a moralist. Both tend equally to genre painting. Unfortunately fresco, especially in their day, was the mode of expression least suited to this. They required the miniature, or German engraving, or the small familiar picture of the Flemish or the Dutch. Their talent remained isolated and their premature attempt was doomed to failure. In spite of everything they remain the most lifelike painters of their generation; and some fifteenth-century painters, such as Sassetta or Sano di Pietro, owe them much in this respect. Besides, Ambrogio, was the first who attempted in Italy philosophic painting and the picturesque expression of general ideas. His "Sermons" in pictures have not been lost. He created a tradition to which we owe two of the most important works of the fourteenth century, the anonymous frescoes of the "Anchorites" and of the "Triumph of Death." at the Campo Santo of Pisa and those of the "Militant and the Teaching Church" in the Spanish chapel. In fact it is from these that the finest conceptions of the Renaissance are derived, and the honour of having indirectly inspired Raphael with the "Camera della Segnatura" cannot be disputed with Ambrogio Loienzetti. It is a glory which the greatest artists may well envy him.

Crowe and Cavalcaselle, History of Italian Painting, III (London, 1864-66); Milanesi, Documenti per la storia dell' arte senese, I (Siena, 1854); Borghese e Bianchi, Nuovi documenti, etc. (Siena. 1898); Douglas, History of Siena (London 1902); Rothes, Die Blüthezeit der sienesischen Malerei (Strasburg, 1904); Thode, Pietro Lorensetti in Repertor. für Kunstwissenschaft (1888); Meyenburg, Ambrogio Lorenzetti (Zurich, 1903); Schubring, Das gute Regiment in Zeitschrft für Bildenden Kunst; Perkins, The Masterpieces of Ambrogio Lorenzetti in Burlington Magazine (London. before 1904); Venturi, Storia dell arte italiana, V (Milan. 1907).

LOUIS GILLET

St. Lorenzo da Brindisi

(Also: Lawrence, or Laurence, of Brindisi.)

Born at Brindisi in 1559; died at Lisbon on 22 July, 1619. In baptism he received the names of Julius Caesar. Guglielmo de Rossi -- or Guglielmo Russi, according to a contemporary writer -- was his father's name; his mother was Elisabetta Masella. Both were excellent Christians. Of a precocious piety, Lorenzo gave early evidence of a religious vocation. The Conventuals of Brindisi were entrusted with his education. His progress in his studies was very rapid, and, when barely six, he had already given indication of his future successs in oratory. Consequently, he was always the one chosen to address, in accordance with the Italian custom, a short sermon to his compatriots on the Infant Jesus during the Christmas festivities. When he was twelve years of age his father died. He then pursued his studies at Venice with the clerics of St. Mark's and under the supervision of one of his uncles. In 1575 he was received into the Order of Capuchins under the name of Brother Lorenzo, and, after his preofession, made his philosophical and theological studies at the University of Padua. Owing to his wonderful memory he mastered not only the principal European languages, but also most of the Semitic tongues. It was said he knew the entire original text of the Bible. Such a knowledge, in the eyes of many, could be accounted for only by supernatural assistance, and, during the process of beatification, the examiners of the saint's writings rendered the following judgment: "Vere inter sanctos Ecclesiae doctores adnumerari potest."

Such unusual talents, added to a rare virtue, fitted Brother Lorenzo for the most diverse missions. When still a deacon he preached the Lenten sermons in Venice, and his success was so great that he was called successively to all the principal cities of the peninsula. Subsequently, thanks to his numerous journeys, he was enabled to evangelize at different periods most of the countries of Europe. The sermons he left fill no less than eight folio volumes. He adopted the method of preaching in favour with the great Franciscan missionaries, or rather with apostolic workers of all times, who, aiming primarily to reach men's hearts and convert them, always adapt their style of discourse to the spiritual needs of their hearers. Brother Lorenzo held successively all the offices of his order. From 1596 to 1602 he had, as general definitor, to fix his residence in Rome. Clement VIII assigned him the task of instructing the Jews; thanks to his knowledge of Hebrew and his powerful reasoning, he brought a great number of them to recognize the truth of the Christian religion. His saintliness, combined with his great kindliness, completed the preparing of the way for the grace of conversion. His success in Rome caused him to be called to several other cities, where he also baptized numerous Jews. At the same time he was commissioned to establish houses of his order in Germany and Austria. Amid the great difficulties created by the heretics he founded the convents of Vienna, Prague, and Graz, the nuclei of three provinces. At the chapter of 1602 he was elected vicar-general. (At that time the Order of Capuchins, which had broken away from the Observants in 1528 and had an independent constitution, gave its first superior the title of vicar-general only. It was not until 1618 that Pope Paul V changed it to that of minister general). The very year of his election the new superior began the visitation of the provinces. Milan, Paris, Marseilles, Spain, received him in turn. As his coming was preceded by a great reputation for holiness, the people flocked to hear him preach and to receive his blessing. His administration characterized by wise firmness and fatherly tenderness, was of great benefit to the order. At the Chapter of 1605 he refused to undertake for a second term the government of his brethren, but until his death he was the best adviser of his successors.

It was on the occasion of the foundation of the convent of Prague (1601) that St. Lorenzo was named chaplain of the Imperial army, then about to march against the Turks. The victory of Lepanto (1571) had only temporarily checked the Moslem invasion, and several battles were still necessary to secure the final triumph of the Christian armies. Mohammed III had, since his accession (1595), conquered a large part of Hungary. The emperor, determined to prevent a further advance, sent Lorenzo of Brindisi as deputy to the German princes to obtain their cooperation. They responded to his appeal, and moreover the Duke of Mercœur, Governor of Brittany, joined the imperial army, of which he received the effective command. The attack on Albe-Royal (now Stulweissenburg) was then contemplated. To pit 18,000 men against 80,000 Turks was a daring undertaking and the generals, hesitating to attempt it, appealed to Lorenzo for advice. Holding himself responsible for victory, he communicated to the entire army in a glowing speech the ardour and confidence with which he was himself animated. As his feebleness prevented him from marching, he mounted on horseback and, crucifix in hand, took the lead of the army, which he drew irresistibly after him. Three other Capuchins were also in the ranks of the army. Although the most exposed to danger, Lorenzo was not wounded, which was universally regarded as due to a miraculous protection. The city was finally taken, and the Turks lost 30,000 men. As however they still exceeded in numbers the Christian army, they formed their lines anew, and a few days later another battle was fought. It always the chaplain who was at the head of the army. "Forward!" he cried, showing them the crucifix, "Victory is ours." The Turks were again defeated, and the honour of this double victory was attributed by the general and the entire army to Lorenzo.

Having resigned his office of vicar-general in 1605, he was sent by the pope to evangelize Germany. He here confirmed the faith of the Catholics, brought back a great number to the practice of virtue, and converted many heretics. In controversies his vast learning always gave him the advantage, and, once he had won the minds of his hearers, his saintliness and numerous miracles completed their conversion. To protect the Faith more efficaciously in their states, the Catholic princes of Germany formed the alliance called the "Catholic League". Emperor Rudolph sent Lorenzo to Philip III of Spain to persuade him to join the League. Having discharged this mission successfully, the saintly ambassador received a double mandate by virtue of which he was to represent the interests of the pope and of Madrid at the court of Maximilian of Bavaria, head of the League. He was thus, much against his wishes, compelled to settle in Munich near Maximilian. Besides being nuncio and ambassador, Lorenzo was also commissary general of his order for the provinces of Tyrol and Bavaria, and spiritual director of the Bavarian army. He was also chosen as arbitrator in the dispute which arose between the princes, and it was in fulfillment of this rtle that, at the request of the emperor, he restored harmony between the Duke of Mantua and a German nobleman. In addition to all these occupations he undertook, with the assistance of several Capuchins, a missionary campaign throughout Germany, and for eight months travelled in Bavaria, Saxony, and the Palatinate.

Amid so many various undertakings Lorenzo found time for the practices of personal sanctification. And it is perhaps the greatest marvel of his life to have combined with duties so manifold anunusually intense inner life. In the practice of the religious virtues St. Lorenzo equals the greatest saints. He had to a high degree the gift of contemplation, and very rarely celebrated Holy Mass without falling into ecstasies. After the Holy Sacrifice, his great devotion was the Rosary and the Office of the Blessed Virgin. As in the case of St. Francis of Assisi, there was something poetical about his piety, which often burst forth into canticles to the Blessed Virgin. It was in Mary's name that he worked his miracles, and his favourite blessing was: "Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria." Having withdrawn to the monastery of Caserta in 1618, Lorenzo was hoping to enjoy a few days of seclusion, when he was requested by the leading men of Naples to go to Spain and apprise Philip III of the conduct of Viceroy Ossuna. In spite of many obstacles raised by the latter, the saint sailed from Genoa and carried out his mission successfully. But the fatigues of the journey exhausted his feeble strength. He was unable to travel homeward, and after a few days of great suffering died at Lisbon in the native land of St. Anthony (22 July, 1619), as he had predicted when he set out on his journey. He was buried in the cemetery of the Poor Clares of Villafranca.

The process of beatification, several times interrupted by various circumstances, was concluded in 1783. The canonization took place on 8 December, 1881. With St. Anthony, St. Bonaventure, and Blessed John Duns Scotus, he is a Doctor of the Franciscan Order.

The known writings of St. Lorenzo of Brindisi comprise eight volumes of sermons, two didactic treatises on oratory, a commentary on Genesis, another on Ezechiel, and three volumes of religious polemics. Most of his sermons are written in Italian, the other works being in Latin. The three volumes of controversies have notes in Greek and Hebrew. [Note: In 1959 Pope John XXIII proclaimed St. Lorenzo da Brindisi a Doctor of the Universal Church. His feast is kept on 6 July.]

F. CANDIDE

Lorette

(Full name, Notre-Dame de la Jeune Lorette, "Our Lady of New Loretto")

An Indian village occupied by the principal remnant of the ancient Huron tribe on the east bank of Saint Charles River, about eight miles north-west from the city of Quebec in Canada. Population in 1908, not including 55 Indians of other tribes under the same jurisdiction, four hundred and seventy-four souls. According to Father Jones, the historiographer of the Huron missions, the Indians of Lorette are the true representatives of the original Hurons, while the modern Wyandot of Ontario and Oklahoma are descended from the kindred Tionontati, or Petuns.

On the dispersion of the Hurons and their allies by the Iroquois in 1648-9 a considerable body of fugitives was gathered by the missionaries upon St. Joseph, now Christian, Island, off the shores of Nottawasaga Bay. Wasted by famine and the lurking Iroquois their stay was short, and in the summer of 1650, to the number of about three hundred Indians, besides sixty French, including the missionaries and their assistants, they removed to Quebec and were quartered by the Jesuits, where other Huron refugees had been settled the previous year. In the spring in 1651 they removed to Orleans Island, near Quebec, where they were joined by other fugitives, including a large party of Huron exiles from the distant western Island of Manitoulin. In 1656 they numbered alto gether between five hundred and six hundred, but in July of that year, in consequence of a sudden, destructive inroad of the Mohawk, they again fled to Quebec, whence they sent deputies to the Mohawk begging for peace. This was granted on the condition that the Hurons would remove to the Mohawk country and incorporate with that or some other Iroquois tribe, as a considerable part of the Hurons had already done in the earlier wars. Of the three Huron sub-tribes then represented at Quebec, two, the Rock and the Bear, accepted the terms and were incorporated with the Iroquois. The third sub-tribe, the Cord, of the old mission town of Teananstayaé, or Saint Joseph, refused to leave the French and remained at Quebec. In 1659 a party of forty of their warriors together with twenty-three French and Algonkin, was cut off by an overwhelming force of Iroquois, after holding out for ten days, at the Long Sault of Ottawa River, above Montreal. In 1666 peace came for a time and the distressed Hurons once more ventured outside the walls of Quebec. In 1669 they were established by Father Chaumonot in a new mission settlement which received the name of Notre-Same de Foye (now Sainte Foye) about five miles outside the city. The mission itself was dedicated to the Annunciation. the village grew, being now considerably recruited by Christian Iroquois until, finding themselves cramped for both land and timber, they removed in 1673 to a new site about nine miles west of Quebec. Here was built a chapel modelled after the Holy House of Loretto, and the village took the name of Notre-Dame de (Vielle) Lorette. In 1697 the final remove was made to their present location.

In 1794 the last Jesuit missionary in charge died and was succeeded by a secular priest. In 1829 the last full-blooded Indian died and a few years later the language itself became extinct in the settlement, all the inhabitants now speaking French. The population for 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1908 was officially reported respectively at 329, 280, 293, 449, and 474. Of their present condition the agent in charge reports (1908): The special industry of the Hurons, that is to say, the making of snow-shoes and moccasins, during the first part of the twelve months just past was not flourishing. The demand has decreased and the trade this year is almost nil. The heads of families on the reserve are obliged in order to support their families to go off a distance in order to earn money in the surrounding towns. The Indians engage but little in fishing, as fish have not been abundant. On the other hand they have done a good deal of hunting and this has been both successful and remunerative. The prices of fur are very high. The Hurons cannot be reproached with uncleanliness. Nothing but praise can be given in regard to temperance. As for morality, I observe that the Hurons do not deserve any reproach. (The preceding is a condensation of the report.) An efficient and ap preciated school is in charge of the Sisters of Perpetual Help. All but seven are Catholic. (See HURONS.)

Canadian Indian Reports (Ottawa); Jesuit Relations (French ed., Quebec; English ed., THWAITES, Cleveland); SHEA, Cath. Ind. Missions (New York, 1859).

JAMES MOONEY

Claude de Lorrain

French painter and etcher, b. in 1600 at Chamagnc on the banks of the Moselle in Lorraine; d. in Rome, 21 Nov., 1681 (or 23 Nov., 1682). His parents, Jean Gellée and Anna Padose, poor and with a large family, gave Claude little schooling. Left an orphan at the age of twelve, he lived with an elder brother, a wood carver, at Freiburg, and there learned to draw ornaments and arabesques. Sandrart, a writer on art and Claude's friend, says that the boy was apprenticed to a pastry-cook; but pistori may have been a misprint for pictori (a painter). About 1613 a relative took Claude to Rome, where he appears to have abandoned the boy. Claude wandered to Naples seeking Gottfried Wals, a Cologne artist, whose pictures he greatly admired. For two years Wals taught him architectural perspective and landscape painting. In 1615 Claude returned to Rome, and became a member of the household of Agostino Tassi, who was painting a series of decorations for Pope Paul V. Claude was half domestic servant and half artistic assistant to Tassi, who mentions him as a co-worker in decorating Cardinal Montalto's palace. In 1625 Claude went to Venice, a city which deeply impressed him and his future work, and made a pilgrimage to the Holy Virgin of Loretto for devotion and meditation. He then roamed through the Tyrol, Bavaria, the Black Forest, and to Nancy where he worked for a year on architectural painting. These wanderings impoverished his purse and his health and he longed for Rome, to which he returned in 1627 to reside there until his death. The Eternal City welcomed him, and commissions from the illustrious of all Europe poured in upon him. Among them were Popes Innocent X, Urban VIII, Clement IX (Cardinal Rospigliosi), and Alexander VII, Emperor Leopold I, Philip IV of Spain, the Duke of Bouillon (commander of the papal forces), the Constable Colonna (Claude's patron of later years), and Cardinals Crescenzio, Poli, Giorio, and Spada.

Claude was not only a faithful and absorbed student of nature but a tireless and rapid worker; in 1644 he completed seventeen important canvases. It is told that he took extraordinary care in painting one picture composed of trees of many kinds, a study he always kept beside his easel, and that he refused to sell it even to his best friend, Cardinal Rospigliosi, who offered to cover its surface twice over with gold pieces. Claude was the first original French painter, the first original modern painter, and the first to paint effects instead of things. While his landscapes are thoroughly classic, they are above all ideal: "there are no landscapes in Nature like those of Claude" (Goethe). He would contemplate for hours--even days--one subject in nature, to which he would return in other weathers and conditions. Herein he resembled the modern Impressionists, one of whom, Pissaro, regards Claude as the forerunner of their school. Claude "effected a revolution in art by setting the sun in the heavens" (Ruskin); and in the pictorial treatment of aerial perspective, in depth of background, and in delicate colour tones reflecting sunlight's myriad effects, he is unsurpassed. His earlier painting was cool, bluish, and silvery; but he soon abandoned these tones for a rich, warm, and golden treatment of both landscape and marine. In figure painting he did not excel; he sold his landscapes, he said, and gave away his figures.

Claude united the lofty poetic feelings of the Italians with a Flemish correctness and mastery of perspective; his compositions are symmetrical, yet free; and if he had a fault it was exaggerated gracefulness. Inspired by Callot, whom perhaps he knew, Claude began etching about 1629, and within a decade wrought the greater number of his (forty-two) plates. These are freely needled, carried to completeness, full of wonderful atmosphere, and suggestive of the colour and light pervading his oil paintings. Hamerton says that "there is an ineffable tenderness in his handling", and that his "Herdsman" is "the finest landscape etching in the world for technical quality". In 1662 Claude's interest in etching revived, and he executed two large plates, "Mercury and Argus" and "Time, Apollo, and the Seasons". Claude was one of the few great artists to be appreciated during his life; and such a demand arose for his paintings that numerous forgeries of them were passed off as "Claudes". To frustrate such frauds he made drawings, washed with sepia or bistre, of all his paintings; and these, about two hundred in all, constitute the "Liber Veritatis" (a treasure now possessed by the Duke of Devonshire). This collection, however, is far from containing all of Claude's drawings. Claude was of a reserved, contemplative, and religious temperament, kindly in disposition and generous. His favourite relaxation was music. During the last twenty years of his life he was in precarious health and tormented with attacks of gout. At his death he provided liberally for his nephew and his ward, Agnes, and bequeathed noble pictures to various Roman churches, also to his friend and patron Cardinal Rospigliosi "for the good advice he has always given me". Claude was buried in the church of Trinitá dei Monti; but on the recommendation of M Thiers, his remains were transported to the French church of San Liii in 1840.

Of the one hundred and seventy-five canvases in England, the "Bouillon Claudes", "Nuptials of Isaac and Rebecca", and "Embarcation of the Queen of Sheba" are world-famed, and became conspicuous under the terms of Turner's will. The Hermitage possesses twelve fine examples, among them the great series: "Morning", "Noon", "Evening", and "Night". Rome has seventeen, Munich six, and the Vanderbilt collection four fine canvases. In Dresden is the "Dido and Æneas". His best-known etchings are the "Herdsman", the "Ford", and the "Firework" series.

Brownell, French Art (New York, 1908); Pattison, Claude Lorraine, sa Vie et ses Œuvres (Paris, 1884); Lubke, History of Art (2 vols., New York, 1904); Hind, History of Engraving and Etching (London, 1908); Dullea, Claude Gellée le Lorrain (New York, 1887); Sandrart, Academia Nobilissimæ Artis Pictoriæ (Nuremburg, 1683).

LEIGH HUNT

Lorraine

I. ORIGIN

By the Treaty of Verdun in 843, the empire of Charlemagne was divided in three parts: Ludwig the German received Eastern Franconia; Charles the Bald, Western Franconia; and Lothair I, the strip of land lying between the two and reaching from the North Sea to the Rhone, with Italy in addition. After the death of Lothair I, in 855, Italy passed to his son Lothair II, who gave his name to the district henceforth known as Lotharii Regnum — Lotharingen, Lothringen, or Lorraine. Lorraine did not form a geographical unit, like two great neighbouring kingdoms, complete in themselves and by their natural formation. Its boundaries were uncertain for though the Meuse was on the west, the Rhine on the east, and the sea on the north, yet to the south it was completely exposed. The population, which in the eastern kingdom was Germanic, and in the western Roman, here combined both elements. Lorraine, moreover, included within its boundaries the original home of the Austrasian dynasty, with Aachen, Charlemagne's capital, and the most important centres of ancient culture: two archbishoprics (Cologne and Trier), many bishoprics (Metz, Toul, Verdun, etc.), abbeys and royal castles. From the beginning it was coveted by the neighbouring princes, who succeeded, one after another, in seizing parts or the whole of its territory. The composite character of its origin also led to endless internal wars.

The territory afterwards known as Lorraine was converted to Christianity while still under Roman domination. Missionaries came thither from Trier whose first bishop was St. Eucharius (about 250). One of his successors, Maternus (313-14), founded the See of Cologne. About 811 Trier became an archbishopric, the episcopal Sees of Metz, Toul, and Verdun being suffragan to it. From 511 Metz was capital of Austrasia, and became a bishopric in the sixth century, one of its first bishops being St. Chrodegang(742-66). Toul and Verdun have been bishoprics since the fourth century. Under Bishop Hildebold, in 799, Cologne received from St. Boniface metropolitan jurisdiction over Liège and Utrecht. The two great archbishoprics early became temporal lordships. Trier obtained its temporal power in 898, under Radbod, through Duke Zuentebulch of Lorraine; Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne (953-65), himself obtained the dignity of Duke of Lorraine. Both archbishoprics became imperial principalities. Metz and Verdun were later raised to the same dignity. With the close of the sixth century began the foundation of the numerous monasteries which spread from the Vosges, and to which Lorraine owed its advanced culture. Its people were remarkable through the Middle Ages for their religious zeal. The most ancient of these monasteries is Luxeuil founded by St. Columba, whose example was followed by Amatus, Romarich, Deodatus, Godelbert, Hidulf, and Chrodegang, who founded the abbeys of Remiremont, St. Die, Senones, Moyen-Moutier, St. Michiel, and Gooze. There were other famous monasteries in the different bishoprics, such as those of St. Maximinus at Trier, St. Epure of Toul, Symphorian, Glossinda, and St. Peters at Metz. Under the Carlovingians the number increased. Richilde, wife of Charles the Bald, founded Juvigny near Stenay about 874; Bishop Adventius of Metz, Neumünster; while St. Germain, St. Martin on the Meuse, and Gellamont near Dieulouard also date back to this period. In these ecclesiastical abodes and in the bishops' residences celebrated schools flourished, among which St. Mathias near Trier, the Abbey of Prüm, famous for the historian Regino, and Verdun with its Bertarius attained great prominence. The councils of Meaux, in 845, of Valence, in 855, and of Savonnières, near Toul, in 859 improved these schools and founded new ones.

For political reasons, Lothair II ceded small portions of his domains to his neighbours: to his brother Charles, the Diocese of Belley and Moutiers; to Louis of Italy, provinces in the Upper Jura and the Vaud; to Louis the German, Alsace. After his death, in 869, war immediately broke out, as almost always occurred upon the death of a ruler of Lorraine. The Kings of France and Germany, as well as Louis of Italy, wished to seize the country; Louis the German was victorious, and, by the Treaty of Meersen, in 870, far the greater part was awarded to him--all the territory east and north of the Meuse and the territory and cities on the Moselle, on both sides of the Rhine, and in Jura, that is to say Friesland, the country of the Ripuarian Franks the original lands of the House of Lorraine, Alsace, and a part of Burgundy. Charles the Bald received the countries on the left bank of the Meuse and the Moselle. After the death of Louis the German (876) Charles tried, but failed, to reconquer Lorraine. Louis the Younger, in 879, after the death of Louis the Stammerer, repossessed himself of the French, western, half of Lorraine, and thus once more united the entire Regnum Lotharii under German rule. Under Charles the Fat, a natural son of Lothair II named Hugo disturbed the peace by calling in to his aid the Norman Godfrey, who acquired Friesland as a fief. Both, however, were severely defeated in 888. King Arnulf (887-99) expelled the Normans, gaining a victory at Louvain (891), and improved the religious situation by summoning the great Council of Tibour (895). At the same time, in order to secure Lorraine as a part of Westmark, he gave it to his natural son, Zuentebulch, who surrendered the management of state affairs to Archbishop Radbod of Trier, as his chancellor. Zuentebulch was overthrown in an insurrection raised by the mightiest nobles of the country, Gerard, Matfried, and Reginar, on 13 August, 900. Gradually the supremacy passed over to Reginar of Hainault and Haspengau, who, after the death of Louis the Child (912), brought Lorraine under the allegiance of Charles the Simple of France and in return received from him the dignity of margrave (Lord of the Marches) and duke. To these titles his son Giselbert succeeded in 913. Under Giselbert, the disputes about the succession to the throne of France gave rise to internal divisions among the people of Lorraine. Henry I (919-36) was called by one party to its assistance and, after repeated invasions, recovered all of Lorraine for Germany (925). He confirmed Giselbert in the Duchy, and, in 928, gave him his own daughter Gerberga in marriage. In spite of this, Giselbert once more allied himself with the King of France, Louis IV, against the German Emperor Otto I (936- 73). But when Giselbert was drowned near Andernach in 933, during his flight from the loyal Counts Udo and Conrad, Otto once more obtained the upper hand and gave Lorraine to his brother Henry. The latter was driven out by the people of Lorraine, and Otto made Count Otto of Verdun, son of Richwin, duke. In 943 he constrained Louis IV of France to make a final renunciation of the rights of the Carlovingians over Lorraine. After Count Otto's death (944), the lordship passed to Count Conrad the Red of Franconia, who had married the emperor's daughter Liutgarde. But Conrad, too, was faithless, and, while Otto I was absent on an expedition to Italy (953), he called in the Hungarians. He was deposed, however, and replaced by St. Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne (953-65).

Bruno was the first to succeed in placing German supremacy on the firm basis which lasted until the twelfth century. This he accomplished by training an austere and learned clergy, whom he deeply imbued with the national sentiment to such an extent that the bishops whom he appointed (such as Heino of Verdun, Adalbero of Metz, Hegelo and Bruno of Toul, Wazo of Liège) became the principal supports of the imperial power. In order to control its continual unrest, he divided the country. The northern part (Lower Lorraine), from the Ardennes to the sea, comprised the Archbishopric of Cologne with the Bishoprics of Utrecht and Liège. The southern part, Upper Lorraine, or the Land of the Moselle, extended to the south-east of the Vosges and to the Sichelberg, with the Archbishopric of Trier and the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun. Subject to the supreme direction of Bruno, Lower Lorraine was assigned to Count Gottfried, Upper Lorraine to Count Friedrich, brother of Bishop Adalbero of Metz. The German Emperor exercised suzerainty over both. Aachen became the capital in 965.

II. LOWER LORRAINE

The history of Lower Lorraine is connected with that of Upper Lorraine for only a few more centuries. In 977 Emperor Otto II granted it to Charles, brother of Lothair of France, as a German fief. Lothair's subsequent invasion was repelled by Otto's famous march to Paris (978). After Charles's son Otto had died childless, the dukedom passed to Godfrey of Verdun, whose son Gozelo I reunited the upper and lower duchies under his rule in 1033. Of his sons, the elder, Godfrey the Bearded, succeeded him in Upper Lorraine and Gozelo II (d. 1046) in Lower Lorraine. After the latter's death, Lower Lorraine was conferred upon Count Frederick of Luxemburg and, immediately after, upon Godfrey the Bearded (1065-69). His son Godfrey the Hunchback was the last ruler of this district who was loyal to the empire. As the bishops, after the triumph of the Cluniac Reform and the struggle over investitures, ceased to support the German emperors, the province soon resolved itself into small feudal estates. These gradually withdrew from the German allegiance. Part of the country became known as the Netherlands, or Low Countries, and in 1214 reverted finally to France, whilst the remainder took the name of Brabant. Godfrey adopted his nephew Godfrey de Bouillon, who was enfeoffed in 1088 by Henry IV. Upon his death at Jerusalem Henry V gave the duchy to Godfrey the Bearded, Count of Brabant. In 1155 the Lords of Limburg severed themselves from Lower Lorraine and became independent dukes. After Henry V (1186-1235) the dukes of Lower Lorraine were known as dukes of Brabant. In 1404 the duchy was united to Burgundy.

III. UPPER LORRAINE

After Lower Lorraine received the name of Brabant, Upper Lorraine became known simply as Lorraine. The latter was split up among numerous small countships and the dioceses of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, which from early times had been immediate fiefs of the empire. The history of these bishoprics is the history of the Church in Lorraine, Metz being the centre and head of the whole ecclesiastical organization. The larger, southern, half was under the jurisdiction of the See of Toul. The secular power was conferred by Emperor Henry III, in 1048, upon the wealthy Count Gerhard of Alsace, whose descendants reigned there for seven hundred years. Under Emperor Otto I the monasteries were reformed by Bishop Albero I (928-63). Stephen, of the powerful house of Bar, Bishop and Cardinal of Metz 1120-63, brought the newly-founded Premonstratensian and Cistercian Orders into the country. Complete political rest never really existed. When not repelling the attacks of France, Lorraine was occupied with intestine wars, either among the spiritual principalities mentioned above or among the Counts of Bar, Bitsch, Vaudemont, and other temporal lords. Besides, the dukes were, as a rule, involved in the quarrels of the German suzerain and also took part in the Crusades; for piety and devotion to the Church distinguished most of them, in spite of their warlike character.

Duke Theobald II (1304-12) at a meeting of the Diet settled the rights of inheritance upon his female as well as male descendants. Isabella, daughter of Charles I, accordingly mounted the throne in 1431, and, with her, her consort René of Anjou and Bar, who brought the last-named duchy to Lorraine. When this female line became extinct in 1473 the male line of Vaudemont succeeded under René II (1473-1508). He successfully defended his country against Charles the Bold of Burgundy (1477), and to his maternal inheritance of Lorraine, Bar, Pont-à-Mousson, and Guise he united the dignities received from his father--Vaudemont, Joinville, Aumale, Mayenne, and Elbæuf--and kept up Anjou's pretensions to Naples and Sicily. René II, by forcing the election of his uncle Henry II as bishop in 1484, brought the administration of the See of Metz to the House of Lorraine, and Bishop John IV of Vaudemont (1518-43 and 1548-50), as Cardinal of Lorraine and papal legate for that country, united in his own hands Bar and the principalities of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, the episcopal power over Toul, Terouanne, Narbonne, Die-Valence, Verdun, Luçon, Reims, Alby, Lyons, Agen, and Nantes; and was Abbot of Goze, Fécamp, Cluny, Marmoutier, Saint-Ouen, and Saint-Mansuy.

The Reformation, after being forcibly averted by Duke Anton (1508-44), obtained a transitory foothold only in a few of the eastern districts, and in the seventeenth century it was constrained to give way entirely to Catholicism. In 1552 the great French encroachments recommenced, when Henry II, as the ally of the German Protestant princes, annexed Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and Lorraine itself was occupied until 1559. At that time the spiritual life received a new stimulus under Bishop Henry III of Metz (1612- 52) through the erection of monasteries of Benedictines at Saint-Barbe; Carmelites at Metz; Minims at Dieuze, Nomeny, and Bassing; Capuchins at Vic, Diedenhofen, Saarburg, and Bitsch; and Jesuit houses at Metz and Buckenheim. St. Vincent de Paul interested himself in the districts which suffered so severely in the Thirty Years' War. By the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, Metz, Toul, and Verdun were formally ceded to France, which had re-occupied the Duchy of Lorraine in 1632, and by the Treaty of 1661 territory was ceded to Louis XIV, which thus secured to him a passage across Lorraine to Alsace. In 1697, by the Peace of Ryswick, he gave the duchy to Duke Leopold Joseph (1697-1729). In 1738, by the Peace of Vienna, it was granted to the former King of Poland, Stanislaus Leczinski, after whose death in 1766 it reverted to France. In the ecclesiastical jurisdiction a series of changes took place. In 1598 Duke Charles had tried to erect a bishopric at Nancy for his duchy; but in 1602 only a collegiate chapter was established there. In 1778 the episcopal See of Nancy was really founded, and the bishop received the title of Primate of Lorraine. At the same period the See of Saint-Die was founded, while that of Toul was abolished in 1790. By the division of France into departments, in 1790, the "Province of the Three Bishoprics", as it had been known since 1552, with the Provinces of Lorraine and Bar, were divided into the departments of Moselle, Meurthe, Vosges, and Meuse. The jurisdictions of Saarwerden, Herbitzheim, and Diemeringen, for the most part Protestant, became incorporated with the departments of the Lower Rhine in 1793.

IV. AFTER 1871

By the Peace of Frankfort, 10 May, 1871, France was obliged to cede to Germany from this Province the Department of Meurthe and the arrondissements of Saarburg and Chateau Salins. The German Lorraine of to-day comprises, of the old province of that name: Metz, with the Pays Messin, the temporal possessions of the old Bishopric of Metz; parts of the Duchy of Luxemburg; parts of the upper Rhine district; the former imperial Margravates of Pont-à-Mousson and Nomency; the imperial Principalities of Pfalzburg and Lixheim; half of the Countship of Salm; the jurisdiction of the Abbey of Gorze; the Lordship of Bitsch; further, the royal fiefs acquired from the See of Metz; Blamont, Saarburg, Saareck, Saaralben, Homburg, etc. In order to bring the ecclesiastical into harmony with the political boundaries, Nancy, in 1874, surrendered eighty-three parishes of the district of Château-Salins and one hundred and four of the Saarburg district (aggregating 106,027 souls) to the Diocese of Metz. In 1871 the new limits of Lorraine included 451,633 Catholics, 13,407 Protestants, 176 other Christians, and 529 who profess other religions.

Chevrier, Histoire de Lorraine (Brussels, s. d.); Calmet, Histoire ecclésiastique de Lorraine (4 vols., Cowes, 1728, 7 vols.,Ryde, 1745-47); Durival, Description de la Lorraine et du Barrois (4 vols., Nancy, 1779-83); Willich, Die Entstehung des Herzogtums Lothringen (Göttingen, 1862); BenoÎt, Let Protestants du duché de Lorraine in Rev. d'Alsace (1885), 35-59, 186-209,400-24, 513-39; (1886), 56-80; Begin, Histoire de Lorraine et des trois évêchés (Nancy, 1883); Haussonville, Histoine de la réunion de la Lorraine à la France (6 vols., Paris, 1854);, Fitte, Das staatsrechtliche Verhältnis des Herzogtums Lothringen zum deutschen Reiche seit 1542 (Strasburg, 1891); Sauerland, Vatikanische Regesten zur Geschichte Deutsch-Lothringens in Jahrbuch d. Gesellschaft f. lothring. Geschichte, X (1898), 195-235; Idem, Vatikanische Urkunden u. Regestesn Quellen zur lothring. Gesch., I (Metz, 1900-); Derichsweiler, Geschichte Lothringens (2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1901).--Periodicals: Annales de l'Est (Nancy and Paris, 1887-); L'Austrasie (Metz, 1837-); J'ahrbuch der Ges. f. lothr. Geschichte (Metz, 1888-);.J ournal de la Société d'Anchéol. Lorraine (Nancy, 1853-); Mémoires et Documents de la Soc. d'Arch. Lorr. (Nancy, 1849-73); Revue ecclésiastique de Metz (Metz, 1890-).

See also bibliographies under Alsace-Lorraine; Metz; Toul, etc.

OTTO HARTIG

Lorsch Abbey

(Laureshamense Monasterium, called also Laurissa and Lauresham).

One of the most renowned monasteries of the old Franco-German Empire, is situated aboutr ten miles east of Worms in the Grand Duch of Hesse, Germany. This abbey was founded in 764 by Count Cancor and his widowed mother Williswinda. Having built a church and monastery on their estate, Laurissa, they entrusted its government to the care of Chrodegang, Archbishop of Metz. This well-known and saintly prelate dedicated the church and monastery in honor of St. Peter the Apostle, and became its first abbot. The pious founders enriched the new abbey by further donations. In 766 Chrodegang resigned the office of abbot owing to his other important duties as Archbishop of Metz. He then sent his brother Gundeland to Lorsch as his successor, with fourteen Benedictine monks. To make the abbey popular as a shrine and a place of pilgrimage, Chrodegang obtained from Pope Paul I the body of St. Nazarius, who with three other Roman soldiers had won the crown of martyrdom under Diocletian. On 11 July, 765, the sacred relics arrived, and were with great solemnity deposited in the basilica of the monastery. The abbey and basilica were then named in honour of St. Nazarius, instead of St. Peter as heretofore. Many miracles were wrought through the intercession of St. Nazarius, and from all parts of Europe pilgrims in large numbers came to visit the shrine. Having grown into prominence as a nursery of learning and culture, the monastery became no less celebrated as a centre of virtue and piety. Popes and emperors repeatedly favoured the abbey with special privileges. The transfer of many estates and the addition of small towns to its possessions soon raised the abbey to the position of a principality, so that in a short time it became not only immensely rich, but also a seat of political influence.

It was, however, this very influence of its wealth and political ascendancy that caused its decline and final ruin. The abbey, enjoying state rights, became implicated in several local feuds and in a number of wars. After forty-six abbots of the Order of St. Benedict had governed the abbey more or less successfully, Conrad, the last of the abbots, was deposed by Pope Gregory IX in 1226, and through the influence of the German Emperor Frederick II, Lorsch came into the possession of Archbishop Siegfried III of Mainz. In 1248 Premonstratensian monks were given charge of the monastery with the sanction of Pope Celestine IV, and they remained there till 1556, when, after a glorious existence of 800 years, Lorsch and the surrounding country passed into the hands of Lutheran and Calvinistic princes. The princes allowed the religious a pension for life, and then sent them adrift in the world. In Lorsch itself, first the Lutheran, and later the Calvinistic religion was introduced. During the Thirty Years War Lorsch and its neighbourhood suffered greatly, but, having again come into the possession of Mainz, it returned to the Catholic Faith. The most dreary period for Lorsch was during the war between France and Germany from 1679 and 1697. Whole villages were laid in ruins, the homes of the peasantry were destroyed by fire, and the French soldiers burned the old buildings whose associations had made them sacred to the inhabitants. One portion, which was left intact, now serves as a tobacco warehouse. The ancient entrance hall, built in the ninth century by Emperor Ludwig III, is the oldest and probably the most beautiful monument of Franconian architecture. This hall, though the property of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, is now used as a chapel where Mass is occasionally celebrated.

LEANDER M. ROTH

Loryma

A titular see of Caria, small fortified town and harbour on the coast of Caria, not far from Cape Cynossema, at the western extremity of Rhodian Chersonesus, opposite to and twenty Roman miles from Rhodes (Strabo, XIV, 652, Ptolemy, V, 2, 8; Tit. Liv., XXXVII, 17; XLV, 10). Nothing is known of its history, but Leake (Asia Minor, 223) mentions its ruins: towers, tombs, and ramparts, west of Port Aplothiki, vilayet of Smyrna. The "Notitiæ episcopatuum" mentions Loryma among the suffragan sees of Stauropolis up to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Lequien (Oriens christianus, I, 915) names three bishops: George, present at the Council of Constantinople, 680, Anthimus at Nicæa, 787, and Joseph at Constantinople, 879.

SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Karl August Lossen

Karl August Lossen, German petrologist and geologist, born at Kreuznach (Rhine Province), 5 January, 1841; died at Berlin, 24 February, 1893. After finishing his studies at the gymnasium of Kreuznach in 1859 Lossen became a mining engineer; he began by two and a half years of practical work, then studied at the Universities of Berlin and Halle, where he graduated in 1866; in the same year he became assistant geologist of the Prussian national geological survey and as such began immediately his famous petrolographic studies of the Harz Mountains, which lasted till his death. In 1870 he became instructor in petrology at the Berlin mining academy, and at the same time lecturer at the university; in 1873 he was made a member of the newly founded Prussian National Geological Institute, and in 1882 received the title of professor; he was a fellow of the Görres Society from its foundation. In 1886 he became extraordinary professor in the university. He published the results of his investigation in over one hundred treatises and notices which appeared for the most part in the "Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft" of 1867-1891 and were much valued by his fellow scientists. The work of his youth, "De Tauni montis parte transrhenana" (Halle, 1867), appeared independently; then in 1877 followed the maps of the geological survey of the Harz Mountains and later many special maps of the Harz district, and the exhaustive work, "Boden der stadt Berlin". Of great importance are his papers on the contact and dynamometamorphosis of minerals. So highly was Lossen considered as an authority on this subject that the committee in charge of the programme for the International Geological Congress in London requested him to present a paper on the origin of crystallized slate (printed in 1888). He was made a member of Belgian, French, and English learned societies. The mineral lossenite is named after him; it is a hydrated lead-iron sulpharsenate from the mines of Laurion in Attica. Lossen was a man of noble character, loyal, dutiful, kind-hearted, full of good humour and universally popular, notwithstanding his increasing deafness. As a Catholic he united a childlike piety with very strong convictions of faith and decided views for church authority.

KAYSER in Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaeontologie, II (Stuttgart, 1893); VON HERTLING in Jahresbericht der Görresgesellschaft für 1895 (Cologne, 1896); KNELLER, Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neuern Naturwissenschaft (Freiberg, 1904).

J. H. ROMPEL.

Lot

Son of Abraham's brother Aran (Gen., xi, 27), therefore Abraham's nephew (his "brother": xiii, 8, 11; xiv, 14, 16) and grandson of Thare, father of Abraham (xi, 31). Lot was among those whom Thare took with him out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go to the land of Chanaan. When Thare died in Haran, Lot continued the journey with Abraham. It may be inferred that Lot accompanied his uncle to Sichem, to the mountain between Bethel and Hai, and then to the south (xii, 6, 8, 9). Whether Lot went to Egypt with Abraham at the time of the famine (xii, 10-20) is not explicitly stated, but is implied in xiii, 1: "And Abraham went up out of Egypt, he and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him into the south." After their return, they once more settled between Bethel and Hai (xiii, 3). Lot and Abraham had numerous flocks and herds, so numerous that the pasture and watering places proved insufficient for them. Strife ensued between the herdsmen of Abraham and of Lot. Abraham, in the interest of peace, proposed to his nephew that they should live apart, and even allowed Lot to take his choice of the surrounding country. Lot chose the watered and fertile region "about the Jordan" (Kikkar), and fixed his abode in the city of Sodom, whereas Abraham dwelt in the land of Chanaan (xiii, 6-12). The next incident in the life of Lot is related in connection with the expedition of Chodorlahomor against the five cities "about the Jordan", including Sodom (xiv, 1 sqq.). The kings of the Pentapolis were defeated, their cities pillaged, and among those carried away by the victorious kings was Lot, who lost all his possessions (xiv, 12). Lot's predicament was made known to Abraham, who at once chose three hundred and eighteen of his best men and set out in pursuit of the retreating victorious kings. He overtook them in Dan, where he surprised them at night, and routed them completely. Lot and his possessions were rescued by Abraham, who brought all back safely to Sodom (xiv, 13-16; see ABRAHAM).

Again we read of Lot in connection with the mission of the angels who had been sent by God to destroy the five cities in the valley of the Jordan. These angels, three in number, were first entertained by Abraham in the vale of Mambre (Gen., xviii, 2 sqq.), and then two of them made their way towards Sodom, where they arrived in the evening (xix, 1). Here they met Lot, who, sitting in the gateway of the city---a common place of meeting in the East---arose and greeted the strangers, at the same time offering them the hospitality of his house. The strangers at first refused, but finally accepted the pressing invitation of Lot, who then prepared a feast for them (xix, 2, 3). That night the men of Sodom revealed their degradation by attacking Lot's house and demanding his two guests for their vile purpose (4, 5). Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mistake of placing them above his duties as a father by offering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites (6-8). The latter, however, refused the substitution, and just as they were about to inflict violence upon Lot the two angels intervened, drawing Lot into the house and striking the men outside with blindness, thus preventing them from finding the door of the house (9-11). The angels then made known to Lot the object of their visit to Sodom, which they were sent to destroy, and advised him to leave the city at once with his family and belongings. Lot imparted the news to his prospective sons-in-law, who, however, refused to consider it seriously. The next morning, the angels once more admonished Lot to leave Sodom, and when he still hesitated they took him, his wife, and two daughters, and brought them out of the city, warning them not to look back nor to remain in the vicinity of the doomed city, but to flee into the mountains (12-17). The mountains, however, seemed too far distant to Lot, and he requested to seek shelter in a small city nearer by. The request was granted, and Lot fled to Segor (Heb. Zo'ar), which is also promised protection (18-23). Sodom, Gomorrha, and the other cities of the Pentapolis were then destroyed. Lot's wife, disregarding the injunction of the angels, looked back, and was converted into a pillar of salt (24-26). Lot, seeing the terrible destruction of the five cities, feared for his own safety in Segor, and therefore fled with his two daughters into the mountains, where they dwelt in a cave (30). It was here, according to the Sacred Text, that Lot's two daughters were guilty of incestuous intercourse with their father, the outcome of which was the birth of Moab and Ammon, the fathers of Israel's future most bitter enemies (31-38). This last incident also closes the history of Lot. His name, however, occurs again in the expression "the children of Lot", meaning the Moabites (Deut., ii, 9), and the Ammonites (Deut., ii,19), and both (Ps. lxxxii, 9). In the New Testament, Christ refers to the destruction of Sodom "in the days of Lot" (Luke, xvii, 28, 29), and St. Peter (II Pet., ii, 6-8) speaks of the deliverance of the "just Lot". The fate of Lot's wife is referred to in Wis., x, 7; Luke, xvii, 32. According to Jewish and Christian tradition, the pillar of salt into which she was converted was preserved for some time (Josephus, "Antiq.", I, xi, 4; Clement of Rome, "I Cor.", xi, 2; Irenæus, "Adv. Haer.", IV, xxxi). Various explanations are given of this phenomenon. According to von Hummelauer ("Comment. in Gen.", Paris, 1895, 417), Lot's wife could easily have been overtaken by the salty waters of the Dead Sea and literally covered with salt. Kaulen had already advanced a similar explanation, accounting for the coating of salt by the heat of the flames releasing the salt fumes from the soil.

F. X. E. ALBERT

Lottery

A lottery is one of the aleatory contracts and is commonly defined as a distribution of prizes by lot or by chance. Each person who joins in the lottery buys a numbered ticket and at a certain fixed time lots are cast by some method, as by drawing the numbers out of a hollow wheel, to decide to what numbers the prize or prizes are to be assigned. Some winners get much more than they contributed, some less, while others get nothing. It is obviously a kind of gambling if considered from the point of view of the contributories; by the directors it is sometimes used as a means of raising money. Morally it is objectionable if carried to excess as it tends to develop the gambling spirit and distract people from earning a livelihood by honest work. However, if there is no fraud of any sort in the transaction, and if there is some sort of proportion between the price of a ticket and the value of a chance of gaining a prize, a lottery cannot be condemned as in itself immoral. In the United States they were formerly permitted, but in 1890 Congress forbade the mails to be used to promote any lottery enterprise, and now they are generally prohibited by state legislation. In England lotteries have long been forbidden by law unless conducted by art unions carrying on business by royal charter or under a constitution and rules approved by the Privy Council.

BALLERINI, Opus Morale, III (Prato, 1892); GÉNICOT, Theologia Moralis (Brussels, 1909); SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology, I (New York, 1908).

T. SLATER.

Antonio Lotti

Composer, born at Venice in 1667; died there, 5 January, 1740 and studied under Legrenzi, producing an opera, "Il Giustino", in his sixteenth year. On 31 May, 1692, he was appointed second organist of St. Mark's, and on 17 August, 1704, he succeeded Spada as first organist. On 2 April, 1736, he was elected maestro di cappella, though Pollarolo, Porpora, and Porta were formidable rivals for the much-coveted post, with a salary of 400 ducats. Between the years 1703 and 1730 he composed numerous masses and motets, especially his "Miserere", which supplanted the version of Legrenzi and is still sung at St. Mark's on Holy Thursday. Lotti also composed twenty-seven operas (1693-1717), and he spent two years at Dresden, producing various works. After his return to Venice, in November, 1719, he gave up secular writing, and devoted himself solely to church and chamber music. Had he continued at operatic writing his financial success would have been considerable, but he preferred his post as maestro at St. Mark's. One incident in his career was the controversy over a madrigal which Bononcini claimed and which, it is said, led to that eminent composer leaving London, but it is now generally believed that Bononcini was wronged in the matter, as really there was no need for a man of his powers borrowing from Lotti. Moreover the incident occurred in 1731, and Bononcini remained in London for over a year receiving royal patronage. Lotti was an excellent teacher, as is evident from his many famous pupils, e. g., Marcello, Alberti, Bassani, Gasparini, an d Galuppi. He was taken seriously ill in 1736, but lingered until 5 January, 1740, and was interred in the church of St. Geminiano. The monument to his memory was destroyed with the church in 1851.

GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians, new ed. (London, 1906); EITNER, Quellenlexikon (1900-04); BURNEY, General History of Music (London, 1789).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Lorenzo Lotto

Italian portrait painter, born at Venice, 1480; died at Loreto, 1556. This eminent artist was one of the best portrait painters who ever lived, and occupies an almost unique position, especially amongst Italian artists, for his extraordinary skill in detecting the peculiarities of personal character and his power of setting them forth in full accord with the temperament and mood of his sitters. He was a great colourist, and possessed of a passionate admiration for the beautiful, with a somewhat definite tendency towards the ecstatic and mystical, in religion. He appears to have been a man of strong personal faith, and had a sincere devotion to Loreto and its great relic, the Holy House, spending his final years in that city, and devoting himself very largely to its interests. His early works were painted at Treviso, and from that place he went to Recanati in 1508 to paint an important altar-piece. We do not know who was his master, but his work reveals affinity with that of Alvise Vivarini. He is believed to have painted some frescoes in the upper floor of the Vatican in 1509, but, whether or not these were executed, he evidently studied the work of Raphael when in Rome, as in his own paintings from 1512 to 1525 there are many Raphaelistic characteristics. He first reached Bergamo, the place with which his name is so closely connected, in 1513, spent some five years there, and, after a visit to Venice in 1523, returned again to the same place. In 1512 and in 1526 he was painting at Jesi, the two works executed in the latter year being of high importance. A wonderful picture is the great "Crucifixion", painted at Monte San Giusto in 1531. In the following year he was in Venice, and a couple of years afterwards again in Bergamo. Many of his finest pictures were painted for small rural towns, such as Cingoli, Mogliano, Trescorre, and Jesi. Fortunately most of his works are dated, and he left behind him an account book, which he commenced in 1539, and in which he records the names of his later pictures. This book he kept down to within a few months of his death. There are a few of his drawings in existence, notably at Chatsworth, Wilton House, the Uffizi, and Vienna. Almost all his latest productions are at Loreto, but during the last three years of his life, he appears to have laid aside his brush.

He has been the subject of a monumental book by BERNHARD BERENSON (London, 1901), an essay in constructive art criticism that is not only the standard work on Lotto, but is also a psychological romance evolved out of the minutest criticism, and is the representative and classic work for all followers of Morellian analysis. To this work and to the detached Essays of GRONAU and MARY LOGAN the student must be referred. For earlier information, see TASSI, Le Vite de' Pittori Bergamaschi (Bergamo, 1793); VASARI, Vite de' piu eccelenti pittori (Florence, 1550), ed. MILANESI (Florence, 1878-85).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON.

Loucheux

The would-be Kuchin of some ethnologists, and the Tukudh of the Protestant missionaries; Richardson called them Quarrellers. They call themselves generally Dindjye (men) and form an aggregate of closely related tribes, a sort of ethnographic confederation, the most north-western of all the Déné divisions. Their habitat extends from Anderson River in the east to the western extremity of Alaska. East of the Rocky Mountains their southern frontier is to-day about 67º N. lat., and west of that range their territory reaches somewhat more to the south. Practically the whole interior of Alaska is claimed by them. In the north they have for neighbours the Eskimos. They are, or were originally, divided into fourteen tribes, viz, the 'Kaiyuh-kho-'tenne, or People of the Willow River, conterminous with the Eskimos of Norton Sound, an important subdivision of more or less mixed blood more commonly known by its Eskimo name, Ingalete; the Koyu-kukh-o'tenne, or Coyukons, farther up the great Alaskan stream and along the Coyukuk River; the Yuna-kho'-tenne, still higher up on the left bank of the Yukon, as far as Tanana River; the Tanana, along the river called after them; the Kut'qa-kut'qin, at the confluence of the Porcupine; the Gens du Large, or Natce-kut'qin, from the Porcupine to the Romanoff Mountains; the Voenkut'qin, or People of the Lake; the Tza-'ke-kut'qin, or Cross-Eyed Ones, being the particular tribe, between the headwaters of the Porcupine and Fort McPherson, which gave rise to the French name of Loucheux now applied to all those related Arctic aborigines; the Han-kut'qin, or River People, above the Kotlo River, on both banks of the Yukon; the utsone-kut'qin, or Crow People, from the sources of the Porcupine and the Peel to those of the Liard; the Tehanin-kut'qin, from the upper branches of the Yukon almost to the Pacific coast; the Thet'let-kut'qin, on Peel River; the Nakotco-ondjig-kut'qin, or People of the Mackenzie, and the Kwit'qa-kut'qin, who inhabit the dreary steppes bordering on the Arctic Ocean, barring a strip of land along the coast between the Mackenzie and the Anderson Rivers. The desinence - kut'qin in these tribal names means inhabitants of (as well as 'tenne in other Déné denominations) and not men, as American ethnologists have freely stated.

The total population of the Loucheux tribes is today about 5500 souls. They are as a rule superior, physically and mentally, to the majority of the northern Dénés. Tall and of a rather pleasing appearance, they are more manly than their southern neighbours. Owing to the large extent of their habitat, their manners and customs cannot be represented as uniform. East and west of the Rocky Mountains they were originally remarkable for their fine beaded and befringed leather costume, the most conspicuous part of which was a coat with a peaked appendage in front and behind. Their footgear was made of one piece with the leggings, the counterpart among most American aborigines of the white man's trousers. During the winter they lived in semi-spherical skin lodges, not unlike those of the Tuskis of the eastern Asiatic coast, and in summer they replaced these by shelters usually made of coniferous boughs, generally erected in pairs of face to face dwellings so that a single fire on the outside served for both. Their tribal organization varies according to their environment. While east of the Rocky Mountains they have preserved the original patriarchy of the Dénés in all its primitive simplicity, some of the western tribes have adopted a sort of matriarchy, with chiefs, clans, totems and other consequent institutions. Their religion originally consisted in the shamanism common to all the northern Dénés, and their traditions clearly point to the west, that is, Asia, as the region whence they migrated. Their wars were, as usual, series of ambuscades and massacres, of which the Eskimos were often the victims. Several of these are on record, as for instance the treacherous slaying of five or six Eskimos on the Lower Mackenzie, in the spring of 1850, and, in October of the same year, the murder by the Coyukons of Lieutenant Barnard with his body servant, and then the destruction by fire and arrows of an almost entire village of the Nulato Indians, on the Yukon. Early the following spring the same party likewise encompassed the death of the Russian commander with one of his men, whereby we see that the assertion of Father Petitot that "the Loucheux never imbrued their hands in the blood of Europeans" (Traditions Indiennes du Canada Nord-Ouest, p. 14) is unreliable.

The Loucheux are of all the northern Déné tribes that which has been the least influenced by Catholicism. The Catholic missionaries had secured a firm footing among their neighbouring congeners when the Protestant preachers reached the Mackenzie and directed their steps towards the Loucheux, especially those whose habitat lay west of the Rocky Mountains, who had not as yet been visited. There being no priests to oppose them, they practically had the field to themselves. East of that range, the Oblate Fathers Seguin and Petitot, hailing from the Missions of Good Hope and Fort McPherson, long devoted themselves to the salvation of the Loucheux, not without success. But the fanaticism of those who had embraced Protestantism eventually resulted in the Catholic Loucheux having to leave Fort McPherson (where the priest's house was burnt down by their Protestant compatriots) for the environs of the Arctic Red River, where a Catholic mission was built for Loucheux and Eskimos. An Episcopalian clergyman, Rev. W. W. Kirkby, had already crossed the Rockies to proselytize among the western Loucheux. In 1862 and 1870 respectively, Fathers Seguin and Petitot followed him thither, going as far as Fort Yukon, but without any appreciable results, owing to the calumnies disseminated by the minister, who had preceded them in every village. Two years later, Bishop Clut, O.M.I., accompanied by Father Lecorre, walked in their footsteps and reached the Pacific, meeting along the Yukon with some slight success. Father Lecorre even remained on that stream until 1874, when he learned that Alaska had been entrusted to the Bishop of Vancouver Island. The latter advanced in 1877 as far as Nulato from the coast, but in Nov., 1886, he was murdered in the course of another apostolic tour in the valley of the Yukon (see SEGHERS, CHARLES). Nevertheless the efforts of the two bishops had not been in vain. They paved the way for the establishment by the Jesuits of a mission in 1887 among the westernmost Loucheux. The following year a little band of Sisters of St. Anne arrived there, who immediately opened a school for the Loucheux and Eskimo girls, while lay brothers of the Society of Jesus were doing the same on behalf of the boys of both nations. Most of the eastern Loucheux are now excellent Catholics.

RICHARDSON, Arctic Searching Expedition, 2 vols. (London, 1851); HOOPER, Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski (London, 1853); WHYMPER, Travel and Adventure in the Territory of Alaska (London, 1868); PETITOT, op. cit., and Monographie des Déné-Dindjié (Paris, 1876); DALL, Tribes of the Extreme North-west (Washington, 1877); SCHWATKA, Along Alaska's Great River (New York, 1885); MORICE, The Western Dénés; their Manners and Customs (Toronto, 1890); The Great Déné Race (in course of publication, Vienna, Austria); DEVINE, Across Widest America (New York, 1906).

A. G. MORICE.

St. Louis IX

King of France, son of Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile, born at Poissy, 25 April, 1215; died near Tunis, 25 August, 1270.

He was eleven years of age when the death of Louis VIII made him king, and nineteen when he married Marguerite of Provence by whom he had eleven children. The regency of Blanche of Castile (1226-1234) was marked by the victorious struggle of the Crown against Raymond VII in Languedoc, against Pierre Mauclerc in Brittany, against Philip Hurepel in the Ile de France, and by indecisive combats against Henry III of England. In this period of disturbances the queen was powerfully supported by the legate Frangipani. Accredited to Louis VIII by Honorius III as early as 1225, Frangipani won over to the French cause the sympathies of Gregory IX, who was inclined to listen to Henry III, and through his intervention it was decreed that all the chapters of the dioceses should pay to Blanche of Castile tithes for the southern crusade. It was the legate who received the submission of Raymond VII, Count of Languedoc, at Paris, in front of Notre-Dame, and this submission put an end to the Albigensian war and prepared the union of the southern provinces to France by the Treaty of Paris (April 1229). The influence of Blanche de Castile over the government extended far beyond St. Louis's minority. Even later, in public business and when ambassadors were officially received, she appeared at his side. She died in 1253.

In the first years of the king's personal government, the Crown had to combat a fresh rebellion against feudalism, led by the Count de la Marche, in league with Henry III. St. Louis's victory over this coalition at Taillebourg, 1242, was followed by the Peace of Bordeaux which annexed to the French realm a part of Saintonge.

It was one of St. Louis's chief characteristics to carry on abreast his administration as national sovereign and the performance of his duties towards Christendom; and taking advantage of the respite which the Peace of Bordeaux afforded, he turned his thoughts towards a crusade. Stricken down with a fierce malady in 1244, he resolved to take the cross when news came that Turcomans had defeated the Christians and the Moslems and invaded Jerusalem. (On the two crusades of St. Louis [1248-1249 and 1270] see Crusades.) Between the two crusades he opened negotiations with Henry III, which he thought would prevent new conflicts between France and England. The Treaty of Paris (28 May, 1258) which St. Louis concluded with the King of England after five years' parley, has been very much discussed. By this treaty St. Louis gave Henry III all the fiefs and domains belonging to the King of France in the Dioceses of Limoges, Cahors, and Périgueux; and in the event of Alphonsus of Poitiers dying without issue, Saintonge and Agenais would escheat to Henry III. On the other hand Henry III renounced his claims to Normandy, Anjou, Touraine, Maine, Poitou, and promised to do homage for the Duchy of Guyenne. It was generally considered and Joinville voiced the opinion of the people, that St. Louis made too many territorial concessions to Henry III; and many historians held that if, on the contrary, St. Louis had carried the war against Henry III further, the Hundred Years War would have been averted. But St. Louis considered that by making the Duchy of Guyenne a fief of the Crown of France he was gaining a moral advantage; and it is an undoubted fact that the Treaty of Paris, was as displeasing to the English as it was to the French. In 1263, St. Louis was chosen as arbitrator in a difference which separated Henry III and the English barons: by the Dit d'Amiens (24 January, 1264) he declared himself for Henry III against the barons, and annulled the Provisions of Oxford, by which the barons had attempted to restrict the authority of the king. It was also in the period between the two crusades that St. Louis, by the Treaty of Corbeil, imposed upon the King of Aragon the abandonment of his claims to all the fiefs in Languedoc excepting Montpellier, and the surrender of his rights to Provence (11 May, 1258). Treaties and arbitrations prove St. Louis to have been above all a lover of peace, a king who desired not only to put an end to conflicts, but also to remove the causes for fresh wars, and this spirit of peace rested upon the Christian conception.

St. Louis's relations with the Church of France and the papal Court have excited widely divergent interpretations and opinions. However, all historians agree that St. Louis and the successive popes united to protect the clergy of France from the encroachments or molestations of the barons and royal officers. It is equally recognized that during the absence of St. Louis at the crusade, Blanche of Castile protected the clergy in 1251 from the plunder and ill-treatment of a mysterious old maurauder called the "Hungarian Master" who was followed by a mob of armed men — called the "Pastoureaux." The "Hungarian Master" who was said to be in league with the Moslems died in an engagement near Villaneuve and the entire band pursued in every direction was dispersed and annihilated.

But did St. Louis take measures also to defend the independence of the clergy against the papacy? A number of historians once claimed he did. They attributed to St. Louis a certain "pragmatic sanction" of March 1269, prohibiting irregular collations of ecclesiastical benefices, prohibiting simony, and interdicting the tributes which the papal Court received from the French clergy. The Gallicans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often made use of this measure against the Holy See; the truth is that it was a forgery fabricated in the fourteenth century by juris-consults desirous of giving to the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII a precedent worthy of respect. This so-called pragmatic of Louis IX is presented as a royal decree for the reformation of the Church; never would St. Louis thus have taken upon himself the right to proceed authoritatively with this reformation. When in 1246, a great number of barons from the north and the west leagued against the clergy whom they accused of amassing too great wealth and of encroaching upon their rights, Innocent IV called upon Louis to dissolve this league; how the king acted in the matter is not definitely known. On 2 May, 1247, when the Bishops of Soissons and of Troyes, the archdeacon of Tours, and the provost of the cathedral of Rouen, despatched to the pope a remonstrance against his taxations, his preferment of Italians in the distribution of benefices, against the conflicts between papal jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the ordinaries, Marshal Ferri Pasté seconded their complaints in the name of St. Louis. Shortly after, these complaints were reiterated and detailed in a lengthy memorandum, the text of which has been preserved by Mathieu Paris, the historian. It is not known whether St. Louis affixed his signature to it, but in any case, this document was simply a request asking for the suppression of the abuses, with no pretensions to laying down principles of public right, as was claimed by the Pragmatic Sanction.

Documents prove that St. Louis did not lend an ear to the grievances of his clergy against the emissaries of Urban IV and Clement IV; he even allowed Clement IV to generalize a custom in 1265 according to which the benefices the titularies of which died while sojourning in Rome, should be disposed of by the pope. Docile to the decrees of the Lateran Council (1215), according to which kings were not to tax the churches of their realm without authority from the pope, St. Louis claimed and obtained from successive popes, in view of the crusade, the right to levy quite heavy taxes from the clergy. It is again this fundamental idea of the crusade, ever present in St. Louis's thoughts that prompted his attitude generally in the struggle between the empire and the pope. While the Emperor Frederick II and the successive popes sought and contended for France's support, St. Louis's attitude was at once decided and reserved. On the one hand he did not accept for his brother Robert of Artois, the imperial crown offered him by Gregory IX in 1240. In his correspondence with Frederick he continued to treat him as a sovereign, even after Frederick had been excommunicated and declared dispossessed of his realms by Innocent IV at the Council of Lyons, 17 July, 1245. But on the other hand, in 1251, the king compelled Frederick to release the French archbishops taken prisoners by the Pisans, the emperor's auxiliaries, when on their way in a Genoese fleet to attend a general council at Rome. In 1245, he conferred at length, at Cluny, with Innocent IV who had taken refuge in Lyons in December, 1244, to escape the threats of the emperor, and it was at this meeting that the papal dispensation for the marriage of Charles Anjou, brother of Louis IX, to Beatrix, heiress of Provençe was granted and it was then that Louis IX and Blanche of Castile promised Innocent IV their support. Finally, when in 1247 Frederick II took steps to capture Innocent IV at Lyons, the measures Louis took to defend the pope were one of the reasons which caused the emperor to withdraw. St. Louis looked upon every act of hostility from either power as an obstacle to accomplishing the crusade. In the quarrel over investitures, the king kept on friendly terms with both, not allowing the emperor to harass the pope and never exciting the pope against the emperor. In 1262 when Urban offered St. Louis, the Kingdom of Sicily, a fief of the Apostolic See, for one of his sons, St. Louis refused it, through consideration for the Swabian dynasty then reigning; but when Charles of Anjou accepted Urban IV's offer and went to conquer the Kingdom of Sicily, St. Louis allowed the bravest knights of France to join the expedition which destroyed the power of the Hohenstaufens in Sicily. The king hoped, doubtless, that the possession of Sicily by Charles of Anjou would be advantageous to the crusade.

St. Louis led an exemplary life, bearing constantly in mind his mother's words: "I would rather see you dead at my feet than guilty of a mortal sin." His biographers have told us of the long hours he spent in prayer, fasting, and penance, without the knowlege of his subjects. The French king was a great lover of justice. French fancy still pictures him delivering judgements under the oak of Vincennes. It was during his reign that the "court of the king" (curia regis) was organized into a regular court of justice, having competent experts, and judicial commissions acting at regular periods. These commissions were called parlements and the history of the "Dit d'Amiens" proves that entire Christendom willingly looked upon him as an international judiciary. It is an error, however, to represent him as a great legislator; the document known as "Etablissements de St. Louis" was not a code drawn up by order of the king, but merely a collection of customs, written out before 1273 by a jurist who set forth in this book the customs of Orléans, Anjou, and Maine, to which he added a few ordinances of St. Louis.

St. Louis was a patron of architecture. The Sainte Chappelle, an architectural gem, was constructed in his reign, and it was under his patronage that Robert of Sorbonne founded the "Collège de la Sorbonne," which became the seat of the theological faculty of Paris.

He was renowned for his charity. The peace and blessings of the realm come to us through the poor he would say. Beggars were fed from his table, he ate their leavings, washed their feet, ministered to the wants of the lepers, and daily fed over one hundred poor. He founded many hospitals and houses: the House of the Felles-Dieu for reformed prostitutes; the Quinze-Vingt for 300 blind men (1254), hospitals at Pontoise, Vernon, Compiégne.

The Enseignements (written instructions) which he left to his son Philip and to his daughter Isabel, the discourses preserved by the witnesses at judicial investigations preparatory to his canonization and Joinville's anecdotes show St. Louis to have been a man of sound common sense, possessing indefatigable energy, graciously kind and of playful humour, and constantly guarding against the temptation to be imperious. The caricature made of him by the envoy of the Count of Gueldre: "worthless devotee, hypocritical king" was very far from the truth. On the contrary, St. Louis, through his personal qualities as well as his saintliness, increased for many centuries the prestige of the French monarchy (see France). St. Louis's canonization was proclaimed at Orvieto in 1297, by Boniface VIII. Of the inquiries in view of canonization, carried on from 1273 till 1297, we have only fragmentary reports published by Delaborde ("Mémoires de la société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ilea de France," XXIII, 1896) and a series of extracts compiled by Guillaume de St. Pathus, Queen Marguerite's confessor, under the title of "Vie Monseigneur Saint Loys" (Paris, 1899).

GEORGES GOYAU

Louis XIV

King of France, b. at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 16 September, 1638; d. at Versailles, 1 September, 1715; was the son of Louis XIII and Anne of Austria, and became king, upon the death of his father, 14 May 1643.

Until 1661 the real master of France was Cardinal Mazarin, under whose government his country, victorious over Austria (1643-48) and Spain (1643-59), acquired by the Treaties of Westphalia (1648) and the Pyrennes (1659) Alsace, Artois, and Roussillon, which had already been occupied by French troops since the days of Richelieu. As a result of the marriage between Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Austria, Louis XIV also acquired rights over the Low Countries. When Louis's personal government began (1661), France was the arbiter of Europe: she had re-established peace among the Powers of the North (Sweden, Brandenburg, Denmark, and Poland); she protected the League of the Rhine; and her authority in Germany was greater than the emperor's. At that period the power of France, established upon the firmest foundations, was perhaps less imposing, but was assuredly more solid, than it became during the most glorious days of Louis XIV's personal government.

The memory of those dangers with which the parliamentary Fronde and the Fronde of the nobles (1648-53) had threatened the power of the Crown persuaded the young king that he must govern in absolute fashion, regardless of the still existing provincial relics and local rights. The nobility became a court nobility, and the nobles, instead of residing on their estates where they were influential, became mere ornaments of the Court. The Parliaments, which had hitherto used their right of registration (droit d'enregistrement) of edicts to revise, to some extent, the king's decrees, were trained to submission. The whole power of the State, represented in the provinces by intendants at once docile and energetic, was gathered up in the hands of the king, who consulted, in his council, certain assistants chosen by himself -- Colbert, for finance and justice; Louvois, for war; Lionne, for foreign affairs. Colbert (q.v.) desired that France should rule the sea. He did much to develop French colonial power, but before the end of the reign that power was to enter upon its period of decadence. Colbert's plans were, indeed, constantly embarrassed by the Continental wars which Louis undertook. No doubt, the king was forced into some of these wars: it was necessary to strengthen the French frontier at certain points. But his lust of fame, the flattery of his courtiers, and his desire to humiliate Europe led him to prefer the glories of warfare to the wiser and more durable triumphs which a great maritime development would have secured for France. His European policy continued those of Richelieu and of Mazarin in the struggle against the House of Austria, but it differed, too, from the policies of the two cardinals in being a policy of religious creed, confronting Protestantism in Holland and England.

The war against Spain (1667-68) undertaken to enforce the claim of the queen, Maria Theresa, to the sovereignty of the Low Countries (guerre de dévolution), in which the king in person accomplished the conquest of Flanders and made a military promenade in Franche-Comté; the Dutch War (1672-78), in which Louis distinguished himself by that passage of the Rhine, of which contemporary poets sang, by the siege of Besannon, the definitive conquest of Franche-Comt, (1674), and two campaigns in Flanders (1676-78); the judiciary and police measures by virtue of which, without any declaration of war, he occupied Strasburg (1681), a free and imperial city, as well as several other places on the banks of the Rhine -- all these brought Louis XIV to the apogee of his glory, the date of which is commonly assigned as the year 1685. But these very successes, the king's habit of not considering himself bound by treaties, and the pride which led him to commemorate by insulting medals his triumphs over various nations, combined to arouse in Europe a sort of uprising against France which found expression in numerous pamphlets, on the one hand, and, on the other, in diplomatic coalitions. The soul of these coalitions was the Protestant William of Orange. The League of Augsburg, formed in 1688 between the emperor, Spain, Holland, and Savoy, set on foot a war during which Louis himself, in 1691 and 1692, made two campaigns in Flanders. In spite of the victories of Luxembourg and Catinat, the war was ruinous for Louis XIV and ended in a peace less glorious than those which had preceded it (Peace of Ryswick, 1697), forcing him to restore Lorraine and all the cities of the empire outside of Alsace, and to recognize William as King of England. Thus, at the opening of the eighteenth century, Louis stood face to face with England, a Protestant power, a power in which instead of the monarchy or Divine right the Parliament held sway, and lastly, a power already stronger on the sea than France was -- three circumstances which made the prestige of that nation all the more galling to the King of France.

In consequence of the testament of Charles II, King of Spain, the Spanish Throne passed from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons. The Duke of Anjou, the king's grandson, became Philip V of Spain. Hence resulted the War of the Spanish Succession, a long and ruinous war, and yet glorious, thanks to the triumphs of Vendôme and Villars, though it brought France to the brink of destruction. At one time, in 1712, the king thought of placing himself at the head of his brave nobility, and burying himself beneath the ruins of his throne. The victory of Villars at Denain (1712) saved the country. The Treaties of Utrecht and Baden (1713 and 1714) maintained Philip V on the throne of Spain, but gave to the emperor Spain's ancient possessions in Italy, doomed the maritime power of France to destruction, and made a breach in her colonial power by the cession of Newfoundland and Acadia to England, thus firmly establishing England in North America at the same time that she was established, at Gibraltar, in the Mediterranean.

The close of his reign, saddened by these reverses and by financial catastrophes, also brought a series of personal griefs to Louis XIV: the deaths of the Dauphin (1711), of the Duke of Burgundy, the king's grandson, and the Duchess of Burgundy (1712), of their eldest son (1712), and of his other grandson, the Duke of Berry (1714). He left his throne to Louis XV, then five years of age, the son of the Duke of Burgundy. Thus did all the glories of the reign end in the dangers of a regency. Such as he was, Louis XIV left a great memory in the soul of France. Voltaire calls the seventeenth century the Age of Louis XIV. Warriors like Turenne, Condé, Luxembourg, Catinat, Vendôme, and Villars, navigators like Duquesne, Trouville, and Duguay-Trouin, preachers like Bossuet, Bourdaloue, and Massillon, engineers like Vauban, architects like Perrault and Mansart, painters like Poussin, Le Sueur, and Le Brun, sculptors like Puget, writers like Corneille, Racine, Molière, Boileau, La Fontaine, La Bruyère, Fénelon, Madame de Sévigné, gave to France a glory by which Louis XIV profited, and the "Mémoires" of Saint-Simon, in which the reverse of that glory is often exhibited, have rather enriched the history of the reign than damaged the prestige of the king.

Louis XIV and Religion

Louis XIV was much occupied with religion and religious questions. His reign is generally considered as divided into two periods: (1) that of libertinage, during which his heart was ruled by Mlle de la Vallière, Madame de Montespan, and other favourites; (2) that of devotion, coinciding with the influence of Madame de Maintenon, the widow of Scarron, who, when Marie Theresa died (31 July, 1683), secretly married the king, and who, for a quarter of a century, assisted him in ruling the kingdom. The second of these two periods was also that of the influence of Père Le Tellier (q.v.). This division is natural and accounts for certain developments of religious policy; but it must not be exaggerated. Even during his period of libertinage, Louis XIV took a passionate interest in religious questions; and during his devout period, he never altogether abandoned those Gallican principles which incessantly exposed him to conflicts with Rome. Certain pamphlets, published in the days of the Fronde, opposed to the doctrines of royal absolutism the old theological doctrine of the origin and the responsibilities of power. "Le Théologien Politique" declares that obedience is due only to those kings who demand what is just and reasonable; the treatise "Chrétien et Politique" asserts that kings do not make peoples, but that peoples have made kings. But the doctrine of the Divine right of kings succeeded in establishing itself upon the ruins of the Fronde; according to that doctrine Louis XIV had to reckon only with God, and the same doctrine served as one of the supports of the dictatorship which he pretended to exercise over the Church of France.

In the "Mémoires" of Louis XIV a whole theory of the relations between Church and State is expounded. He sets forth that the king is the proprietor of the Church's wealth, in virtue of the maxim that there is no other proprietor in the kingdom but the king. He holds that all the faithful, "whether lay or tonsured," are the sovereign's subjects; that the clergy are bound to bear their part pecuniarily in the public burdens, and that they "should not excuse themselves from that obligation by alleging that their possessions are for a particular purpose, or that the employment of those possessions must be regulated by the intention of the donors." The assemblies of the clergy, which discuss the amounts to be contributed by the clergy, are, in the eyes of Louis XIV, only tolerated; he considers that, as sovereign, he would be within his rights in laying imposts upon the clergy, and that "the popes who have wished to contest that right of royalty have made it clearer and more incontestable by the distinct withdrawal of their ambitious pretensions which they have been obliged to make;" he declares it to be inadmissible that ecclesiastics, "exempt from the dangers of war and the burden of families," should not contribute to the necessities of the State. The Minims of Provence had dedicated to Louis XIV a thesis in which they compared him to God; Bossuet declared that the king could not tolerate any such doctrine, and the Sorbonne condemned it. But at Court the person of the king was the object of a sort of religious worship, in which certain courtier bishops too easily acquiesced, and the consequence of which became perceptible in the relations between the Church and the State.

From these principles resulted his attitude towards the assemblies of the clergy. He shortened the duration of their sessions and caused them to be watched by his ministers, while Colbert, who detested the financial autonomy enjoyed by the clergy, went so far as to say that it would be well "to put a stop to these assemblies which the wisest politicians have always considered diseases of the body politic." From these principles, too, arose the fear of everything by which churchmen could acquire political influence. Unlike his predecessors, Louis XIV employed few prelates in the service of the State.

The Concordat of Francis I placed a large number of benefices at the disposal of Louis XIV; he felt that the appointment of bishops was the most critical part of his kingly duty, and the bishops whom he appointed were, in general, very well chosen. He erred, however, in the readiness with which he dispensed them from residence in their dioceses, while, as to abbacies, he too often availed himself of them to reward services rendered by laymen, and gave them as means of support to impoverished nobles. To the Comte du Vexin, his son by Madame de Montespan, he gave the two great Abbacies of Saint-Denis and Saint-Germain-des-Prés.

Louis XIV was particularly fond of taking a hand in doctrinal matters; and those who surrounded him ended by believing that the king could supervise the Church and supply it with information on religious questions. Daguesseau, on 14 August, 1699, went so far as to proclaim that the King of France ought to be both king and priest. Thus it was that, for example, in the midst of the war of the League of Augsburg, Louis was careful to have a report prepared for him on a catechism which was suspected of Jansenism; and so, again, in 1715, he caused a lieutenant of police to be reprimanded for neglecting to report three preachers of Paris who were in the habit of speaking of grace in a Jansenistic manner.

Louis XIV and the Papacy

There was always a certain inconsistency in Louis's policy towards the Holy See. On the one hand, he called forth the intervention of Alexander VII against the Jansenists (see below), which would have been anomalous if the king had believed that the Bishop of Rome was no more in the Church than any other bishop. On the other hand, he set himself up as the head of his Church (though, at the same time, not wishing to be schismatical), and the Gallicanism of his magistrates and some of his bishops found support in him. Full submission to Rome and rupture with Rome were equally distasteful to him. The humiliation which he inflicted on Alexander VII when Créqui, his ambassador, had to complain of the pope's Corsican guard (August, 1662) was inspired rather by the need of displaying his unlimited power than by any feeling of hostility to the Holy See (see ALEXANDER VII). In 1665, a papal Bull having condemned the censure which the Sorbonne had passed against the doctrine of infallibility, Louis, after inviting the procurator-general to appeal against it comme d'abus, desisted from further action. In 1666, when Colbert, in order to diminish the number of priests and monks, wished to put back the legal age for ordination, the nuncio declared to Père Aunat, the king's confessor, that there would be a schism if the king continued to consult only laymen on spiritual affairs; Louis thought these words "horrible," and Colbert's project was abandoned. In short, Louis XIV held that, as he expressed it, it was "an advantage that the Roman Curia should be favourable to him rather than unfavourable."

In 1673 the conflict of the régale broke out. The term régale was applied to that right by which the king, upon the death of a bishop, drew the revenues of the see and made appointments to benefices until the new bishop had registered his oath in the Court of Exchequer (Chambre des comptes). Louis XIV claimed, in 1673 and again in 1675, that the right of régale was his in all bishoprics of the kingdom. Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, and Caulet, Bishop of Pamiers, refused to submit. These prelates, both Jansenists, alleged that the Jesuits had stretched the right of régale so as to increase the number of benefices in the collation of which Père La Chaise, the king's confessor, might exert his influence. In 1677, Caulet, having refused to give the cure of souls within his diocese to priests whom the king had nominated in virtue of the régale, was deprived of his temporalities. Three Briefs of Innocent XI (March, 1678, and January and December, 1679) sustained Caulet and threatened Louis with the pains of conscience before God's tribunal, and the rumour was current that the king was about to be excommunicated.

In July, 1680, the assembly of the clergy, in a letter to the king, identified themselves with the king and threatened the pope. Upon the death of Caulet, the Diocese of Pamiers was contested between the vicar capitular nominated by the chapter, who was hostile to the régale, and another vicar capitular, nominated by the Archbishop of Toulouse and installed by the royal officers. The former of these two vicars was removed by the king's order, and the latter was excommunicated by the pope. A third vicar capitular, nominated by the chapter, remained in hiding while he administered the diocese, was condemned to death and was executed in effigy by the king's command. A rupture between Louis and the Holy See appeared to be imminent; the king, in convoking the assembly of the clergy for November, 1681, threw out some hints of a schism. This was an attempt to frighten the pope. In fact, neither side wished for any schism. Louis made the concession that priests provided by him in virtue of his right of régale should be obliged to first receive canonical mission, and this concession was offset by the passage of the Declaration of the Four Articles, which showed the "wish to humiliate Rome." The very animated correspondence between the pope and the assembly was a disquieting circumstance, but Louis prorogued the assembly on 29 June, 1682 (see BOSSUET; ASSEMBLIES OF THE FRENCH CLERGY). In this way he made his escape from the advisers who, to use his own words, would have liked to "invite him to don the turban." He had, in the words of the Jesuit Avigny, "a foundation of religion which would not allow him to face these divisions without emotion."

Again, when Innocent XI steadfastly refused to accept bishops who, as priests, had participated in the assembly of 1682, Louis went through a series of manoeuvres which had the appearance of acts of contrition. Innocent remained insensible to all this and, on the other hand, refused to maintain the right of asylum and the franchises which the ambassador of France claimed at Rome. This new incident made an immense stir in Europe; there was talk of the conquest of Avignon and Civitavecchia by France; the Bull of 12 May, 1687, excommunicating the ambassador and his accomplices, was pronounced abominable by the parlementaires of Paris, who had in view the assembling of a national council and declared that the pope, by reason of his infirmities, could no longer support the weight of the papacy. Alexander VIII (1689-91), during his short pontificate, induced Louis to surrender his claim in the matter of the franchises and also published a Bull, until then reserved, by which Innocent XI had condemned the Declaration of 1682. Innocent XII (1691-1700) made but one concession to Louis XIV: he declared his readiness to grant Bulls without delay to all bishops nominated by the king, provided they had taken no part in the assembly of 1682, and provided that they made a profession of faith before the nuncio. Louis, on 14 September, 1693, declared that, to show his veneration for the pope, he ordered the declaration of 1682 to be held without effect in regard to religious policy. The Gallicans in France and the Protestants abroad pointed to this decision of the king as a desertion of his principles.

The good understanding between Louis and the papacy, while they fought side by side against Jansenism (see below), was again momentarily clouded during the War of the Spanish Succession. In a very long and very cordial Brief dated 6 February, 1701, Clement XI had recognized Philip V as King of Spain. Political conditions, threats made against him by the Emperor Joseph I, brought the pope to recognize Charles III as king, 10 October, 1709. The diplomatic representatives of Louis XIV and Philip V at Rome had done everything to prevent this; the extremely reserved tone and the laconic style of the Brief addressed to Charles III did not sufficiently console them, and Cardinal de la Trémouille, on 13 October, 1709, protested in the name of Louis XIV against the public recognition of Charles III, which was to take place in Consistory on the next day.

Louis XIV and the Heresies

His care to maintain a certain orthodoxy, and the conception which he had formed of the religious unity of his kingdom, expressed themselves in his policy towards the Jansenists, the Quietists, and the Protestants.

A. Louis XIV and Jansenism

Since the days of Mazarin, Louis had felt "that the Jansenists were not well-disposed towards him and the State." A certain number of them had been implicated in the Fronde; they wished to obtain, in spite of Mazarin, the recall of Cardinal de Retz, Archbishop of Paris, who had escaped from his prison at Nantes and gone to Rome; some of them applauded the triumphs over Louis's armies won by Condè, who was in alliance with the Spaniards. Louis, in September, 1660, caused the "Provinciales" of Pascal to be examined by a commission, and the book was burned. His desire, expressed in December, 1660, to the president of the assembly of the clergy, induced that body to draw up, in February, 1661, a formula condemning "the doctrine of the five propositions of Jansenius contained in the "Augustinus," which formula was to be signed by all ecclesiastics; and the superiors of the two monasteries of Port-Royal received orders to dismiss their pupils and their novices. Mazarin, on his death-bed, in March, 1661, told the king that he must not "tolerate either the sect of the Jansenists or even so much as their name." The vicars-general, who governed the Diocese of Paris in the absence of de Retz, explained, in a charge published in May, 1661, that the signature required was compatible with reserves on the question of fact -- i.e., the question whether the five propositions were in fact contained in the "Augustinus." The royal council and the pope condemned this charge, and in 1664, Archbishop Hardouin de Péréfixe made two visits to Port-Royal (9 June and 21 August) and demanded of the religious their signatures without reserve. The religious of Port-Royal refused, and thereupon, on 26 August, the police expelled those of Port-Royal de Paris, and, in November, those of Port- Royal des Champs. Later, in 1665, lest they might have a disturbing effect on the various convents in which they had found shelter, they were all collected in the des Champs convent and placed under a police guard.

The concern felt by Louis on the subject of Jansenism was so great that, in 1665, he appealed to Pope Alexander VII to break down the opposition of Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, who did not recognize the right of assembly of the clergy to legislate for the Church, and was carrying on a campaign against the formula drawn up by that assembly and against the obligation to sign it. France was presented with the spectacle of a joint effort of the pope and the king; the royal council annulled a charge in which Pavillon, after having given the required signature to another formula drawn up by the pope, developed some new Jansenistic theories on grace; the pope, without arousing any feeling on the king's part, himself appointed a commission of French bishops to try Pavillon and three other bishops who refused to make the unreserved submission. Presently, in December, 1667, nineteen bishops wrote to the king that the appointment of such a commission by the pope was contrary to the Gallican liberties. The difficulties appeared insurmountable; but the nuncio, Bargellini, and the foreign secretary, Lionne, found a way. The four bishops signed the formulary and caused it to be signed, at the same time explaining their action in a letter expressed with such intentional ambiguity that it was impossible to make out whether their signatures had been give pure et simpliciter or not; the pope, in his reply to them, took care not to repeat the words pure et simpliciter and spoke of the signatures which they had given sincere. It was Lionne who had suggested to the pope the employment of this word sincere. And thanks to these artifices, "the peace of the Church" was restored.

The question of Jansenism was revived, in 1702, by the case of conscience which the Jansenists presented to the Archbishop of Paris: "Is a respectful and silent submission to the decision of the Church sufficient in regard to the attribution of the five propositions to Jansenius?" Again the pope and the king were unanimous against Jansenism. In February and April, 1703, Clement XI called upon Louis XIV to intervene, and in June, 1703, Louis XIV asked Clement XI for a Bull against Jansenism. To keep peace with the Jansenists, however, the king at the same time begged the pope to particularly mention in the Bull that it was issued at the instance of the French Court. Clement, not wishing to yield to this Gallican suggestion, temporized for twenty-six months, and the Bull "Vineam Domini" (15 July 1705) lacked the rhetorical precautions desired by Louis. The king, nevertheless, was glad to take it as it was. He hoped to make an end of Jansenism. But Jansenism from that time forward maintained its resistance on the ground not of dogma but of ecclesiastical law; the Jansenists invoked Gallican liberties, asserting that the Bull had been issued in contravention of those liberties. More and more plainly the king saw in Jansenism a political danger; he thought to destroy the party by razing the convent of Port-Royal des Champs, dispersing the religious and disinterring the buried Jansenists (1709-11); and he sacrificed his Gallican ideas to the pope when he forced an extraordinary assembly of the clergy, in 1713, and the parliament, in 1714, to accept the Bull "Unigenitus" which Clement XI had published against Quesnel's book. But at the time of his death he wished to assemble, for the trial of Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, and the bishops who resisted the Bull, a national council to which he was to dictate, and Clement XI, naturally, scouted this idea as bearing the marks of Gallicanism. Thus was Louis XIV ever anxious for an understanding with Rome against Jansenism, and in this alliance it was he who displayed the greater fury against the common enemy. At the same time, he brought to his warfare against Jansenism a Gallican spirit, making concessions and displays of politeness to the Holy See when the conduct of the struggle required, but on other occasions using methods and terms to which Rome, rightly impatient of Gallican pretensions, was obliged to take exception (see JANSENIUS AND JANSENISM).

B. Louis XIV and Quietism

His personal interest in the question of Quietism was shown in 1694, when, at the suggestion of Madame de Maintenon, he ordered three commissioners -- Noailles, Bossuet, and Tronsen -- to draw up the Issy articles for the signature of Madame Guyon and Fénelon. In July, 1697, he asked the pope, in a personal letter, to pronounce as soon as possible upon the book "Maximes des Saints" (see FÉNELON); in 1698 he again insisted, threatening that if the condemnation were deferred, the Archbishop of Paris, who was already causing the "Maximes" to be censured by twelve professors of the Sorbonne, should take action. Here again, as in the matter of Jansenism, Louis evinced a great zeal for correctness of doctrine and, on the other hand, an obstinate Gallicanism ready at every moment to prosecute a doctrine apart from and without the pope, if the pope himself hesitated to proceed against it.

C. Louis XIV and Protestants

Strict justice, strict application of the Edict of Nantes, but no favour -- such was Louis's policy towards the Protestants after 1661. It was a policy based on the hope that the union of all his subjects in one faith would sooner or later be easily accomplished. From 1661 to 1679 means were sought to limit as much as possible the application of those concessions which Henry IV had made to the Protestants by the famous Edict, and Pellisson, a convert from Protestantism, organized a fund to aid Huguenots who should come over to the Catholic Church. From 1679 to 1685 a more active policy was followed: Protestants were excluded from public office and from the liberal professions, while the police penetrated into Protestant families in order to keep watch upon them. Louvois's idea of quartering soldiers in Protestant households to bring them to reason was applied, after 1680, in Poitou by the intendant Marillac in the cruel fashion which has remained famous under the name of dragonnades. The king blamed Marillac, but in 1684, at the instigation of Louvois, the dragonnades recommenced in Poitou, Béarn, Guyenne, and Langeudoc, with more excesses than the king knew of. Misled by the letters of Louvois and the intendants (see LAMOIGNON), Louis believed that there were no more Protestants in France, and the Edict of 18 October, 1685, revoked the Edict of Nantes and ordered the demolition of places of worship, the closure of Protestant schools, the exile of pastors who refused to be converted, and the baptism of Protestant children by Catholic parish priests. On the other hand, article xii of the edict provided that subjects could not be molested in their liberty or their property on account of the "alleged reformed" religion, so that, in theory, it was still permitted to anyone to be individually a Protestant. By these measures Louis imagined himself to be only registering an accomplished fact -- the extinction of the heresy. Innocent XI, while praising the king's zeal, in the consistorical allocution of 18 March, 1686, expressed satisfaction with those French prelates who had censured the dragonnades, and begged James II to use his good offices with Louis to obtain gentler treatment for the Protestants.

The fugitive and proscribed Protestants thought of returning to France, even in spite of Louis. Jurieu in his "Avis aux Protestants de l"Europe" (1685-86), and Claude in his "Plaintes des Protestants" (1686), gave utterance to the idea of a union of all the Protestant powers to force upon the King of France the return of exiles. In the success of William of Orange, in 1688, Jurieu saw an indication that England would soon reinstate Protestantism in France, and that an aristocratic government would be substituted there for the monarchial. These prognostications were developed in the "Soupirs de la France esclave," which was issued in parts by subscription. In 1698, when the peace of Ryswick was being negotiated between Louis and William, two Protestant committees, at the Hague, made an attempt to commit Holland and England to the demand of liberty for French Protestants, but William confined himself to vague and politic approaches to the question in his dealings with Louis, and these were ill received. In a letter to Cardinal d'Estrées (17 January, 1686), Louis had flattered himself that, out of from 800,000 to 900,000 Protestants, only from 1200 to 1500 remained. The collective abjurations were generally far from sincere; the new converts were not practicing Catholics; and the policy of the authorities, in regard to those new converts who remained too tepid, varied strangely in the several provinces. Was it still lawful in France for an individual, as an individual, to remain a Protestant? Article xii of the edict of revocation implicitly said "Yes;" Louis and Louvois, in their letters, said "No," explaining that all, even to the very last individual, must be converted, and that there ought no longer to be any religion but one in the kingdom.

In 1698 intendants and bishops were consulted as to the measures to be taken in regard to the Protestants. Bossuet, Archbishop Noailles, and almost all the bishops of northern and central France declared for a purely spiritual propaganda animated by a spirit of gentleness; Bossuet maintained that Protestants must not be forced to approach the sacraments. The bishops of the South, on the contrary, leaned to a policy of constraint. As a result of this consultation, the edict of 13 December, 1698, and the interpreting circular of 7 January, 1699, inaugurated a milder regime and, in particular, forbade anyone to compel Protestants to approach the sacraments. Lastly, at the end of his reign, Louis ordered a new inquiry into the causes and the persistence of the heresy, and decreed, by the declaration of 8 March, 1715, that all Protestants who had continued to reside in the kingdom since 1685 were liable to the penalties of relapsed heretics unless they became Catholics. This amounted to an implicit admission that the edict of 1685 had meant to command all Protestants to embrace Catholicism. The alliance between the revolted Protestants of the Cevennes (the Camisards, 1703-06) and England, the enemy of France, had driven Louis to adopt this policy of sternness.

The attitude of Innocent XI in regard to the persecution of Protestants and the grave and mature deliberation with which Clement XI proceeded against the Jansenists prove that, even at those very moments when the religious policy of Louis XIV was resting upon, or was invoking, Rome, the full responsibility for certain courses of precipitancy, of violence, and of cruelty must rest with the king. Aspiring to be master in his Church, he chastised Protestants and Jansenists as disobedient subjects. Though there may have been a parallelism of action and a reciprocity of services between Louis and the Holy See, still the ideas which inspired and guided the religious policy of the king were, in fact, always unlike those of the contemporary popes. "Louis XIV," says the historian Casimir Gaillardin, "assumed to direct the conversion of his subjects at the whim of his pride, and by ways which were not those of the Church and the sovereign pontiff."

OEuvres de Louis XIV, ed. Grimoard et Grouvelle (Paris, 1806); Mémoires de Louis XIV pour l'instruction du Dauphin, ed. Dreyss (Paris, 1860); Depping, Correspondance administrative sous le règne de Louis XIV (Paris, 1850-52); Hanotaux, Recueils des Instructions aux ambassadeurs è Rome (Paris, 1888); Vast, Les grands traités du règne de Louis XIV (Paris, 1898); Mention, Documents relatifs aux rapports du clerg, avec la royaut, de 1682 è 1705 (Paris, 1893); Lemoine, Mémoires des évêques de France sur la conduite è tenir è l'égard des réformés en 1698 (Paris, 1903); Dangeau, Journal (1684-1720) (Paris, 1854-61); De Sourches, Mémoires sur le règne de Louis XIV (1681-1712), ed. Cosnac; Saint-Simon, Mémoires, ed. Boislisle (Paris, 1871-1909); Spanheim, Relation de la cour de France in 1690, ed. Bourgeois (Paris, 1900); de Maintenon, Correspondance générale, ed. Lavallée (Paris, 1865-66); Correspondance de la Princesse Palatine, trad. Jaegl, (Paris, 1890); the numerous Mémoires included in the collection of Michaud and Poujoulat should be consulted. Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV, ed. Rébelliau (Paris, 1894); Gaillardin, Histoire du règne de Louis XIV (Paris, 1877-79); Philippson, Das Zeitalter Ludwigs des Viersehnten (Berlin, 1879); Hassall, Louis XIV and the Zenith of the French Monarchy (New York, 1895); Lavisse, Histoire de France, VII-VIII (Paris, 1907-08); Chérot, La première jeunesse de Louis XIV (Lille, 1892); Lacour-Gayet, L'éducation politique de Louis XIV (Paris, 1898); Chéruel, Histoire de France pendant la minorit, de Louis XIV (Paris, 1879-80); Reynold, Louis XIV et Guillaume III (Paris, 1883); Valfrey, Hugues de Lionne (Paris, 1877 and 1881); De Boislisle, Les Conseils sous Louis XIV (Paris, 1891); Haggard, Louis XIV in Court and Camp (London, 1904); Farmer, Versailles and the Court under Louis XIV (London, 1906); De Moüy, L'Ambassade du duc de Créqui (Paris, 1893); Michaud, Louis XIV et Innocent XI (Paris, 1882-83); Gérin, Recherches sur l'assemblée de 1682 (Paris, 1870); idem, Louis XIV et le Saint Siège (Paris, 1894); idem, Le pape Innocent XI et la révocation de l'Edit de Nantes, in Revue des Questions historiques, XXIV (1878); Douen, La Révocation è Paris, et dans l'Ile de France (Paris, 1894): Landau, Rom, Wien und Neapel wéhrend des spanischen Erbfolgekriegs (Leipzig, 1885); D'Haussonville, La duchesse de Bourgogne (Paris, 1898-1908); Le Roy, La France et Rome de 1700 è 1715 (Paris, 1892).

GEORGES GOYAU

Blessed Louis Allemand

Cardinal, Archbishop of Arles, whose name has been written in a great variety of ways (Alamanus, Alemanus, Almannus, Alamandus, etc.), was born at Arbent in the Diocese of Belley in 1380 or 1381 (Beyssac, p. 310); d. 16 September, 1450. Through the influence of a relative, François de Conzié, who was papal chamberlain, Allemand soon became prominent in the ecclesiastical world. He was named Bishop of Maguelonne in 1418 by Martin V, who entrusted him with important missions, regarding for example the transference from Pavia to Siena of the council which was convoked in 1423. In December, 1423, he was made Archbishop of Arles and in 1426 Cardinal. Later on and especially after 1436 he began to play a most important part in the Council of Basle, where he made himself the head of the party which maintained the supremacy of the council over the pope (a doctrine already much ventilated at Constance where Allemand had been present), and which eventually proceeded to the deposition of Eugenius IV.

In 1439 Allemand was primarily responsible for the election of Felix V, the antipope, and it was Allemand who, sometime later, consecrated him bishop and crowned him as supreme pontiff. During the continuance of the assembly at Basle the cardinal showed heroic courage in tending the plague-stricken. He was also a diligent promoter of the decree passed by the council in favour of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. In the years which followed Allemand discharged several diplomatic missions in behalf of Felix V, while he openly disregarded the decrees of Eugenius IV, which pronounced him "excommunicated" and deprived him of his dignity as cardinal. After the resignation of Felix V, brought about by the assembly of bishops which met at Lyons in 1449, Allemand was reinstated in his dignities by Nicholas V. His violent action at Basle seems to have resulted from an earnest desire for the reform of the Church, and having made his submission to Nicholas V, he is believed to have done penance for his former disloyal and schismatical conduct. He died shortly after in the odour of sanctity. His private life had always been a penitential one, and many miracles were reported to have been worked at his tomb. In 1527 a Brief of Clement VII permitted him to be venerated as Blessed.

Acta SS., Sep., V; Schmid in Kirchenlexicon s. v. Aleman, Ludwig; Beyssac in the Revue du Lyonnais, Nov., Dec., 1899; AlbanÈs and Chevalier, Gallia Christiana Novissima (Arles,1901), 787-830, 1312-79; Pastor, History of the Popes, I (tr.London, 1891); Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, VII, 603; Saxius, Pontificium Arelatense (Aix, 1629), and, most important of all, Perouse, Le Cardinal Louis Aleman, (Paris, 1904).

HERBERT THURSTON

St. Louis Bertrand

Born at Valencia, Spain, 1 Jan., 1526; died 9 Oct., 1581. His patents were Juan Bertrand and Juana Angela Exarch. Through his father he was related to the illustrious St. Vincent Ferrer, the great thaumaturgus of the Dominican Order. The boyhood of the saint was unattended by any of the prodigies that frequently forecast heroic sanctity. At an early age he conceived the idea of becoming a Friar Preacher, and despite the efforts of his father to dissuade him, was clothed with the Dominican habit in the Convent of St. Dominic, Valencia, 26 Aug., 1544. After the usual probation, in which he distinguished himself above all his associates in the qualities of an ideal religious, he pronounced the vows that irrevocably bound him to the life of perfection. The profound significance of his religious profession served as a stimulus to the increase of virtues that already gave evidence of being cast in heroic mould. In demeanour he was grave and apparently without any sense of humour, yet withal possessed of a gentle and sweet disposition that greatly endeared him to those with whom he came in contact. While he could lay no claim to the great intellectual gifts and ripe scholarship that have distinguished so many of the saints of the Dominican order, he applied himself assiduously to study, and stored his mind with the sacred truths expounded in the pages of the "Summa". In 1547 he was advanced to the priesthood by the Archbishop of Valencia, St. Thomas of Villanova.

The extraordinary sanctity of the young Dominican's life, and the remarkable influence he exercised on those about him, singled him out as one peculiarly fitted to lead others along the path of perfection. Consequently, he was appointed to the most responsible office of master of novices, in the convent at Valencia, the duties of which he discharged at different intervals for an aggregate of thirty years. The plague that decimated the inhabitants of Valencia and the vicinity in 1557, afforded the saint an excellent opportunity for the exercise of his charity and zeal. Tirelessly he ministered to the spiritual and physical needs of the afflicted. With the tenderness and devotion of a mother he nursed the sick. The dead he prepared for burial and interred with his own hands. When the plague had subsided, the zeal of the holy novice-master sought to extend the scope of his already large ministry into the apostolate of preaching. Though possessed of none of the natural qualities deemed essential for a successful career in the pulpit, he immediately attracted attention as a preacher of great force and far-reaching influence. The cathedral and most capacious churches were placed at his disposal, but proved wholly inadequate to accommodate the multitude that desired to hear him. Eventually it became necessary for him to resort to the public squares of the city. It was probably the fame of his preaching that brought him to the attention of St. Teresa, who at this time sought his counsel in the matter of reforming her order.

Unknown to his brethren, St. Louis had long cherished the desire to enter the mission fields of the New World. The hope that there he might find the coveted crown of martyrdom contributed not a little to sharpening the edge of his desire. Possessed of the necessary permission he sailed for America in 1562, and landed at Cartagena, where he immediately entered upon the career of a missionary. The work thus begun was certainly fruitful to an extraordinary degree, and bore unmistakably the stamp of Divine approbation. The process of his canonization bears convincing testimony to the wonderful conquest which the saint achieved in this new field of labour. The Bull of canonization asserts that, to facilitate the work of converting the natives to God, the apostle was miraculously endowed with the gift of tongues. From Cartagena, the scene of his first labours, St. Louis was sent to Panama, where in a comparatively short time he converted some 6,000 Indians. His next mission was at Tubera, situated near the sea-coast and midway between the city of Cartagena and the Magdalena River. The success of his efforts at this place is witnessed by the entries of the baptismal registers, in the saint's own handwriting. These entries show that all the inhabitants of the place were received into the Church by St. Louis. Turon places the number of converts in Tubera at 10,000. What greatly enhances the merit of this wonderful achievement is that all had been adequately instructed in the teachings of the Church before receiving baptism, and continued steadfast in their faith.

From Tubera the Apostle bent his steps in the direction of Cipacoa and Paluato. His success at the former place, the exact location of which it is impossible to determine, was little inferior to that of Tubera. At Paluato the results of his zealous efforts were somewhat disheartening. From this unfruitful soil the saint withdrew to the province of St. Martha, where his former successes were repeated. This harvest yielded 15,000 souls. While labouring at St Martha, a tribe of 1500 Indians came to him from Paluato to implore the grace of baptism, which before they had rejected. The work at St. Martha finished, the tireless missionary undertook the work of converting the warlike Caribs, probably inhabitants of the Leeward Islands. His efforts among these fierce tribesmen seem not to have been attended with any great success. Nevertheless, the apostolate among the Caribs furnished the occasion again to make manifest the Divine protection which constantly overshadowed the ministry of St. Louis. A deadly draught was administered to him by one of the native priests. Through Divine interposition, the virulent poison failed to accomplish its purpose, thus fulfilling the words of St. Mark: "If they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" (xvi, 18). Teneriffe next became the field of the saint's apostolic labours. Unfortunately, however, there are no records extant to indicate what was the result of his preaching. At Mompax, thirty-seven leagues south-east of Carthagena, we are told, rather indefinitely, that many thousands were converted to the Faith. Several of the West India islands, notably those of St. Vincent and St. Thomas, were visited by St. Louis in his indefatigable quest for souls.

After an apostolate the marvellous and enduring fruits of which have richly merited for him the title of Apostle of South America, he returned under obedience to his native Spain, which he had left just seven years before. During the eleven remaining years of his life many offices of honour and responsibility were imposed upon him. The numerous duties that attached to them were not permitted to interfere with the exacting regime of his holy life. The ever increasing fame of his sanctity and wisdom won the admiration and confidence of even the officials of the Government, who more than once consulted him in affairs of State. With the heroic patience that characterized his whole life he endured the ordeal of his last sickness. He was canonized by Clement X in 1671. His feast is observed on 10 October.

WILBERFORCE, The Life of St. Louis Bertrand (London, 1882); TOURON, Histoire des Hommes Illustres de l'Ordre de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1747), IV 485-526; ROZE, Les Dominicains in Amérique (Paris, 1878), 290-310; BYRNE, Sketches of illustrious Dominicans (Boston, 1884), 1-95.

JOHN B. O'CONNOR

Sister Louise

Educator and organizer, b. at Bergen-op-Zoom, Holland, 14 Nov., 1813; d. at Cincinnati, Ohio, 3 Dec., 1886. Josephine Susanna Vanderschriek was the tenth of the twelve children of Cornelius Vandersehriek, advocate, and his wife Clara Maria Weenan. Soon after her birth her father removed with his family to Antwerp, gave up the practice of the law, and engaged in what had been the family business for generations, the manufacture and exportation of woolen cloths, in which he amassed a large fortune. From her father Josephine inherited remarkable skill in the management of affairs, firmness in whatever involved principle, and unswerving fidelity to duty; from her mother, a gentle and amiable disposition which endeared her to all. She was educated by the Sisters of Notre-Dame, at their mother-house at Namur, Belgium, and by private tutors at home. Her desire to enter the novitiate being thwarted for some years, she busied herself in works of piety and charity, until in 1837 she was permitted to return to Namur. Clothed in the religious habit, 15 Oct., 1837, under the name of Sister Louise, her fervour was such that her time of probation was shortened, and she pronounced her vows on 7 May, 1839.

That same year Bishop, later Archbishop, J.B. Purcell, of Cincinnati, visiting Namur, asked for sisters for his diocese; and Sister Louise was one of eight volunteers chosen for the distant mission. The sisters landed in New York, 19 Oct., 1840, and proceeded at once to Cincinnati, where, after some delay, they settled in the house on East Sixth Street, which still forms the nucleus of the large convent and schools. Sister Louise's knowledge of the English language, her great mind, but still more her edifying life, caused her, although the youngest of the community, to be named in 1845 superior of the convent at Cincinnati, and in 1849 superior of all houses which might branch out from that, a responsibility she bore until her death. During these forty years the institute spread rapidly, owing to her zeal and prudence. She founded houses at Cincinnati (Court Street), Toledo, Chillicothe, Columbus, Hamilton, Reading, and Dayton (Ohio); Philadelphia (Pennsylvania); Washington (D.C.); Boston (4), Lowell, Lawrence, Salem (2), Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Lynn, Springfield, Worcester, Chicopee, Milford, Holyoke, and Woburn (Massachusetts). In many of these cities the sisters, residing in one convent, teach in the schools of several parishes so that in 1886 the number of pupils all told was 23,000, while the pupils in Sunday schools and the members of sodalities for women counted as many more. The institute itself increased in the meantime from eight members to nearly twelve hundred. From the outset the rule was kept in its integrity. Strict union has always been maintained with the mother-house at Namur; but it was early recognized that if the supply of teachers was to keep up with the demand, a novitiate must be established in America. This was accordingly done, and the first to be clothed by Sister Louise in the New World (March, 1846) was Sister Julia, destined to be her successor in the office of provincial, after she had been her trusted counsellor for years. In 1877 a second novitiate was opened at Roxbury, in the suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts, which was later transferred to Waltham. Up to that time, colonies of sisters had occasionally been sent from Namur, and the ranks had been increased by some of the sisters exiled from Guatemala in 1859. On the other hand, Sister Louise was able to send some help to the province of California, established in 1851.

The mere recital of these facts as the outline of one woman's life-work implies her possession of uncommon talents and of administrative power of a high order. Sister Louise was a perfect religious, yet her sanctity was so free from any singularity of manners or conduct, so true to the rules and spirit of her institute, that what was said of St. Teresa by her sisters might also be said of her, "Thank God, we have seen a saint just like ourselves". From her zeal for God's glory and the salvation of souls sprang love of prayer, open-handed generosity in adorning the house of God, reverence for priests and religious. From her spirit of faith sprang trust in God, humility, charity to the poor and the suffering, and the thoughtful motherly tenderness for all her sisters with which her great heart overflowed. She sedulously prepared her teachers to impart an education, simple, solid, practical, progressive, full of the spirit of faith, capable of turning out good Catholic young women for the upbuilding of the home and the nation. She had no patience with the superficial, the showy, in the training of girls. She visited every year the convents east and west, saw all the sisters privately, inspected the schools, and consulted with the reverend pastors. It was therefore with full knowledge of her wide field of labour that she uttered as her last advice to her community, and unconsciously therein her own best eulogy: "Thank God, there are no abuses to be corrected. Individual faults there are, for that is human nature, but none of community. Keep out the world and its spirit, and God will bless you."

SISTER OF NOTRE DAME, Life of Sister Superior Louise; MANNlX, Memoirs of Sister Louise; Annals of the House of Cincinnatti; Conferences of Sister Louise to her Community, see also JULIE BILLIART, BLESSED, and NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR, SISTERS OF.

SISTER OF NOTRE DAME

Louisiana

I. COLONIAL

The history of Louisiana forms an important part of the history of the United States, and is romantic and interesting. It is closely connected with the history of France and of Spain, somewhat more with that of England, and for this reason is more picturesque than the history of any other state of the American Union. Alvarez de Pineda is said to have discovered the Mississippi River in 1519, but his Rio del Espiritu Santo was probably the Mobile River, and we have to leave to Fernando de Soto the honour of having been in 1541 the discoverer of the mighty stream into which his body was projected by his companions after the failure of this expedition, undertaken for the conquest of Florida. Some time before the discovery by De Soto, Pamphilio de Narvaez had perished in endeavouring to conquer Florida, but five of his followers had succeeded in reaching Mexico. One of them, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca, described their wanderings, in which they must have crossed the Mississippi. many years after de Soto the great Mississippi was rediscovered in 1673 by the Canadian trader Louis Joliet, and by the saintly missionary, father Jacques Marquette, forerunners of Robert Cavelier de La Salle, the celebrated Norman explorer. The latter floated down in Illinois River in 1682, and, entering the Mississippi, followed the course of the river to its mouth, and on 9 April took possession, in the name of Louis XIV, of the country watered by the Mississippi and its tributaries. To that vast region he gave the name of "Louisiane" in honour of the King of France, who carried royal power to the highest point, and who was always firm, energetic, and courageous. Among La Salle's companions were the chivalric Henry de Tonty and Fathers Zénobe Membré and Anastase Douay. The name Louisiane is found for the first time in the grant of an island to François Daupin, signed by La Salle, 10 June, 1879.

Louis XIV wished to colonize Louisiana, and unite to his possessions in Canada by a chain of posts in the Mississippi valley. England would thus be hemmed in between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian range of mountains. la Salle endeavoured in carry out this scheme in 1684, but his colony, Fort Louis, established by mistake on the coast of what is now Texas, perished when its founder was murdered on the Trinity river by some of his own men on 19 March, 1687. In 1688 James II was expelled from England, and the war which ensued between Louis XIV and William III lasted until 1697. When there was peace, the King of France thought once more of settling the land discovered by La Salle, and his Minister Maurepas chose Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville as the man best fitted to accomplish that task. Iberville was the third son of Charles Le Moyne d'Iberville, a Norman established in Canada. He was a native of Villemarie (Montreal), was "as military as his sword", and was a brave and able marine officer. He left Brest on 24 Oct., 1698, and that date is of great importance in the history of the United States, for on board the small frigates, the Badine and the Marin, were the seeds from which was to grow Louisiana, the province which was to give the American Union thirteen states and one territory and to exert a great influence on the civilization of the United States. In February, 1699, Iberville, and his young brother Bienville saw the beautiful coast of the Gulf of Mexico, where are now Biloxi and Ocean Springs, and after having found the mouth of the Mississippi on 2 March, 1699, and explored the "hidden" river, they built Fort Maurepas and laid the foundation of the French colony on the Gulf Coast, on the Ocean Springs side of the Bay of Biloxi. Iberville ordered a fort to be built fifty-four miles from the mouth of the Mississippi. This was the first settlement in the present state of Louisiana, and was abandoned in 1705. On 4 May, 1699, Iberville sailed for France on board the Badine, with the Count de Surgères who commanded the Marin. Sauvole, a young French officer, had been given command of the fort at Biloxi, and Bienville had been appointed lieutenant (second in command). Sauvole, who may be considered the first governor of Louisiana, died on 22 August 1701, and Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville succeeded him in the command of the colony. Iberville ordered Bienville to remove the seat of the colony from Biloxi and form an establishment on the Mobile River. This was done in January, 1702, when Fort Louis de la Mobile was constructed at a point eighteen leagues from the sea. In 1711 the settlement was moved to the site which is now occupied by the city of Mobile. In 1704 the devoted friend of La Salle, Henry de Tonty, died at Mobile, and on 9 July, 1706, Iberville, the founded of Louisiana, died at Havana of yellow fever.

The founders of Louisiana had made the mistake of neglecting the banks of the Mississippi, when the fort on the river was abandoned in 1705, and, although there was Old Biloxi and Mobile, the settlement could not proposer as long as it was limited in its site to the land on the gulf. The colony might not have been permanent had not Bienville, in February, 1718, twelve years after the death of Iberville, founded New Orleans, so admirably situated between the deep and broad Mississippi and beautiful lake Pontchartrain. In 1722 the seat of the colony was transferred from New Biloxi, which had been founded in 1719, to New Orleans, and the future of Louisiana was assured. It was then directed by the Western Company, had received for a time the help of the bank of John Law, and from 1712 to 1717 had been conceded to another banker, Crozat, who had agreed to develop the resources of the colony, but who had failed his enterprise. On 10 January, 1722, Father Charlevoix, in a letter dated from New Orleans says: "This wild and desert place, which the weeds and trees still cover almost entirely, will be one day, and perhaps that day is not distant, an opulent city, and the metropolis of a rich and great colony." The distinguished historian based this hope "on the situation of this town thirty-three leagues from the sea, and on the bank of a navigable river, which one can ascend to this place in twenty-four hours; on the fertility of its soil, and the mildness and goodness of its climate, at a latitude of thirty degrees north; on the industry of its inhabitants; on the proximity of Mexico, where one can go in two weeks by sea; on that of Havana, which is still closer, of the most beautiful islands of America and of the English colonies."

It was no easy matter to establish a successful colony in the New World, and the French under Iberville and Bienville, and the descendants of these men, were just as energetic as the Englishmen who settled in Virginia and Massachusetts. There were on the banks of the Mississippi primeval forests to be cut down, in order to cultivate properly the fertile land deposited by the great river in its rapid course toward the gulf. The turbulent waters of the river were to be held in their bed by strong embankments, and the Indians had to be subdued. It was only then that the work of civilization could be begun, and the admirable culture of the French extended to the Mississippi Valley. The elegance and refinement of manners of Paris in the eighteenth century were found in New Orleans from the every foundation of the city, and the women of Louisiana were mentioned by the early chroniclers with great praise for their great beauty and charm. They owed, to a great extent, their mental and moral training to the instruction and education they received at the convent of the Ursuline nuns. The sons of wealthy colonists were set to France to be educated, or were taught at private schools at home, such as the one kept in 1727 by Father Cécile, a Capuchin monk. As girls could not be sent to Europe to obtain an education, a school for them was absolutely necessary in New Orleans, and Bienville, at the suggestion of the Jesuit Father de Beaubois, asked that six Ursuline nuns be sent from France to attend to the hospital and to open a school for girls. The nuns arrived in July, 1727, and were received with great kindness by Governor Périer, his wife, and the people of the town. In her letters to her father Sister Madeline Hachard gives an interesting account of New Orleans in 1727, speaks of the magnificent dresses of the ladies, and says that a song was publicly sung in which it was said that the city had as much "appearance" as Paris, and she adds quaintly, "indeed, it is very beautiful, but besides that I have not enough eloquence to be able to persuade you of the beauty which the song mentions, I find a difference between this city and that of Paris. It might persuade people who have never seen the capital of France, but I have seen it, and the song will not persuade me of the contrary of what I believe. It is true that it is increasing every day, and may become as beautiful and as large as the principal towns of France, if there still come some workmen, and it become peopled according to its size. Sister Madeline was prophetic, as Father Charlevoix had been in his letter quoted above (in 1722). In 1734 the Ursulines occupied the convent, built for them by the Government, which is still standing on Chartres street. They remained there until 1824, when they moved to another building down the river. Their services as educators of the girls of Louisiana in colonial times were invaluable.

The Province of Louisiana had been divided on 16 May, 1722, into three spiritual jurisdictions. The first, comprising all the country from the mouth of the Mississippi to the Wabash, and west of the Mississippi, was allowed to the Capuchins, whose superior was to be vicar-general of the Bishop of Quebec and was to reside in New Orleans. The second extended north from the Wabash and belonged to the Jesuits, whose superior, residing in the Illinois country, was also to be vicar-general of the Bishop of Quebec in that department. The third comprised all the country east of the Mississippi from the sea to the Wabash, and was given to the Carmelites, whose superior was also vicar-general and resided usually at Mobile. The Capuchins took possession of their district in 1722. The Jesuits had already been in theirs a long time. The jurisdiction of the Carmelites was added to that of the Capuchins on 19 December, 1722, and the former returned to France. In December, 1723, the jurisdiction of the Capuchins was restricted to the country on both sides of the river from Natchez south to the sea, as the Capuchins were not very numerous. It was, however, decided in 1725 that no monks or priests could attend churches or missions within the jurisdiction of the Capuchins without the consent of the latter. A little later the spiritual care of all the savages in the province was given to the Jesuits, and their superior was allowed to reside in New Orleans, provided he performed no ecclesiastical functions without the consent of the Capuchins. Several Jesuits arrived in New Orleans with the Ursuline nuns, and Father de Beaubois soon became their superior. It was the Jesuits who in 1751 introduced the sugar cane into Louisiana from Hispaniola. They cultivated on their plateau the sugar cane, indigo, and the myrtle-wax shrub.

The tribes with which the early colonists had principally to deal were the Natchez, the Chickasaws, and the Choctaws. The last named were very numerous but not warlike, and were generally friendly to the French, while the Natchez and the Chickasaws were often at war with the colonists, and the former had to be nearly destroyed to insure the safety of the colony. The village of the Natchez was the finest in Louisiana, and their country was delightful. The men and women of their tribe were well-shaped and very cleanly. Their chief was called the Great Sun, and inheritance of that title was in the female line. They had a temple in which a fire was kept burning continually to represent the sun which they adored. Whenever the Great Sun died, or a female Sun, or any of the inferiors Suns, the wife or husband was strangled together with the nearest relatives of the deceased. Sometimes little children were sacrificed by their parents. The Natchez were defeated by Périer and by St. Denis, and what remained of the tribe were adopted by the Chickasaws. The name of the Natchez as a nation was lost, but it will live forever in the literature on account of the charming pages devoted to them by Chateaubriand. Bienville wished to compel the Chickasaws to surrender the Natchez who had taken refuge among them, and his ill-success in two campaigns against that powerful tribe was the cause of his asking in 1740 to be allowed to go to France to recuperate his exhausted health. He left Louisiana in May, 1743, and never returned to the colony which he and Iberville had founded. He had endeavoured to establish in New Orleans a school for boys, but had not been successful. La Salle, Iberville, and Bienville are the greatest names in the history of French Louisiana.

Pierre Rigaud, Marquis de Vaudreuil, arrived in Louisiana on 10 May, 1743. He was known as the "Grand Marquis", and his administration was very popular. In 1752 he became governor of Canada, where he was not as successful as he had been in Louisiana. The time had come to settle forever the question of the supremacy on the American continent between France and England, and the brave Montcalm and his able lieutenant Lévis could not prevent the British from capturing Quebec and Montreal. On the plains of Abraham in 1759, where both Wolfe and Montcalm fell, the fate of Canada was decided, and the approaching independence of the English colonies might have been foreseen. By the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Canada was ceded by France to England, as well as the city of Mobile, and the part of Louisiana on the left bank of the Mississippi River, with the exception of New Orleans and the island of Orleans. Spain, in her turn, ceded to Great Britain the province of Florida and all the country to the east and south-east of the Mississippi. Already, by the secret Treaty of Fontainebleau (3 Nov., 1762), the wretched Louis XV had made to Charles III of Spain a gift of "the country known by the name of Louisiana, as well as New Orleans and the island in which that city is situated." This was the province which was retroceded to France in 1800, and ceded by France to the United States in 1803. Although the King of Spain had accepted, on 13 Nov., 1762, the gift of his gracious cousin, the Treaty of Fontainebleau was announced to the Louisianians only in 1764 by a letter from the King of France to the Director-General d'Abbadie, dated at Versailles, 21 April. The selfish monarch who cared nothing for his subjects in Europe, in India, or in America, ended his letter with these hypocritical words: "Hoping, moreover, that his Catholic Majesty will be pleased to give is subjects of Louisiana the marks of protection and good-will which they have received under my domination, and which only the fortunes of war have prevented from being more effectual." The Louisianians were remote from France and they were attached to their sovereign, whose defects they really did not know. They wished, therefore, to remain Frenchmen and sent Jean Milhet as their delegate to beg Louis XV not to give away his subjects to another monarch. It was in vain that Bienville went to see Minister Choiseul with Milhet. They were kindly received, but they were told that the Treaty of Fontainebleau could not be annulled. In the meantime Don Antonio de Ulloa had arrived in New Orleans on 5 March, 1766, as governor, and the Spanish domination had begun.

The rule of the Spaniards was more apparent than real, for Ulloa came with only two companies of infantry, and did not take possession officially of the colony in the name of the King of Spain. Indeed the Spanish banner was not raised officially in the Place d'Armes in New Orleans, the capital of Louisiana, and the orders of Ulloa were issued through Aubry, the French commandant or governor. The colonists should have been treated with gentleness at the very beginning of a change of regime, but Ulloa, who was a distinguished scientist, lacked tact in his dealings with the Louisianians and issued unwise commercial regulations. Jean Milhet returned from France at the end of 1767, and the colonists were greatly excited by the narrative of the failure of his mission. The inhabitants of Louisiana resolved to expel the foreign governor, and held a meeting in New Orleans, where it was decided to present a petition to the Superior Council on 28 Oct., 1768. The colonists said that they would "offer their property and blood to preserve forever the sweet and inviolable title of French citizen." Nicolas Chauvin de Lafrénière, the attorney-general, who had been the principal speaker at the great meeting in New Orleans, addressed the council in favour of the petition, and delivered a bold and eloquent discourse. On 29 Oct., 1768, the council rendered a decree in compliance with the demands of the inhabitants and the conclusions of Lafrénière. Aubry protested against the decree, but the council ordered its enforcement, and on 31 October Ulloa embarked aboard a French ship which he had chartered. The next day the cables of the vessel were cut by a Louisianian named Petit, and the foreigner was expelled. It was a real revolution. The colonists were actuated by the highest and most patriotic motives, resistance against oppression and love of country. They endeavoured by all means in their power to induce the King of France to keep them as his subjects, and, not succeeding in their efforts, they thought of proclaiming a republic on the banks of the Mississippi in New Orleans. This contribution of a spirit of heroism and independence to the civilization of the future United States is of great importance, and deserves to be carefully noted.

The Louisianians were not successful in the revolution of 1768, for the Spanish government sent powerful troops to subdue the insurgents. General Alexander O'Reilly arrived in New Orleans with 3,000 soldiers on 17 Aug., 1769, and raised the Spanish flag in the Place d'Armes. At first he treated the chiefs of the insurgents with great politeness, and led them to believe that he would take no harsh measures with regard to the even of October, 1768. He acted, however, with great duplicity, and caused the principal insurgents against Ulloa to be arrested while they were attending a reception at the governor's house. Villeré, who was a planter on the German coast and one of the leaders of the revolution, was killed while resisting arrest, and Lafrénière, Marquis, Noyan, Carresse, and Joseph Milhet were condemned to be hanged. No one was found in the colony to act as executioner, and the five heroic men were shot by Spanish soldiers on 25 Oct., 1769. Six others of the insurgents were condemned to imprisonment in Morro castle at Havana. Among them were Jean Milhet, the patriotic merchant. O'Reilly acted with unpardonable severity, and his victims are known as "the Martyrs of Louisiana". Although the Spanish domination began with cruelty, it was afterwards mild and paternal, and at one time glorious. Most of the officials married creole wives, women of French origin, and the influence of charming and gentle ladies was most beneficial. Unzaga, who succeeded O'Reilly in the government of Louisiana, acted with great tact in dealing with the Louisianians, and Bernardo de Galvez gave them prosperity and glory and reconciled them to the rule of Spain. In 1779 the war between the United States and Great Britain was at its height. France had recognized the independence of the new republic, and Lafayette had offered his sword to aid Washington in his great work. Spain came also to the help of the Americans, and declared war against England on 8 May, 1779. On 8 July Charles III authorized his subjects in America to take part in the war, and Galvez, who had thus far acted as provisional governor, received his commission as governor and intendant. He resolved immediately to attack the British possessions in West Florida, and refused to accept the advice of a council of war, that he should not begin his operations until he had received reinforcements in Havana. He had already aided the cause of the Americans by furnishing ammunition and money to their agent in New Orleans.

He called a meeting of the principal inhabitants in the city and told them he could not take the oath of office as governor, unless the people of Louisiana promised to help him in waging war against the British. This was assented to with enthusiasm by all the men who were at the meeting, and Galvez made preparations to attack Baton Rouge, which the British had named New Richmond, and which for a time had been called Dironville by the French from Diron d'Artaguette, an early official of the colony. On 27 Aug., 1779, Galvez marched with an army of 670 against Baton Rouge, and sent his artillery by boats on the river. On 7 September he took by storm Fort Bute at Manchac, and on 21 September captured Baton Rouge. It was agreed that Fort Panmure at Natchez should capitulate also. The campaign of Galvez was glorious, and the greater part of his army was composed of Louisianian creoles of French origin, and of Acadians who wished to take vengeance upon the British for their cruelties against them, when they were so ruthlessly torn from their homes in 1755. The heroism of Galvez and his army in 1779 inspired Julien Poydras to write a short epic poem, "La Prise du Morne du Baton Rouge par Monseigneur de Galvez", a work which was published in New Orleans in 1779, and was the first effort of French literature in Louisiana. In 1780 Galvez attacked Fort Charlotte at Mobile and captured it, and in 1781 he resolved to make the conquest of Pensacola and to expel the British entirely from the country adjoining New Orleans. He went to Havana and obtained men and a fleet for his expedition. Among the ships was a man-of-war, the "San Ramon", commanded by Commodore Calbo de Irazabal. When an attempt was made to cross the bar and enter the harbour of Pensacola the "San Ramon" ran aground. Irazabal, thereupon, refused to allow the frigates of his fleet to cross the bar. Galvez, who understood how important it was that the fleet should enter the port, in order that the army should not be left without subsistence on the island of St. Rosa, resolved to be the first to force entrance into the port. He embarked aboard the brig "Galveztown", commanded by Rousseau, a Louisianian, and which was directly under his orders, and, followed by a schooner and two gunboats, he boldly entered the port. He had caused his pennant to be raised on the "Galveztown", that his presence on board might be known, and acted with such valour that the Spanish squadron followed the next day and crossed the bar. After a siege of several months Fort George and Fort Red Cliff in the Barrancas were captured, and Pensacola surrendered on 9 May, 1781. For his exploits against the British the King of Spain made Galvez a lieutenant-general and captain-general of Louisiana and West Florida, and allowed him to place as a crest on his coat of arms the brig "Galveztown" with the motto "Yo Solo" (I alone). The campaigns of Galvez gave Louisianians the right to claim the honour of having taken part in the war for American independence, and the help given the Americans by the Spaniards was acknowledged by Washington in letters to Galvez. The heroic governor of Louisiana became Viceroy of Mexico in 1785 and died in 1786, aged thirty-eight.

During the Spanish domination, besides the exploits of Galvez, we may mention as being of importance in the history of the United States the attempts made by governor Miró of Louisiana in 1788, and Governor Carondelet in 1797, to separate the western country from the United States and join it to the Spanish possessions in the south. The Mississippi River was absolutely necessary to the people in the West for their exports, and the right of deposit of their product at New Orleans was guaranteed to them by a treaty between Spain and the United States in 1795. In 1800, however, Louisiana became French again by treaty, and the Americans seemed destined to have much more powerful neighbours than the Spaniards had ever been. France was at the time under the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. He wished to revive the colonial empire of France, lost during the wretched reign of Louis XV. He easily obtained that province from Charles IV. By the secret treaty of St. Idefonso, 1 Oct., 1800, confirmed by that of Madrid, 21 March, 1801, Louisiana was retroceded to France, and Bonaparte made great plans for the administration and development of the province. He wished it to be a kind of storehouse for Santo Domingo, which he intended to reconquer from the blacks, and he appointed as captain-general of Louisiana one of his most distinguished officers, Victor, who later became Duke of Bellune and Marshall of France.

The plans of Bonaparte in regards to Louisiana were frustrated by the subsequent outbreak of hostilities between France and England. Victor never reached the province he was given to govern, and when Pierre-Clément de Laussat, the colonial prefect, arrived in New Orleans in March, 1803, Louisiana was on the point of becoming American. The right of deposit in New Orleans had been twice withdrawn by the Spanish intendant, and the people of the West feared they would lose the natural outlet for their products. There was great agitation on the subject in Congress, and President Jefferson sent James Monroe to France in March, 1803, to co-operate with Robert R. Livingston in the negotiations concerning the cession to the United States of New Orleans, and of the island of Orleans. Bonaparte, meanwhile, made up his mind to offer the whole province to the American negotiators, and on 30 April, 1803, Monroe, Livingston, and Barbé-Marbois signed the Treaty of Paris, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States for about $15,000,000. Bonaparte himself prepared the third article of the treaty, which reads as follows: "The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of United States and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, prosperity, and the religion which they profess." In the old Cabildo building in New Orleans the province was transferred on 30 Nov., 1803, by the Spanish commissioners Casa Calvo and Salcedo to Laussat, the representative of France; and the latter, at the same place, transferred the sovereignty of Louisiana on 20 Dec., 1803, to the American commissioners Wilkinson and Claiborne. There was no longer a colonial Louisiana. In 1804 the territory of Orleans was organized, which became on 30 April, 1812, the State of Louisiana.

II. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

The State of Louisiana, lying at the mouth of the Mississippi, was so named in honour of Louis XIV in 1682. Louisiana of the seventeenth century extended from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, and from the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico to British America. The present state of Louisiana is bounded on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; on the east by the state of Mississippi; on the west by the State of Texas, and on the north by the State of Arkansas. The thirty-third parallel of latitude forms the boundary between Louisiana and Arkansas.

Physical Characteristics

The area of the state is 45,420 square miles, of which 2328 are water surface. The Red River enters the state from Texas a few miles south of the northern boundary, and traverses the whole state in a south-easterly direction, emptying itself into the Mississippi at the thirty-first parallel of latitude. The northern portion of Louisiana is mainly forest area with numerous small farms, but in the eastern portion, north of the Red River and for some distance south of its mouth, there are large cotton plantations on alluvial soil, while below the mouth of the Red River stretches the sugar country, all the south-eastern portions of Louisiana with small exceptions being devoted to sugar cultivation. In the south-western portion are the great salt and sulphur mines, oil-wells, and rice-fields. With means of communication from one part of the state to the other, Louisiana is probably better provided than any other state in the Union. Within the borders of the state are 3771 miles of navigable water, and 6162 miles of railroad (including 2000 miles of side-tracks). The alluvial lands along the rivers and larger streams are protected by 1430 miles of embankments, locally called levees and maintained by the state.

Industries

Agriculture is the chief resource of Louisiana, although of late salt, oil, and sulphur are beginning to produce large returns. The report of the Louisiana State Board of Agriculture form 1908, gives the agricultural output as follows:

• Total area under cultivation: 4,730,148 acres
• Cotton: 517,796 bales (1,845,300 acres)
• Corn: 20,308,717 bushels (1,537,135 acres)
• Sugar: 444,241,800 pounds (401,461 acres)
• Molasses: 21,549,059 gallons
• Cleaned Rice: 170,096,700 pounds (373,866 acres)
• Sweet Potatoes: 3,010,615 bushels (54,221 acres)
• Irish Potatoes: 729,354 bushels (27,333 acres)
• Oranges: 106,440 boxes (2,200 acres)

The mineral products are chiefly sulphur, salt, and petroleum. The largest sulphur deposits in the world are at Sulphur City, whence 1000 tons a day are shipped. It is estimated that there are forty million tons of sulphur in this deposit. At Avery's Island is found a deposit of pure salt, 500 tons daily being mined. In this section the augur went down 1800 feet through salt. Large quantities of petroleum are piped out of wells in the south-western and north-western parts of the state.

History

The history of Louisiana as a colony has already been traced from the first settlements, and the growth of the population up to its admission to the Union. The cession of Louisiana by France to the United States took place on 20 December, 1803, and in 1804, Congress organized the territory of Orleans, which comprised a portion of the great district of Louisiana. In 1806 there were but 350 English-speaking white men in New Orleans. Between 1806 and 1809, 3100 Americans arrived. In 1809-10 came the immigration from the West Indies, due to the Santo Domingo and Haitian negro uprisings. In 1810 the Irish began to come, and they kept coming steadily for over forty years. The Civil War (1861-5) stopped all immigration until about 1900, since which time Italians are arriving in great numbers. The first steamboat, the "Orleans", from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, arrived in New Orleans, 10 January 1812.

In 1811 Congress authorized the inhabitants of the territory to draw up a constitution, with a view to establish a state government. The constitution was adopted in 1812, and immediately thereafter, on 30 April, 1812, Congress admitted Louisiana to the Union. Almost simultaneously with her admission, the war with England broke out, and on 8 January, 1815, the famous battle of New Orleans, between 12,000 English soldiers under Pakenham and 5000 American recruits under Andrew Jackson, was fought within a few miles of the city of New Orleans, resulting in the overwhelming defeat of the British. The commercial position of New Orleans being very advantageous, her growth was phenomenal. In 1840 she was the third city in population in the United States, the Mississippi and its tributaries pouring great commercial wealth into Louisiana. However, as the railroads began to be built, much of this river commerce was carried by them to northern and eastern marts. On 26 January, 1861, an ordinance of cession was passed, withdrawing Louisiana from the Union, and on 21 March 1861, the Convention of Louisiana ratified the Confederate Constitution and joined the Confederacy. The Civil War laid waste to Louisiana in common with her sister states of the south. In April, 1862, the city of New Orleans was captured by the Union forces. In 1864, under the auspices of the federal troops, a convention was held to draw up a new constitution for the state, preparatory to its re-admission to the Union. Under Federal auspices it was ratified by a vote of the people in September, 1864. This constitution, although adopted under the auspices of the United States Government, was not satisfactory to that government, and in December, 1867, another convention was called and prepared a constitution that was adopted on 6 March, 1868, whereby Louisiana was against admitted to the Union upon condition of ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal constitution. Thus was done on 9 July, 1868, and on 13 July the state was transferred from the military to the civil powers.

Then began the period of reconstruction, which was practically a seven years' orgy. Adventurers from the north, camp-followers left being by the Union armies, and renegade southerners, under the protection of federal bayonets, welded the recently emancipated negro slaves into a political party, and the disgraceful scenes, which form that blot upon American history known as the "Reconstruction Era", cost Louisiana millions of treasure and hundreds of lives. In September, 1874, a revolt occurred which overthrew the state government and placed the intelligent people of the state in office. Three days afterwards the United States troops expelled the popular government, and replaced the negroes and adventurers in office. In the election of 1876, the Democratic party carried the state for both state offices and for presidential electors. Then began the national dispute in Congress which resulted in a compromise being made, whereby the vote of Louisiana for President and Vice-President of the United States was counted for the Republican party, and the vote for state offices and legislature was counted for the Democratic party. The carrying out of this compromise by the seating of President Hayes in the White House, and the forming of a Democratic or white man's government in Louisiana, marked the end of the long period of misrule. The great moral movement against the Louisiana State Lottery, ending in its abolition in 1892, is probably the most creditable even in the history of the state.

Principal Religious Denominations

The latest available statistics for religious denominations are given in the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1906, from which we take the following table, except that the number of Jews is taken the "Jewish Year Book" for 1907: Catholics, 477,774; Baptists, 185,554; Methodists, 79,464; Jews, 12,000; Protestant Episcopalians, 9070; Presbyterians, 8350; Lutherans, 5793; German Evangelicals, 4354; Disciples, 2458; Congregationalists, 1773; all other denominations, 4222. It must be borne in mind that these figures do not give us a proper comparative view, because the bases of various denominations are different. For example, most Protestant bodies count as members only persons officially enrolled as members. And, in counting Catholics, the Census Bureau counts only those over nine years of age; whereas, in the figures given elsewhere in this article we count all those who have been baptized.

Catholicism

Because of her Latin origin, Catholics and Catholic influences have always been predominant in Louisiana. Her first governor, Clairborne, was a Protestant from Virginia, but nearly all his descendants were Catholics. Amongst noted Louisianians of the Catholic Faith we may include F. X. Martin, presiding judge of the Supreme Court for forty years, Bermudez, one of his successors, the present (1909) incumbent, Thomas J. Semmes, the eminent jurist and Confederate senator, Alexander Dimitry, who in 1847 organized the public school system of the state, Adrien Rouquette, the poet-priest and Indian missionary, Charles Gavarre, the historian, Justice E. D. White, now on the United States supreme bench, Paul Morphy, the famous chess-player, Father Etienne Vial, the first native-born Catholic priest (b. 1736).

The state comprises the Archdiocese of New Orleans (the southern half), and the Diocese of Natchitoches (the northern half). The "Catholic Directory" for 1909 gives the following figures: 1 archbishop; 1 bishop; 1 abbot; 181 secular and 132 regular priests; 152 churches with resident priests; 212 missions, stations, and chapels; 1 preparatory seminary with 30 students; 11 colleges and academies for boys with 2253 students; 29 academies for young ladies with 3519 students; 111 parishes have parochial schools. The Catholic population is 556,431, but no statistics are available to show its racial classification; the baptisms of 1908 were 15,853. Of the 3935 marriages only 472 were mixed.

Laws affecting Religion and Religious Work

There is, of course, absolute freedom of worship recognized by law and practically carried out throughout the state. There is a Sunday Law prohibiting the opening of any place of business, except of certain classes, such as drug-stores, barber-shops, etc. All liquor saloons are kept closed. Theatres, however, are permitted to open on Sunday. In all the courts the oath is administered on the Bible to all witnesses. Blasphemy and profanity are prohibited by law. The Legislature opens each session in each house with prayer, clergymen of different denominations officiating. Among the legal holidays prescribed by law, on which all public offices are closed, we find New Year's Day, Shrove Tuesday, Good Friday, All Saints' Day, Christmas, and of course every Sunday. The Catholic churches of the state are not all incorporated. For instance, in the northern diocese called the Diocese of Natchitoches, all parochial property vests in the bishop; whereas, in the southern portion of the state, in the Archdiocese of New Orleans, every church is incorporated. There is a separate corporation for each church, the directors being the archbishop, the vicar general, the parish priest, and two laymen from the congregation, and this corporation holds title to all parish property. Church property used for the purpose of public worship, the actual residence of the pastor, the parochial school buildings and grounds, and, of course, all hospitals, asylums, and charitable institutions are exempt from all taxation. Cemeteries and places of public burial are exempt from all taxes and from seizure for debt.

All clergymen are exempt from jury and military service, and in fact from every forced public duty. The supreme court has held that, while public funds cannot be given to public institutions, yet the government may contract with religious institutions for the care of the sick or the poor, and for such pay them compensation. In all prisons and reformatories clergymen of all denominations are welcomed and given access to the inmates, and in most of the large institutions, where there are many Catholic inmates, Mass is celebrated every Sunday. Bequests made to priests for masses have been held as valid, and although there is an inheritance tax levied on inheritances in Louisiana, yet legacies, made eo nomine to churches and charitable institutions, are exempt from this tax, although a legacy left to a priest in his own name would be subject to the inheritance tax. Under the first Constitution of Louisiana (1812) no clergyman could hold a public office. The second Constitution (1845) excluded them only from the legislature. The third Constitution (1852) abolished the restriction, which has not been re-enacted in the subsequent Constitutions of 1868, 1879, and 1898.

Marriage and Divorce

The marriage and divorce laws of Louisiana are not so lose as those of some other states. Marriages between whites and blacks is prohibited by law. Any clergymen has the power to perform a marriage ceremony, but, before doing so, he must be handed a license issued by the local secular authorities authorizing the marriage, and must have the marriage registered within ten days after its solemnization. Absolute divorce is permissible for the following causes: (1) adultery; (2) condemnation to an infamous punishment; (3) habitual intemperance or cruelty of such a nature as to render living together insupportable; (4) public defamation of the other by husband or wife; (5) desertion; (6) attempt of one spouse to kill the other; (7) when husband or wife is a fugitive from justice, charged with an infamous offense, but proof of guilt must be made. For the first and second mentioned causes immediate divorce is granted. For the other causes only a separation, which ripens into a divorce at the expiration of one year on the application of the plaintiff, provided no reconciliation has taken place, or also at the expiration of two years on the application of the defendant.

Population

The growth of population, as shown by the United States Census, is as follows:

• 1810: 76,556
• 1820: 153,407
• 1830: 215,739
• 1840: 352,411
• 1850: 517,762
• 1860: 708,202
• 1870: 726,915
• 1880: 940,236
• 1890: 1,118,587
• 1900: 1,381,625
• 1906 (U.S. Census Est.): 1,539,449

Education

The educational system of Louisiana is under the control of the State Board of Education, and subordinate boards in the various parishes (such being the Louisiana name for counties):

• Educable youth: white 275,087; coloured 221,714; total, 496,801.
• Enrollment in schools: white 163,603; coloured 80,128; total, 243,731.
• Teachers employed in public schools: white 4812; coloured 1168; total, 5980.
• Teachers employed in private schools: 1125.
• Number of public schools: white 2316; coloured 1167; total, 3483.
• Number of private schools: white 274; coloured 154; total, 428.
• Receipts from public school funds in 1907 (including $563,153.24 on hand, 1 January, 1907), $3,856,871.09; disbursements, $3,481,275.59.

At the head of the system is the Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, the state capital, with 57 instructors and 657 students. Tulane University, in New Orleans, is a semi-official institution, with an endowment of $5,454,423.83, 225 instructors, and 1600 students. The public school system, besides primary, grammar, and high schools, includes the following institutions:--State Normal School, with 32 instructors and 700 students; Audubon Sugar School for instruction in sugar making; three experimental stations for agricultural instruction; Ruston Industrial Institute, with 31 instructors and 500 students; Lafayette Industrial Institute, with 18 instructors and 250 students; State Institute for Deaf and Dumb; State Institute for the Blind; Gulf Biologic Station, located on Gulf Coast; Southern University for coloured youth, with 397 students.

I. FORTIER, History of Louisiana (Paris 1904); Report of Louisiana State Superintendent of education (1907); Report of Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture (1908); Bulletin No. 103 of U. S. Census Bureau (1909); Jewish Year Book (1907); Catholic Directory (1909); GAYARRâ, History of Louisiana (New Orleans, 1903).

II. French and Spanish manuscripts in archives Louisiana Historical Society, New Orleans; transcripts from French and Spanish archives, among which are PIERRE MARGRY's Documents sur la Louisiane; manuscript memoir of FRANCISCO BOULIGNY, Military Governor of Louisiana in 1799 (1776); official royal orders, regulations, and edicts, in archives Louisiana Historical Society; Le Moniteur de la Louisiane (1794 to 1803). Consult MAGRY, Origines françaises des Pays d'Outre-Mer (6 vols., Paris, 1881); BENARD de LA HARPE, Journal Historique de l'établissement des Français à la Louisiane (New Orleans, 1831); LE PAGE DU PRATZ, Histoire de la Louisiane (3 vols., Paris, 1758); DUMONT, Mémoires Historiques sur la Louisiane (3 vols., Paris, 1753); Charlevoix, Journal d'un Voyage dans l'Amerique Septentrionale, VI (Paris, 1744); GRAVIER, Relation du Voyage des Ursulines (Paris, 1872); LAUSSAT, Mémoires (Pau, 1831); MARTIN, History of Louisiana (2 vols, New Orleans, 1827); MONETTE, History of the Valley of the Mississippi (2 vols., New York, 1846); GAYARRâ, Histoire de la Louisiane (2 vols., New Orleans, 1846-47); Idem, History of Louisiana (4 vols., New Orleans, 1854-6); KING, Sieur de Bienville (New York, 1893); HAMILTON, Colonial Mobile (Boston, 1898); Fortier, Louisiana Studies (New Orleans, 1894); Idem, History of Louisiana (4 vols., New York, 1904).

ALCEâ FORTIER JAMES J. McLOUGHLIN

St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort

Missionary in Brittany and Vendee; born at Montfort, 31 January, 1673; died at Saint Laurent sur Sevre, 28 April, 1716.

From his childhood, he was indefatigably devoted to prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, and, when from his twelfth year he was sent as a day pupil to the Jesuit college at Rennes, he never failed to visit the church before and after class. He joined a society of young men who during holidays ministered to the poor and to the incurables in the hospitals, and read for them edifying books during their meals. At the age of nineteen, he went on foot to Paris to follow the course in theology, gave away on the journey all his money to the poor, exchanged clothing with them, and made a vow to subsist thenceforth only on alms. He was ordained priest at the age of twenty-seven, and for some time fulfilled the duties of chaplain in a hospital. In 1705, when he was thirty-two, he found his true vocation, and thereafter devoted himself to preaching to the people. During seventeen years he preached the Gospel in countless towns and villages. As an orator he was highly gifted, his language being simple but replete with fire and divine love. His whole life was conspicuous for virtues difficult for modern degeneracy to comprehend: constant prayer, love of the poor, poverty carried to an unheard-of degree, joy in humiliations and persecutions.

The following two instances will illustrate his success. He once gave a mission for the soldiers of the garrison at La Rochelle, and moved by his words, the men wept, and cried aloud for the forgiveness of their sins. In the procession which terminated this mission, an officer walked at the head, barefooted and carrying a banner, and the soldiers, also barefooted, followed, carrying in one hand a crucifix, in the other a rosary, and singing hymns.

Grignion's extraordinary influence was especially apparent in the matter of the calvary at Pontchateau. When he announced his determination of building a monumental calvary on a neighbouring hill, the idea was enthusiastically received by the inhabitants. For fifteen months between two and four hundred peasants worked daily without recompense, and the task had just been completed, when the king commanded that the whole should be demolished, and the land restored to its former condition. The Jansenists had convinced the Governor of Brittany that a fortress capable of affording aid to persons in revolt was being erected, and for several months five hundred peasants, watched by a company of soldiers, were compelled to carry out the work of destruction. Father de Montfort was not disturbed on receiving this humiliating news, exclaiming only: "Blessed be God!"

This was by no means the only trial to which Grignion was subjected. It often happened that the Jansenists, irritated by his success, secure by their intrigues his banishment form the district, in which he was giving a mission. At La Rochelle some wretches put poison into his cup of broth, and, despite the antidote which he swallowed, his health was always impaired. On another occasion, some malefactors hid in a narrow street with the intention of assassinating him, but he had a presentiment of danger and escaped by going by another street. A year before his death, Father de Montfort founded two congregations -- the Sisters of Wisdom, who were to devote themselves to hospital work and the instruction of poor girls, and the Company of Mary, composed of missionaries. He had long cherished these projects but circumstances had hindered their execution, and, humanly speaking, the work appeared to have failed at his death, since these congregations numbered respectively only four sisters and two priests with a few brothers. But the blessed founder, who had on several occasions shown himself possessed of the gift of prophecy, knew that the tree would grow. At the beginning of the twentieth century the Sisters of Wisdom numbered five thousand, and were spread throughout every country; they possessed forty-four houses, and gave instruction to 60,000 children. After the death of its founder, the Company of Mary was governed for 39 years by Father Mulot. He had at first refused to join de Montfort in his missionary labours. "I cannot become a missionary", said he, "for I have been paralysed on one side for years; I have an affection of the lungs which scarcely allows me to breathe, and am indeed so ill that I have no rest day or night." But the holy man, impelled by a sudden inspiration, replied, "As soon as you begin to preach you will be completely cured." And the event justified the prediction. Grignion de Montfort was beatified by Leo XIII in 1888.

[ Note: Louis de Montfort was canonized by Pius XII in 1947.]

CRUIKSHANK, Blessed Grignion, etc. (London, 1892); JAC, Vie, etc. (Paris, 1903); LAVEILLE, Vic, etc. (Paris, 1907).

AUSTIN POULAIN

Ven. Louis of Casoria

Friar Minor and founder of the Frati Bigi; b. at Casoria, near Naples, 11 March, 1814; d. at Pausilippo, 30 March, 1885. His name in the world was Archangelo Palmentiere. On 1 July, 1832, he entered the Order of Friars Minor, and shortly after the completion of the year's novitiate was appointed to teach philosophy and mathematics in the Franciscan convent of San Pietro in Naples. Following the advice of his superiors, he instituted a branch of the Third Order at San Pietro from the members of which he formed later a religious institute, commonly known as the Frati Bigi on account of the grayish or ashen colour of their habits. Louis instituted likewise a congregation of religious women, known as the Suore Bigie, whom he placed under the protection of St. Elizabeth of Hungary. About the year 1852 he opened a school for the education of African boys and girls redeemed from slavery. Ten years before his death he was attacked with a serious and painful illness, from which he never completely recovered. The numerous works of charity in Naples, Rome, Assisi, and Florence which owe their origin to Louis of Casoria, as well as the fame for sanctity which he enjoyed even during his lifetime, account for the veneration in which he was held by all classes, high and low alike. The cause of his beatification was introduced in Rome in 1907.

Acta Ordinis Minorum (May, 1907), 156-158; The Catholic World (November, 1895), 155-166; Voce di Sant' Antonio (July, 1907), 23-26.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Ven. Louis of Granada

Theologian, writer, and preacher; b. of very humble parentage at Granada, Spain, 1505; d. at Lisbon, 31 December, 1588. At the age of nineteen he was received into the Dominican Order in the convent of Santa Cruz, Granada. With a mentality of the highest quality and the gift of unremitting application he united a profoundly spiritual character which promised a brilliant and fruitful career in the sevice of the Church. His philosophical studies finished, he was chosen by his superiors to represent his convent at the College of St. Gregory at Valladolid, an institution of the Dominican Order reserved for students possessed of more than ordinary ability. Here he acquitted himself with rare distinction, not only in the regular ecclesiastical courses, but in the humanities, to which he gave special attention at the request of his superiors. His studies completed, he at once entered upon the career of a preacher, in which he continued with extraordinary success during forty years. The fame of his preaching spread beyond the boundaries of his native land, and at the request of the Cardinal Infante, Dom Henrique of Portugal, son of King Manuel, he was transferred to the latter country, where he became provincial of the Portuguese Dominicans in 1557. His extraordinary sanctity, learning, and wisdom soon attracted the attention of the queen regent, who appointed him her confessor and counsellor. The Bishopric of Viseu and the Archbishopric of Braga were successively offered to him only to be courteously, but firmly, refused. The honours of the cardinalate, offered to him by Pope Sixtus V, were also declined.

Among the hundreds of eminent ascetical writers of Spain, Louis of Granada remains unsurpassed in the beauty and purity of his style, the solidity of his doctrine, and the popularity and influence of his writings. Besides ascetical theology, his published works treat of Scripture, dogma, ethics, biography, and history. He is best known, however, for his ascetical writings. The appreciation of their worth extended throughout Europe, and later to America, and their popularity still remains but little impaired after the passage of four hundred years. Nearly all of these works were translated into the various European languages and several into Turkish and Japanese. The best known of his ascetical writings, and the one that achieved the greatest measure of success, is "The Sinner's Guide" (La Guia de Pecadores). This work was published at Badajoz in 1555. It is marked by a smooth, harmonious style of purest Spanish idiom which has merited for it the reputation of a classic, and by an unctuous eloquence that has made it a perennial source of religious inspiration. It has been most favourable compared with A Kempis's "Imitation of Christ". Within a comparatively short time after its first appearance it was translated into Italian, Latin, French, German, Polish, and Greek. A new and revised English translation was published at New York in 1889. His "Memorial of the Christian Life" (Memorial de la vida christiana) is almost equally well known. In 1576 he published at Lisbon a Latin work on the principles of pulpit oratory (Rhetoricae Ecclesiasticae, sive de ratione concionandi). It enjoyed an extensive vogue, not only in Spain, but in most of the countries of Europe; new editions appeared successively at Venice (1578), Cologne (1578, 1582, 1611), Milan (1585), and Paris (1635). A Spanish translation was published at Madrid in 1585. To illustrate the principles embodied in this work, a volume of the author's sermons, marked by great purity of style and deep religious feeling, was published seven years after his death. In all, some twenty-seven works are attributed to his pen. A Latin edition of all his writings was published by Andrew Schott and Michael of Isselt at Cologne in 1628-29. A complete edition of his ascetical works was brought out at Madrid, in 1679, by Dionysius Sanchez Moreno, O.P., and a complete edition of his sermons, in French, at Paris, in 1868.

TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature, III (London, 1871); QUETIF AND ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed.; TOURON, Histoire des hommes illustres de l'Ordre de Saint Dominique, IV (Paris, 1743-49), 558-592; HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, I. The first part of The Sinner's Guide entitled Counsels on Holiness of Life, ed. SHIPLEY in The Ascetic Library, VIII (London, 1869), contains a brief sketch of the author's life.

J.B. O'CONNOR

St. Louis of Toulouse

Bishop of Toulouse, generally represented vested in pontifical garments and holding a book and a crosier, b. at Brignoles, Provence, Feb., 1274; d. there, 19 Aug., 1297. He was the second son of Charles II of Anjou, called the Lame, King of Naples (1288- 1309), and nephew of St. Louis IX of France; and of Mary of Hungary, whose great-aunt was St. Elizabeth of Hungary. If in some and even early sources (Analecta Franciscana, IV, 310) he is called primogenitus, it is only because he succeeded to the rights of his eldest brother, Charles Martel (d. 1295). In 1288 Louis was sent with two of his brothers to the Kingdom of Aragon as hostage for his father, who had been defeated and captured in a naval battle off Naples by the Sicilians and Aragonians (1284). During the seven years of their captivity (1288-95) in the castle of Sciurana, Diocese of Tarragona, and partly in Barcelona, the education of the three princes was entrusted to some Franciscan friars, among whom were Ponzius Carbonelli (Analecta Franciscana, IV, 310), Peter of Falgar, and Richard of Middleton (Analecta Bollandiana, IX, 295). Peter John Olivi, the great Franciscan Spiritual, was also one of their friends, who on 18 May, 1295, wrote them a long letter, published by Ehrle in "Archiv f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch.", III, 534- 40 (see ibid., 439-41). Louis outstripped his brothers both in holiness and learning, and, during a severe illness, made the vow to become a Friar Minor.

He was still in captivity when Celestine V entrusted to him the administration of the Archbishopric of Lyons, on 7 Oct., 1294 (Bullar. Franc., IV, 332), having previously granted Francis of Apt, O.F.M., the saint's confessor, the faculty of giving him the clerical tonsure and minor orders (cf. Bullar. Franc., 332). Neither Bull seems to have been carried out. From John of Orta (Anal. Boll., IX, 292) it appears that he was tonsured only on 1 Nov., 1295, after his release. Louis then returned to Naples. After renouncing all the rights of succession in favour of his brother Robert, he was ordained subdeacon in Rome by Boniface VIII, and in 1296 deacon and priest at Naples (Anal. Boll., IX, 314). Boniface VIII appointed the saintly young priest Bishop of Toulouse, but Louis, wishing first to become a Friar Minor, received the Franciscan habit in Rome from the minister general, John Minio of Murro, on 24 Dec., 1296, and immediately made solemn profession. He was consecrated Bishop of Toulouse by Boniface VIII on 29 (30?) Dec., 1296 ("Bullar. Franc.", IV, 422; cf. "Anal. Boll.", IX, 297). After the Feast of St. Agatha (5 Feb.), 1297, on which day he appeared for the first time publicly in the Franciscan habit, he betook himself to Toulouse, where his mild figure and his virtues were admired by everybody. He was the father of the poor and a model of administration. But his episcopate was very brief, for on his return journey from a visit to his sister, the Queen of Aragon, he was seized by fever and died at Brignoles.

We have scarcely any record of literary work of St. Louis. Recently, however, Amelli, O.S.B., published in the "Archivium Franciscanum Historicum", II (Quaracchi, 1909), 378-83, a small treatise on music written by the saint, and from this it appears that he is also the author of a "Liber de Musicae Commendatione". Sbaralea ("Suppl. ad Script.", Rome, 1806, p. 498) ascribes to him also some sermons. His canonization, promoted by Clement V in 1307 (Bullar. Franc., V, 39), was solemnized by John XXII on 7 April, 1317 (loc. cit., 111). His relics reposed in the Franciscan church at Marseilles till 1423, when they were taken by Alfonso V of Aragon to the cathedral church of Valencia, of which town Louis became patron saint. His feast, celebrated in the Franciscan Order on 19 Aug., was decreed by the general chapter held at Marseilles in 1319 (Anal. Franc., III, 473), and the rhythmical office, beginning Tecum, composed by the saint's brother, King Robert of Naples, was inserted in the Franciscan Breviary by the General Chapter of Marseilles in 1343 (loc. cit., 539), but seems to have been abolished by the Tridentine reform of the Breviary under Pius IV [sic, i.e., St. Pius V], 1568 (cf. Acta SS., Aug., III, 805).

The best contemporary life is by the saint's chaplain, JOHN DE ORTA in Anal. Boll., IX (Paris and Brussels, 1890), 278-340; ibid., 341-51 (miracles); and in Anal. Ord. Min. Cap., XIII (Rome, 1897), 338-51, 360-72; XIV (1898), 16-27, 83- 92; some appendixes, ibid., 92-4, 120-6, 156-8, 181-3. A second old life is by PETER CALO, of which extracts are given in Acta SS., Aug., III, 781-97, passim; a compendium edited by PRESUTI in Archiv. Franc. Hist., I (Quaracchi, 1908), 278- 80; cf. ibid., 569-76 (miracles). BARTHOLOMEW OF PISA in Anal. Franc., IV (Quaracchi, 1906), 309-17; Chronicle of the XXIV Generals in Anal. Franc., III (Quaracchi, 1897), 447-52; BLUME AND DREVES, Anal. Hymnica Medii Aevii, XXVI (Leipzig, 1897), 265-74, give three rhythmical offices formerly used in Franciscan Breviaries. For some samples of notable hymns see EUSEBE CLOP, Cantus varii in usu apud nostrates (Tournai, 1902), 177-88. LEON, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1886), 26-49, tr. from the Aureole Seraphique, III. The best modern life is: VERLAQUE, Saint Louis, prince royal, eveque de Toulouse (Paris, 1885); DA PALMA, Vita di S. Lodovico d' Angio (Naples, 1855). On the iconography, see SALTER, Franciscan Legends in Italian Art (London, 1905), 180-182; BERTAUX, Les saints Louis dans l'art italien in Revue des Deux Mondes, CLVIII (Paris, 1900), 616-44; KLEINSCHMIDT, St. Ludwig von Toulouse in der Kunst in Archivium Franc. Hist., II (Quaracchi, 1909), 197- 215. Concerning the sixth centenary see the richly illustrated work, S. Lodovico d'Angio. . .e Sua Santita Leone XIII, Ricordo del VI Centennario della morte del Santo 1297-1897 e del LX Anniversario del Giubileo Sacerdotale di Sua Santita 1838-1898 (Rome, 1898).

LIVARIUS OLIGER

Diocese of Louisville

Comprises that part of Kentucky west of the Kentucky River and western borders of Carroll, Owen, Franklin, Woodford, Jessamine, Garrard, Rockcastle, Laurel, and Whitley Counties, embracing an area of 22,714 square miles. Prior to the erection of the Covington Diocese (29 July, 1853), it embraced all the State of Kentucky with an area of 47,000 square miles. Originally it was called Diocese of Bardstown, and its bishop administered spiritually a territory now divided into over twenty-eight dioceses (five of which are archdioceses). The first Catholics who are known to have settled in Kentucky were William Coomes and family (Mrs. Coomes was not only the first white female settler, she was also the first school-mistress) and Dr. Hart the first resident physician. They were among the first white settlers at Harrod's fort (Spring, 1775). Catholic settlers soon followed from Maryland, and in a short time their numbers were greatly increased by an influx of Irish-born immigrants. The latter were probably more numerous at Hardin Creek station than at any other, with the sole exception of the wholly Irish settlement at Lower Cox's Creek (seven miles north of Bardstown), where the Irish language was almost exclusively spoken (see KENTUCKY). Dr. Carroll was unable to send a priest before the year 1787, and religion suffered greatly thereby. The first missionary sent (1787) was Father Whelan, an Irish Franciscan, succeeded by Fathers Badin, de Rohan, and Barri res, Fournier and Salmon. The first American-born priest assigned to Kentucky was Father Thayer, a converted Congregational minister. He remained four years, only two of which were spent in missionary duties. Father Nerinckx arrived at St. Stephen's on 18 July, 1805, and remained there with Father Badin till 1811. He was a tireless and energetic worker, and erected ten churches. He founded the Sisterhood of Loretto (see LORETTO, SISTERS OF). A colony of Trappists, under Fr. Urban Guillet, came to Kentucky in 1805, and settled on Pottinger's Creek, about one mile from Holy Cross church, and established a school for boys. Fr. Guillet, however, withdrew his monks from Kentucky in the spring of 1809. The Dominicans under Father Fenwick came to Kentucky in 1806, and settled on a farm (now St. Rose's Convent near Springfield). A brick church was immediately begun but not finished until 1808. This was the cradle of the Dominican Order in the United States. Upon the resignation of Father Fenwick, Father Wilson was appointed provincial and under him the foundation became prosperous and permanent. A novitiate opened in 1808 was soon filled with candidates from the school.

ERECTION OF THE DIOCESE OF BARDSTOWN

Pius VII ("Ex debito", 8 April, 1808) erected Bardstown into an episcopal seat and appointed Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget; a Sulpician, as its first bishop. The new diocese embraced the States of Kentucky and Tennessee and its bishop was given spiritual jurisdiction, not only over his own diocese proper, but also, until other dioceses might prudently be formed, over the whole north-western territory (states and territories) of the United States lying between 35 N. latitude and the Great Northern Lakes, and between the states bordering on the Atlantic Ocean and the Rocky Mountains, thus including the present States of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, about half of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Iowa. From this mother-see of the West were formed ten dioceses (including that of Little Rock) in the life of its first sainted bishop. Though the Bulls for Flaget's consecration reached him in September, 1808, the consecration did not for several reasons take place until 4 November, 1810, when Bishop Carroll, assisted by Bishop Cheverus (Boston) and Bishop Egan (Philadelphia) consecrated him at St. Patrick's church, Fell's Point.

Bishops

(1) Bishop Flaget accompanied by Fathers David and Savine, and three seminarians (one of whom, Guy I. Chabrat, was afterwards the second coadjutor to Flaget) reached Louisville from Pittsburgh on 4 May, and arrived on 9 May, 1811, at Bardstown. Until a residence and church could be built, Bishop Flaget resided at St. Stephen's. The bishop found twenty-four stations and ten churches all built of logs, except the Danville church which was built of brick upon ground donated by an Irishman named Daniel McElroy, and with monies mainly given by the Irish in the vicinity, attended by six priests. The Catholics of Kentucky then numbered about 6000 souls. Outside of Kentucky, he had one priest at Detroit, Michigan, one at Kaskaskia. The congregation at Vincennes, Indiana, had no priests, and was indifferent. Cahokia had no pastor, but was anxious for one. The bishop sent Fr. Savine. There was no priest in Ohio. He had ten priests for a territory over which before his death ten bishops wielded the crosier. Father David removed on 11 November, 1811, to the Howard house and farm and began to erect a log seminary and brick church. On Christmas Day, 1811, Bishop Flaget ordained in St. Rose's church Guy Ignatius Chabret, first priest of the seminary and first priest ordained west of the Alleghanies. With the help of the seminarians who cut wood, burned the brick, and mixed and carried the mortar, a small brick church was built in 1816. Then (1817) followed the erection of a brick seminary. The first diocesan synod in the west was held on 20 February, 1812. According to the bishop's report to Pius VII (11 April, 1815) the Catholics had increased to 10,000 souls, ministered to by 10 priests, there were 6 subdeacons (5 of them Dominicans), 6 in minor orders, and 6 tonsured clerics, 5 brick and 14 log churches; Tennessee had about 25 Catholics; Ohio 50 families without a priest; Indiana 130 families attended occasionally from Kentucky; Illinois about 120 families; and Michigan 2000 souls. The seminary from its beginning, until 1819 had given eleven diocesan priests to the missions. Vocations were numerous, but on account of the poverty of parents and bishop, almost as many were turned away as were received. Burdened with episcopal labours too heavy for one, Bishop Flaget applied for a coadjutor with right of succession, and Rev. Father David, president of the theological seminary, was appointed in the autumn of 1817, but the consecration was put off until 15 August, 1819, one week after the completion and consecration of the cathedral at Bardstown, which had been begun on 16 July, 1816.

Bishop Flaget was relieved of Ohio and North-Western Territory by the erection of Cincinnati (19 June, 1821) and the consecration of Father Fenwick as its first bishop (13 January, 1822). A community of religious women under guidance of Dominican Fathers was started (1822) near St. Rose's church. The bishop initiated (1823) a religious society called the Brotherhood of the Christian Doctrine, but it survived only three years. The year 1826 is notable for a wonderful renewal of faith as the fruit of a series of missions all through the diocese. The missions were successful. Six thousand received the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, 1216 were confirmed, and many converts were baptized. In 1828 Bishop Flaget consecrated Most Rev. James Whitfield, fourth Archbishop of Baltimore. In September, 1828, he attended the First Council of Baltimore. Soon after his return to Kentucky he consecrated Dr. Kenrick (6 June, 1830). A new church, a replica of Bardstown cathedral, was built on Fifth street by the Rev. Robert A. Abell, and consecrated in 1830. The Sisters of Charity started a school for girls near the St. Louis's church. The Jesuits, invited in 1828, arrived in 1832, and were presented with St. Mary's College by its founder and owner, Rev. Wm. Byrne. Whilst at St. Louis, Bishop Flaget received news from Rome that his resignation of the Bishopric of Bardstown had been accepted, and that his coadjutor, Father David, would be his successor.

(2) Rt. Rev. John Baptist Mary David, b. in 1761, near Nantes, France, educated and ordained there on 24 September, 1785. Having joined the Sulpicians, he taught philosophy and theology in France, and, in 1792, came to the United States. He laboured on the Maryland missions for twelve years with indefatigable zeal; and after teaching some years at Georgetown College and St-Mary's, Baltimore, in 1810 he went west with Bishop Flaget, and established the theological seminary of St. Thomas at Bardstown. He was a strict disciplinarian and an able and lucid professor. He founded the religious institute of Sisters of Charity of Nazareth (November, 1812), and was their ecclesiastical superior almost to the end of his life. Appointed coadjutor to Bishop Flaget in autumn, 1817, his consecration was delayed for almost two years by reason of his reluctance to accept the dignity. After his consecration, he continued at the head of the seminary, discharging at the same time the duties of professor and pastor of the cathedral parish. The priests trained under him numbered forty-seven, of whom twenty-three were either natives of the diocese, or had been raised in it from childhood. Four of them became bishops; Chabrat (coadjutor to Bishop Flaget), Reynolds (Charleston), McGill (Richmond, Va.), Martin John Spalding (Louisville, and later Archbishop of Baltimore). Upon succeeding to the bishopric early in December, 1832, his first act was to appoint the former bishop, the Rt. Rev. B. J. Flaget, vicar-general with as ample faculties as he could, and then forward his resignation to Rome. Rome accepted the resignation (May, 1833), and reappointed Bishop Flaget to the See of Bardstown. Declining health compelled Bishop David, towards the end of 1841, to retire to Nazareth, where he died 12 July, 1841, aged 80, in the fifty-sixth year of his priesthood, and twenty-second of his episcopate.

(3) Bishop Flaget, reappointed to Bardstown, thus became its third bishop. Dr. Chabrat was named his coadjutor (29 June, 1834). After consecrating him (20 July, 1834), Flaget left to him the details of the administration. In September, of the same year, a small church and orphan asylum were erected in Covington, thus laying the foundation of the Covington Diocese. Indiana and the eastern portion of Illinois, were removed from Bishop Flaget's jurisdiction by the erection of the Diocese of Vincennes, 6 May, 1834. Bishop Flaget, in 1835, visited France, and made his episcopal visit to Rome. The first weekly Catholic paper, "The Catholic Advocate", was published in Bardstown in 1836, succeeding a monthly magazine, the "Minerva", founded and edited by the faculty of St. Joseph's College, in October, 1834. During the years 1836-7 several churches were erected and dedicated, among them one at Lexington, Fancy Farm, Lebanon, and Louisville (St. Boniface was the first erected for German Catholics). In April 1837, Dr. Chabrat attended the Third Provincial Council of Baltimore, and made known Bishop Flaget's desire to have Tennessee formed into a new diocese. Gregory XVI established the Diocese of Nashville on 25 July, 1837. Father Napoleon Joseph Perché (afterwards Archbishop of New Orleans) organized a new city parish, Our Lady's of the Port. The diocese numbered at this time forty churches, seventy stations, fifty-one priests, two ecclesiastical seminaries, and nine academies for young ladies. Bishop Flaget returned to a Bardstown in September, 1839, and new churches were erected at Taylorsville and Portland. Louisville had in 1841 a population of 21,210. Owing to its increasing population and the development of its Catholic institutions, the episcopal seat was transferred to it from Bardstown in that year, and Flaget became Bishop of Louisville and Bardstown.

DIOCESE OF LOUISVILLE

La Salle, a Catholic explorer, was the first white man who visited the Falls of Ohio and the site upon which the city of Louisville is built. Thomas Bullitt and party arrived at the Falls on 8 July, 1773, and marked off the site of the city in August of the same year. Louisville was established by Act of the Legislature of Virginia on 1 May, 1780, on 1000 acres belonging to one John Connolly. Three French priests, Revs., Flaget, Levadoux, and Richard, met in Louisville and probably said Mass there for the first time in 1792. It is not certain that any professing Catholic was resident before 1791. Several Catholic families of Irish and American birth settled there between 1805 and 1825. In 1806 a large colony of Frenchmen, with their families, settled about one or two miles south of the city limits, and upon the southern bank of the Ohio, and though but very few of them were practical Catholics they aided Father Badin liberally. A church was erected on the corner of Tenth and Main streets, and opened on Christmas Day, 1811, but not finished until 1817. Father Philip Hosten attended it occasionally from Fairfield until 17 August, 1822, when he was appointed pastor of Louisville. Typhoid fever was carrying off hundreds of the population when he arrived, and he ministered night and day to the sick and dying. He fell a victim to the fever and died, 30 October. He was succeeded in 1823 by Father Robert A. Abell, who attended the Catholics in the town proper, and the villages of Shippingport and Portland, St. John's, Bullitt county, on the southern, and those of New Albany and Jeffersonville on the northern bank of the Ohio. Father Abell was succeeded by Rev. J. I. Reynolds, who had for assistants Fathers George Hayden, McGill and Clark. Father Stahlsmidt replaced Father Clark, and gathered together the Catholic Germans in the basement chapel, and thus laid the foundation of the first German congregation in the city.

Bishops

(1) Rt. Rev. Benedict Joseph Flaget, on the removal of the see from Bardstown to Louisville, appointed Father Reynolds vicar-general, and Rev. Dr. Martin J. Spalding, pastor of the old cathedral at Bardstown. A colony of five sisters of the Good Shepherd, from Angers, France, arrived in Louisville in 1842, and were installed in a home on Eighth street near Walnut purchased for them by Bishop Flaget. This was the cradle of this religious community in the United States. The confraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the Conversion of Sinners was established on 21 March, 1843, by Bishop Flaget. The coadjutor bishop, Dr. Chabrat, being threatened with the loss of sight, tendered his resignation, which was at length (1847) accepted and Dr. Martin J. Spalding appointed in his place. Two Franciscan Brothers from Ireland opened the first free school in Louisville in 1847. The year previous the Jesuit Fathers, in charge of St. Mary's College for fourteen years, left the diocese. About May, 1848, negotiations between the bishop and the Jesuits of St. Louis were completed, by which the fathers took charge of St. Joseph's College, at Bardstown, and the Catholic free school founded by the Irish Franciscan Brothers. Soon after the Jesuits arrived in Louisville, they erected a spacious edifice as a college adjoining the free school. The college attendance was from 100 to 200, and that of the free school about 200 boys. Late in December, 1848, a colony of Trappists from Melleray, France, arrived at and settled on a farm of about 1600 acres formerly belonging to the Loretto Sisters, and named Gethsemani. Bishop Flaget d. on 11 February, 1850 (see FLAGET, BENEDICT JOSEPH).

Coadjutor Bishop Guy Ignatius Chabrat, b. at Chambre, France, on 28 December, 1787; d. at Mauriac, France, on 21 November, 1868. He came to Kentucky in 1809 and was ordained on 25 December, 1811. He did missionary duty at St. Michael's, Fairfield, St. Clare's, and Louisville. He had charge for a short time (1823) of St. Pius's, Scott County. Upon the death of Father Nerinckz, Father Chabrat succeeded him as superior of the Loretto sisterhood till 1846. He was consecrated (20 July, 1834) Bishop of Bolina and coadjutor of Bardstown. When Bishop Chabrat was forced to resign by reason of his approaching blindness he retired (1847) on a comfortable pension to his old home in France. He died in the thirty-fourth year of his episcopate.

(2) Rt. Rev. Martin John Spalding, b. 23 May, 1810, was one of the first pupils of Father Byrne's College, afterwards of the diocesan seminary of St. Thomas, thence he passed to Rome and was ordained on 13 August 1834, became vicar-general of the diocese in 1844, coadjutor bishop on 10 September 1848, and bishop on the death of Dr. Flaget, 11 February 1850. Upon the death of Dr. Kendrick, Bishop Spalding was elevated, 11 June, 1864, to the Archdiocese of Baltimore. He appointed his brother, Rev. Dr. Benedict Joseph Spalding, administrator of the diocese. In 1848 Bishop Spalding found 30,000 souls in the whole state, cared for by 40 priests, and at his departure there were 70,000 souls with 51 diocesan and 24 religious priests in the Diocese of Louisville. There were but 43 Catholic churches in the state in 1848; in 1864 there were 80 in the Diocese of Louisville. During the administration of Dr. B.J. Spalding the Jesuit Fathers of St. Joseph's College left the diocese (see SPALDING, MARTIN JOHN).

(3) Rt. Rev. Peter Joseph Lavialle, b. in 1820 at Lavialle near Mauriac, in Auvergne, France, made his preparatory studies in France, and came to Kentucky with his relative Bishop Chabrat, in 1841; he was ordained priest in 1844, and assigned to work at the cathedral. In the year 1849 he was appointed professor of St. Thomas's Seminary where he remained until Bishop Spalding, in 1856, made him president of St. Mary's College, which office he held until he was consecrated Bishop of Louisville on 24 September, 1865. He invited the Dominican Fathers to locate in the episcopal city in December, 1865. The following year St. Joseph's and St. Michael's churches, Louisville, were dedicated, and a temporary frame church (St. Louis Bertrand's) built and the convent of the Dominican Fathers commenced. Though exhausted from continued labours and mortifications, he attended the Second Council of Baltimore in October, 1866, and on his return resumed the diocesan visitation, but had to retire to St. Joseph's Infirmary, and thence to Nazareth Academy where he died on 11 May, 1867. He was buried in the crypt of Louisville cathedral. Very Rev. B.J. Spalding was again appointed administrator of the diocese, but he soon died (4 August, 1868). Archbishop Purcell then appointed Very Rev. Hugh I. Brady administrator sede vacante.

(4) Rt. Rev. William George McCloskey; b. on 10 November, 1823, in Brooklyn, N. Y. He studied law in New York City, but abandoning his worldly career he was ordained priest by Archbishop Hughes on 4 October, 1852. After acting as assistant for one year to his brother, Rev. John McCloskey, pastor of the Nativity church, New York, he was appointed professor of Latin and afterwards of holy Scripture and moral theology at St. Mary's College, Maryland, and in 1857 was chosen as director of Mount St. Mary's Seminary, which office he held until he was appointed (8 December, 1859) by Pius IX first rector of the recently established American College at Rome. Upon the death of Bishop Lavialle the Pope named Dr. McCloskey to the vacant see, and he was consecrated bishop by Cardinal Reisach in the American College on 24 May, 1868. Bishop McCloskey ruled the diocese for forty-one years and died at Preston Park Seminary on 17 September, 1909. Very Rev. James P. Cronin, former vicar-general, was appointed administrator of the diocese by Archbishop Moeller of Cincinnati. The Right Rev. Denis O'Donaghue, Titular Bishop of Pomario (25 April, 1900) and Bishop Auxiliary of Indianapolis, was chosen as the new Bishop of Louisville and took possession of his see on 29 March, 1910.

STATISTICS

Priests 204 (142 diocesan, 62 regular); churches 163; seminary 1; colleges 3, pupils 718; academies 16, pupils 1621; parochial schools 70, pupils 11,225; kindergartens 3, pupils 145; industrial and reform schools 4, inmates 225; orphan asylums 3, orphans 272; hospitals 4; homes for aged poor 4; inmates 301; Catholic population 135,421. The coloured Catholics number 4251, and have 4 churches and 7 schools with 365 pupils.

Religious Communities

(Men) Benedectines 2; Dominicans 17 (14 priests); Franciscan Friars Minor, professed 24, clergy 18; Minor Conventual, professed 6 priests; Passionists in community 24; Fathers of the Resurrection, professed 5, total 12; Reformed Cistercian, professed 32, total 87; Brothers of Mary 7; Xaverian Brothers 20 professed.

(Women); Sisters of Charity; mother-house at Nazareth, Ky., 22 houses in the diocese and establishments in States of Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Maryland, Virginia and Massachusetts; total religious 800. Sisters of Loretto at the Foot of the Cross: mother-house at Nerinckx, Nelson Co., Ky., 700 members, conducting 23 academies and 42 parochial schools in the Dioceses of Louisville, Covington, Cleveland, Columbus, Mobile, Belleville, St. Louis, Kansas City, Lincoln, Denver, Dallas, Tucson, and Santa Fé. Sisters of Third Order of St. Dominic: mother-house, St. Catherine near Springfield, Ky., professed sisters, 64, total number, 79. Good Shepherd Sisters: 2 convents, professed choir sisters 24, 18 lay, 9 out-door sisters having in charge 55 professed magdalenes, 39 penitents, 170 in reformatory class, and 170 children from 5 to 12 years of age in St. Philomena's Industrial School. Ursuline nuns: mother-house in Louisville, local houses, 7, academies, 3, 20 parochial schools, and 1 orphan asylum, and establishments in Maryland and Indiana, total subject to mother-house, 247. Sisters of Mercy: mother-house at Louisville, academy house and parochial school, professed 60. Franciscan Sisters: St. Anthony's hospital, 23 sisters. Little Sisters of the Poor: home for the aged, 18 sisters in charge of 225 aged poor.

M. J. SPALDING, Life, Times and Character of Benedict Joseph Flaget (Louisville, 1852); IDEM, Sketches of the Early Catholic Missions in Kentucky, 1787-1827 (Louisville, 1846); SHEA, History of Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886-93); J. L. SPALDING, Life of Archbishop Spalding (New York, 1873); WEBB, Century of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884); DEPPEN, Louisville Guide (Louisville, 1887); Catholic Orphan's Souvenir (Louisville, 1901); files of Catholic Advocate, Catholic Guardian and Catholic Record.

P.M.J. ROCK

Brothers of Our Lady of Lourdes

(Abbreviation C.N.D.L. — Congregation de Notre-Dame de Lourdes)

A community devoted to the education of youth and the care of the sick and infirm. It was founded at Renaix, Flanders, in 1830, by Etienne Modeste Glorieux, a Belgian priest, and approved in 1892 by Leo XIII. The congregation, numbering 518 members, has its mother-house at Oostacker, Belgium, and 30 filial houses, one in the United States and the others in Belgium and Holland. The American house is at South Park, in the Diocese of Seattle, Washington, where are 13 Brothers in charge of a house of studies and day- and boarding-school for boys.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen, III (Paderborn, 1908), 360; Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1910).

LEO A. KELLY

Notre-Dame de Lourdes

In the Department of Hautes Pyrenées, France, is far-famed for the pilgrimage of which it is a centre and for the extraordinary events that have occurred and still occur there.

History

The pilgrimage of Lourdes is founded on the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin to a poor, fourteen-year-old girl, Bernadette Soubiroux. The first apparition occurred 11 February, 1858. There were eighteen in all; the last took place 16 July, of the same year. Bernadette often fell into an ecstasy. The mysterious vision she saw in the hollow of the rock Massabielle was that of a young and beautiful lady. "Lovelier than I have ever seen" said the child. But the girl was the only one who saw the vision, although sometimes many stood there with her. Now and then the apparition spoke to the seer who also was the only one who heard the voice. Thus, she one day told her to drink of a mysterious fountain, in the grotto itself, the existence of which was unknown, and of which there was no sign, but which immediately gushed forth. On another occasion the apparition bade Bernadette go and tell the priests she wished a chapel to be built on the spot and processions to be made to the grotto. At first the clergy were incredulous. It was only four years later, in 1862, that the bishop of the diocese declared the faithful "justified in believing the reality of the apparition". A basilica was built upon the rock of Massabielle by M. Peyramale, the parish priest. In 1873 the great "national" French pilgrimages were inaugurated. Three years later the basilica was consecrated and the statue solemnly crowned. In 1883 the foundation stone of another church was laid, as the first was no longer large enough. It was built at the foot of the basilica and was consecrated in 1901 and called the Church of the Rosary. Pope Leo XIII authorized a special office and a Mass, in commemoration of the apparition, and in 1907 Pius X extended the observance of this feast to the entire Church; it is now observed on 11 February.

Never has a sanctuary attracted such throngs. At the end of the year 1908, when the fiftieth anniversary of the apparition was celebrated, although the record really only began from 1867, 5297 pilgrimages had been registered and these had brought 4,919,000 pilgrims. Individual pilgrims are more numerous by far than those who come in groups. To their number must be added the visitors who do not come as pilgrims, but who are attracted by a religious feeling or sometimes merely by the desire to see this far-famed spot. The Company of the Chemins de Fer du Midi estimates that the Lourdes station receives over one million travellers per annum. Every nation in the world furnishes its contingent. Out of the total of pilgrimages given above, four hundred and sixty-four came from countries other than France. They are sent by the United States, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Italy, England, Ireland, Canada, Brazil, Bolivia, etc. The bishops lead the way. At the end of the year of the fiftieth anniversary, 2013 prelates, including 546 archbishops, 10 primates, 19 patriarchs, 69 cardinals, had made the pilgrimage to Lourdes. But more remarkable still than the crowd of pilgrims is the series of wonderful occurrences which take place under the protection of the celebrated sanctuary. Passing over spiritual cures, which more often than not escape human observance, we shall confine ourselves to bodily diseases. The writer of this article has recorded every recovery, whether partial or complete, and in the first half-century of the shrine's existence he has counted 3962. Notwithstanding very careful statistics which give the names and surnames of the patients who have recovered, the date of the cure, the name of the disease, and generally that of the physician who had charge of the case, there are inevitably doubtful or mistaken cases, attributable, as a rule, to the excited fancy of the afflicted one and which time soon dispels. But it is only right to note: first, that these unavoidable errors regard only secondary cases which have not like the others been the object of special study; it must also be noted that the number of cases is equalled and exceeded by actual cures which are not put on record. The afflicted who have recovered are not obliged to present themselves and half of them do not present themselves, at the Bureau des Constatations Médicales at Lourdes, and it is from this bureau's official reports that the list of cures is drawn up.

The estimate that about 4000 cures have been obtained at Lourdes within the first fifty years of the pilgrimage is undoubtedly considerably less than the actual number. The Bureau des Constatations stands near the shrine, and there are recorded and checked the certificates of maladies and also the certificates of cure; it is free to all physicians, whatever their nationality or religious belief. Consequently, on an average, from two to three hundred physicians annual visit this marvellous clinic. As to the nature of the diseases which are cured, nervous disorders so frequently mentioned, do not furnish even the fourteenth part of the whole; 278 have been counted, out of a total of 3962. The present writer has published the number of cases of each disease or infirmity, among them tuberculosis, tumours, sores, cancers, deafness, blindness, etc. The "Annales des Sciences Physiques", a sceptical review whose chief editor is Doctor Ch. Richet, Professor at the Medical Faculty of Paris, said in the course of a long article, apropos of this faithful study: "On reading it, unprejudiced minds cannot but be convinced that the facts stated are authentic."

Their Cause

There exists no natural cause capable of producing the cures witnessed at Lourdes which dispense an unbiassed mind from tracing them back to the particular agency of God. Those who refused to believe in a miraculous intervention sought at first the scientific interpretation of the occurrences in the chemical composition of the water of the Grotto. But it was then declared by an eminent chemist officially appointed to make the analysis and his statement has since been corroborated, that the water contains no curative properties of a natural character. Then the incredulous said, perhaps it operates through its temperature, or the results obtained at Lourdes may be accounted for by the bathing in cold water. However, every one knows that hydrotherapy is practised elsewhere than at Lourdes, and that it does not work the miracle of curing every kind of disease, from cancers to troubles which bring on blindness. Besides, many ailing ones are cured without ever bathing in the basins of the Grotto; this decides the question. Therefore, those who deny supernatural intervention attribute the wonderful results seen at Lourdes to two other causes. The first is suggestion. To this we answer unhesitatingly that suggestion is radically powerless to furnish the hoped-for explanation. Omitting nervous or functional diseases, since they are in the minority among those registered as cured at the Medical Office of the Grotto, and the fact we are now establishing does not require them to be taken into account, we may confine our attention to organic diseases. Can suggestion be used efficaciously in diseases of this nature? The most learned and daring of the suggestionists of the present day, Bernheim, a Jew, head of the famous school of Nancy, the more advanced rival of the Ecole de la Salpétrière, answers in the negative in twenty passages of the book in which he has recorded the result of his observations: "Hypnotisme, Suggestion, Psychotherapie" (Paris, 1903, 2nd edition). Studying this work, we find also that in the very cases where suggestion has a chance of success, as in certain functional diseases, it requires the co-operation of time, it cures slowly and progressively, while the complete cures of Lourdes are instantaneous. Therefore curative suggestion is no explanation. It is not suggestion that operates at Lourdes; the cause which cures acts differently and is infinitely more powerful.

There remains the last resource of having recourse to some unknown law and of saying, for instance, "How do we know that some natural force of which we are still ignorant does not operate the marvellous cures which are attributed directly to God?" How do we know? In the first place, if a law of this nature did exist, the pilgrims of Lourdes would not be cognizant of it any more than the rest of mankind; neither would they know any better than others how to set it in motion. Why should this law operate for them and not for others? Is it because they deny its existence and the others believe in it? Moreover, not only there does not exist, but there cannot exist, and consequently will never exist, a natural law producing instantaneously the generation of tissues affected with lesion, that is to say, the cure of an organic disease. Why so? Because any growth and consequently any restoration of the tissues of the organism is accomplished -- and this is a scientific fact -- by the increase and growth of the protoplasms and cells which compose every living body. Every existing protoplasm comes from some former protoplasm, and that from a previous one and so on, back to the very beginning; these generation (the fact is self-evident) are necessarily successive, that is, they require the co-operation of time. Therefore, in order that a natural force should be able to operate a sudden cure in an organic disease, the essential basis of life as it is in the present creation would have to be overthrown; nature as we know it would have to be destroyed and another created on a different plan. Therefore, the hypothesis of unknown forces of nature cannot be brought forward to explain the instantaneous cures of Lourdes. It is logically untenable. As a matter of fact, no natural cause, known or unknown, is sufficient to account for the marvellous cures witnessed at the foot of the celebrated rock where the Virgin Immaculate deigned to appear. They can only be from the intervention of God.

LASSERRE, Notre-Dame de Lourdes; BOISSARIE, L'oeuvre de Lourdes; BERTRIN, Histoire critique des événements de Lourdes, apparitions et guérisons (Paris, 1909), tr. GIBBS; IDEM, Un miracle d'aujourd'hui avec une radiographie (Paris, 1909).

GEORGES BERTRIN

University of Louvain

In order to restore the splendour of Louvain, capital of his Duchy of Brabant, John IV of the House of Burgundy petitioned the papal authority for the establishment of an educational institution called at the time studium generale. The Bull of Martin V, dated 9 December, 1425, was the result. This Bull, in founding the university, prescribed also that the prince should give it advantages and privileges. In its early days, however, the university was incomplete. It was only in 1431 that Eugene IV created the faculty of theology. Louvain had the character of a studium generale, i.e., it had the right to receive students from all parts of the world, and the degree of doctor which it conferred gave the right to teach anywhere. Popes and princes vied with one another in granting the university important privileges and establishing endowments to provide for its needs and development. The organization of the university and its history have been recorded by many annalists. The manuscripts preserved in the archives amply complete the literary sources, although the entire history of the university has not yet been written. From any point of view that may be taken, the history and description of the university admit of an important division, the regime from 1425 to 1797 being quite different from that adopted at the time of the restoration in 1834.

First period (1425-1797)

The ancient university constituted a juridical body enjoying a large measure of autonomy. The arrangement of the programme of studies and the conferring of degrees were among its prerogatives; it had jurisdiction and disciplinary powers over its members. Its constitution was elective; the authority f the rector was conferred for three months, then for six, by delegates of the faculties, each one holding in turn the rectoral office. The faculties organized after the foundation of the theological faculty comprised those of law (civil and canon), medicine, and arts. The scope of the latter was very broad, including the physical and mathematical sciences, philosophy, literature, and history. It covered everything contained in the trivium and quadrivium of the Middle Ages; it was an encyclopedic faculty. The university profited by the increasing power of the sovereigns of Brabant, dukes of Burgundy, afterwards princes of Habsburg, Austria, and Spain. The imperial splendour of Charles V contributed greatly to its prosperity, owing to the important position of the Netherlands among the nations of Europe. Doubtless, too, it felt the effects of the civil and foreign wars, which devastated these provinces; its material and scientific interests suffered considerably, but for all that, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was one of the strongest intellectual centres of the West. The princes had contributed to the influence exerted by Louvain by giving it a university monopoly; for, fearing the influence of the doctrines taught in other countries, the Farnese Government forbade young Belgians to study in foreign universities, as many of them had been doing until that time. It is true that this rule permitted exceptions for worthy motives. On the other hand, to provide for the southern provinces, Philip II had brought about the establishment of an affiliated university at Douai, which was soon to rival the parent institution and share its privileges. The faculties of Louvain did not confine themselves to oral teaching in optional courses. Various institutions sprang up about the university. More than forty colleges received students of various groups provided with special means. Special chairs were created, for instance, in the sixteenth century, the celebrated "College of the Three Languages" founded by Busleiden. In these colleges (Lys, Porc, Chateau, Faucon) courses were given and a very keen competition for academic honours sprang up among them. The students were also grouped according to nationalities, e.g., the German nation, the Brabantine nation, etc.

In the ancient university, the faculty of law occupied a dominant position. Its course of studies, however, offers no features characteristic of that period. Founded at the time when Roman law was beginning to assert its supremacy in Europe, the faculty of Louvain remained a stanch exponent of its principles. Here as in France, it is possible to distinguish various periods, but the reaction brought about in that country by the school of Cujas was not equally strong in Belgium with Mude and his disciples in the sixteenth century. Roman law reigned almost supreme in the lecture-halls; even during the formation of national law, while the up-building of this law was everywhere in process, it found no place in the teaching of the university. It was only in exceptional cases that certain subjects succeeded in obtaining recognition. The jurists of Louvain, however, exercised a tremendous influence. Indeed they soon filled the tribunals and the councils. Administration and judiciary drew their jurisprudence from the sources in the university; magistrates and officials studied under the teachers at Louvain, and sometimes the teachers themselves were called to these high positions. And thus the law developed under their inspiration. When the period of compilations (such as those of customary and princely laws) began in the seventeenth century, the jurists of Louvain lavished on the work the result of their learning and experience. The perpetual edict on the reform of justice issued in 1611, marks a memorable epoch in this respect. The situation became still more tense when in 1617 a rule was adopted requiring for eligibility to membership in the councils of justice, and even for admission to the bar, the completion of a course of studies in a university in the Netherlands. In this scheme, the teaching of Roman law had a large place; it was regarded as the scientific element, but it served in practice to mould and co-ordinate, not to destroy the living law of national custom. While one preserved the theoretical primacy, the other was in actual control, and it is from their union realized in studies and edicts that the written national law came forth. Influential in all that pertained to law as such, the jurists of Louvain had also a strong political influence. Under the old regime justice and administration were not divided. Then, the highest governmental offices were almost always entrusted to experienced jurists who held diplomas from Louvain. The jurists of Louvain, brought up in the spirit of Byzantine law, were somewhat imbued with royalist theories; however, although serving the prince, they showed a decided preference for the limited monarchy. They certainly consolidated and enlarged the princely power, but they did not favour an absolute monarchy. The national opposition to the royal power, which had become too foreign in character, undoubtedly met among the legists adversaries so far as these helped powerfully to create the mechanism of the princely state; but if a number were hostile to the old privileges of the provinces, the theory of absolute royalty found no representative among them even in the seventeenth century. It is only in the eighteenth century that royalist conceptions took on greater importance at Louvain, without, however, becoming predominant. The history of these conceptions has been sketched in a volume of the faculty of law indicated below. If the faculty of law exercised a far-reaching influence in the inner life of the university, the faculty of arts shed a more brilliant light. There we find the illustrious group of Humanists who for a century and a half give Louvain an international fame; it becomes one of the scientific centres of the literary Renaissance which so largely developed the knowledge of letters and history and gave a new impetus to many branches of learning, but which was also marked by the ferment of many dangerous germs and hazardous ideas. Louvain is in the very heart of this literary movement, and, apart from the subtle trifling with ideas which endangered orthodoxy, reference must be made, and often with well-deserved praise, to the brilliant phalanx of linguists, philologists, and historians gathered at the university. There we find a succession of names which adorn the literary annals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the history of which has been written in part by Félix Nève ("La Renaissance des lettres en Belgique", Louvain, 1890), a work which is being gradually brought to completion, especially by the writings of Professor Roersen, of Ghent. The ancient languages ruled over this domain, the Oriental and Graeco-Latin studies occupying a prominent place. It is particularly through this faculty that Louvain shed its lustre beyond the Netherlands. If its jurists were well known, its philologists were even more famous. Besides, literary Humanism formed a vast international association for fine cultural study, and intercourse between teachers was supplemented by the journeys of their disciples. Louvain had a distinguished reputation in this world of letters; it was the Athens of Belgium. The English Catholic Humanists, such as Thomas More, found there a happy refuge during the persecution. At the end of the sixteenth century, the name of Justus Lipsius, poor as a philosopher and statesman, but great as a philologist, sums up this prestige of classical lore, of which he stands out as the culminating point, forming with Casaubon and Scaliger the "triumvirate" of European Humanism. Distinguished names abound, but that of Clenard, the Arabist, is entitled to special mention. Thomissen and Roersch have written the life of this indomitable scholar. Moreover, the study of letters permeated the other sciences and the professors of law were Humanists as well.

But, as we know, the faculty of arts does not consist wholly of linguistic and philological studies; it includes the natural and mathematical sciences in close connection with philosophy. Without attempting to treat its history and controversies, it may suffice to note that in the sixteenth century, geometry, astronomy, and geography found at Louvain celebrated professors who paved the way for the practical achievements of Antwerpian cartography. Adrian Romanus and Gemma Frisius are its accredited representatives. The Cartesian disputes of the seventeenth century gave rise to heated controversies, the stirring history of which has been related by Georges Minchamp (Le Cartésianisme en Belgique, 1886). The same is true of the system of Copernicus and the trials of Galileo (Monchamp, "Galilée et la Belgique", Brussels, 1892). The eighteenth century brings the name of Minckelers, who invented illuminating gas. Within the last few years several monuments have been erected to him at Maastricht and at Louvain, and Professor Dewalque, of Louvain, has written his biography. The history of each science will not be related here, as it should properly be left to specialists. This in particular is true as regards the faculty of medicine. It may be stated, however, that although few in number this faculty grouped in its midst and about it powerful elements of progress. Vesalius and Van Helmont worked at Louvain; Réga was an authority in surgery in the eighteenth century, and there are many illustrious names close to these shining lights, a list of which has recently been made by Dr. Masoin, of Louvain.

Belonging to a very different order in virtue of its high mission stands the faculty of theology. The task of treating its doctrines lies beyond the scope of this article. As a whole its history is one of fruitful activity to which its numerous productions bear witness. It was disturbed by the currents of thought which agitated religious doctrine throughout the world, but it vigorously resisted Protestantism. The errors which sprang from its bosom through the teaching of Baius and Jansenius caused serious anxiety during the entire seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century the influence of Febronianism and Josephinism was strongly felt, without, however, ever becoming predominant in the faculty. The theological teaching, from the end of the seventeenth century onwards, was based upon that of the scholastics, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas having replaced those of Peter Lombard. Special scholastic chairs were added through the initiative of the princes. Among its illustrious teachers we shall name but one: Adrian Floris, tutor of Charles V, later Cardinal of Utrecht, and finally pope under the name of Adrian VI (1522). To him is due the foundation of a university college which still bears its name.

The statutes of the university had been modified several times, but the laura doctoralis was throughout the crowning feature of the studies. The doctorate ceremonies were not alike in all the faculties nor were they the only ones observed in the university; but the conferring of degrees was always a considerable event accompanied with festivities academical, gastronomical, and public. Not only did solemn processions pass through the town, but these were repeated in each community according to a traditional ritual both complicated and onerous. These functions were commemorated in verse, tableaux, stories and are perpetuated in the nation's memory. Except for well-justified retrenchments, the custom has been maintained in certain doctorates, the conferring of which still preserves the festive form and the public procession. Certain competitions in the faculty of arts roused great interest. At the conclusion of each competition the candidates were graded; the "Primus" in the first "line" became from that fact an important personage, an honour to his family and city.

It goes without saying that the student body of Louvain was not given exclusively to study. The police of the university and the rectoral tribunal who had jurisdiction over the entire academic body occasionally had very difficult cases to handle. During the civil wars the habits of the young men had not become any more peaceful. If it happened that in the sixteenth century they rendered Louvain the great service of saving it from being taken and pillaged by armed bands, on the other hand their rapier often endangered public peace. Unfortunately we have but few facts concerning the student life of the period, although one of our historians, Poullet, has written an interesting sketch (see "Revue catholique", Louvain, 1867). Certain articles of the statutes constituted the disciplinary code relating to the violation of university regulations, and during the stormy times of civil struggles and general warfare, the academic tribunal had all it could do to keep the restless student throng in order. Studies at the university went through various phases. For a long time they were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the university body itself. But in the midst of civil disturbances, certain weaknesses and defects of organization became apparent, and these the authorities endeavoured to remedy. At the beginning of the seventeenth century an important fact is to be noted: the investigation and reform of 1617. In union with Paul V, and after a careful examination the sovereign archdukes published new university statutes. Thenceforth the programme of studies and the conferring of degrees was minutely provided for. Moreover, the diploma of studies and examinations was generally required for the professions of law and of medicine. The new regulation contributed to the uplifting of the standard of instruction. There were still defects and omissions, however, and the wars during the reign of Louis XIV were not conducive to academic work. But there was considerable activity in the way of publication, notwithstanding the complaints of the Government on the score of discipline.

The seventeenth century cannot be looked upon as a period of decay for the university, as there are noted names and numerous scholarly productions. True, ancient literature no longer had the brilliancy given it by Justus Lipsius up to 1606, but here were very distinguished jurists, noted Humanists (like Putiamus). The attraction exerted by Louvain was still very great. In fact it was only towards the middle of the seventeenth century that the natio germanica, which comprised a succession of distinguished names form various parts of the empire, was officially established. Louvain was celebrated and many studied there in preference to the Protestant universities of Germany and Holland (Wils, "L'illustre natio germanique", Louvain, 1909). Publications, Belgian bibliographies of various kinds flourished; the "Bibliotheca Belgica" in important and numerous volumes did honour to the publishing houses, especially to the celebrated printing house of Plantin and Moretus at Antwerp. Through its teachers and its influence, Louvain had a very large sphere in their activity. Even more than the seventeenth century the eighteenth, hitherto scarcely known, has been represented as one of decadence for the university. One may be surprised at this, since from 1756 at least, owing to the reconciliation of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons, the country enjoyed perfect peace under the apparently easy-going administration of Prince Charles of Louvain. But in reality, if there were some shortcomings, the imputation of decay got its principal emphasis from the Austrian Government itself. The princely authorities followed a policy which met with strong opposition, especially in ecclesiastical matters. The ministers from Vienna expected to find political tools in the university faculties and did not succeed. On the other hand, there was reason to regard the programme of studies as out of date in some respects. There was a certain amount of routine. The faculty of law especially confined itself to the teaching of Roman law, and this was clearly no longer sufficient for the training of young jurists. And such was the case in other branches. It is certainly a matter of regret that the two questions, the academic and the political, were linked together.

In seeking to impregnate the university with centralizing and royalist ideas the Austrian ministers and particularly the Marquis of Nony, the commissioner attached to the university, practically defeated the attempt to reform the programme of studies. It was rightly considered that war was declared against the university privileges, the national traditions, and the religious rights of the Church. It was on this account and also because of the opinions of the professors appointed that the creation of a course in public law, so useful in itself, twice failed. Verhaegen, in his "Histoire des cinquante dernières annees de Pancienne universite" (1884) has shown how, even in the eighteenth century, the university had still a creditable scientific existence, and, on the other hand, how bravely it resisted the encroachments made upon it by the Government. The conflict between the Government and the university reached an acute crisis under the reign of Emperor Joseph II, who wished to force the professors to adopt his royalist theories. Some of them yielded, but many resisted, particularly when the emperor, on his own authority and in disregard of the right of the Church, attempted to impose a general seminary on the university. This struggle resulted in the suspension and exile of a number of professors, whilst those who supported the Government began teaching in Brussels, as they could not remain at Louvain. The crisis was consequently a violent one and entirely to the credit of the university. It ceased only with the end of the Josephinist regime. The National Conservative Government reopened the university in 1790 and recalled the exiles. Unfortunately this tempest was but the forerunner of another which was to last longer. In 1792 the Netherlands were occupied by the French Republican troops and officially annexed by the Convention in 1795. The existence of the university, its privileges and its teachings were incompatible with the regime of the new teachers. In 1797 the university was suppressed; its scientific property fell into the hands of the spoilers; the whole institution was ruined for a long time by this fury of destruction.

Second Period (1834-1909)

After an interval marked by the establishment of a state university under the Dutch Government of 1815, the episcopate of Belgium decided to create a free Catholic institution of higher education. The Constitution of independent Belgium had proclaimed freedom of education, and advantage was taken of this with daring initiative. Gregory XVI sanction the project. First opened at Mechlin, the university, at the request of the city of Louvain, was transferred the following year to the buildings of the old Alma Mater and thus took up again the historical succession. The pope of 1834 revived the work of his predecessor of 1425. The restored university is a free university. Its administration, its teaching, and its budget are independent of the state. The episcopate controls the institution and appoints its head, the Rector Magnificus. The latter governs with the assistance of a rectoral council composed of the deans of the five faculties (theology, law, medicine, philosophy, letters) and of a few other members. The professors are appointed by the bishops on presentation of the rector; grouped into faculties they elect their dean for one year or for two. The vice-rector, whose special charge is to watch over the students, also assists the rector and takes his place when necessary; within recent years the latter has also been given an assistant. In principle the university organizes its teaching and regulates its scientific degrees as it sees fit. Practical necessities have set limits not to its rights, but to the use of those rights. While respecting the freedom of teaching, the State has prescribed examination requirements for the practice of certain professions; the programme of these examinations is fixed by law. The state universities must necessarily conform to it; the free universities comply with it in order to secure the legal professional advantages for their diplomas. The Government, moreover, faithful in its interpretation of liberty, deals with the free universities just as it deals with its own. The diplomas awarded have the same value on the same conditions; viz., efficiency in the prescribed minimum of academic work, this efficiency being guaranteed through the supervision of a commission specially appointed for the purpose. In no case does this supervision operate as a control or restriction on the methods or tendencies of the teaching itself, for that would suppress liberty. Under these minimum requirements the universities themselves confer the legal degrees. Until 1876 it was the work of a jury, either central or mixed. Since then the freedom of teaching has been made complete and has been extended to the conferring of degrees. The university, therefore, has free action guaranteed by the Constitution and its exercise is sanctioned by the laws.

Besides the official programme of legal studies, the university develops as it best pleases the various branches of special teaching. This development has been considerable. The University of Louvain has had a large share in the scientific movement of the country. "Le Movement scientifique en Belgique", a recent and important publication from the department of sciences and arts, enables one to judge of the prominent place it occupies in all the branches. The University of Louvain is the only one in Belgium that has a theological faculty, and this faculty is Catholic in virtue of the fundamental principle of the institution itself. The doctorate, which requires six years of extra study after the completion of the seminary course is an academic event. It is not conferred every year, but the series of dissertations is already important. The American College, treated in another article of this "Encyclopedia", is connected with this faculty. The non-ecclesiastic faculties have also grown considerably and numerous foundations of institutes and special chairs have been added. As a necessary result of contemporary discoveries, the technical sciences have taken on a large expansion, and the ancient faculties of law and philosophy have shared in the development.

Before giving an outline of the work of the university it is well to say a word regarding its character. For a long time, as was everywhere else the case, the auditive, receptive method prevailed. This is no longer so. The constant effort is to stimulate love of work and personal initiative, especially among the students who show ability. These earnest workers are increasing in number, for they find within their reach both instruments and methods. The preference for research has thus become quite marked, particularly during the past twenty-five years. University work is not at all, then, a mere preparation for a profession. On the part of the professors it is serious scientific investigation; and so it is with the students who are being carefully directed along the same lines. As a consequence, the courses of study, the institutes, the special courses, the seminaries (in the German sense of the word, practical courses), the publications, competitions, collections are steadily increasing. The list of university institutes and the bibliography are very important. On various occasions, and especially in 1900 and 1908, there has been published a very complete and instructive account which makes up a large volume. Activity ont he part of the professors and personal collaboration of student and teachers are therefore characteristic features of the present condition of university life.

As we have already pointed out, one must distinguish two groups of studies and diplomas. Some are primarily professional; they pave the way to a lucrative career. They have a scientific basis and the work is serious; but among the auditors there are quite a number who wish to do the least amount of work possible. Then there are the special scientific courses, among which may be ranked certain professional courses, for instance those preparatory to teaching. The professional diplomas regulated by state laws are chiefly those of doctor in medicine, surgery, and obstetrics, pharmacy, doctor in law, notary, the doctor in philosophy and letters (especially with a view to teaching languages and history), in natural sciences, mathematics, mining and civil engineering. It is not possible to analyse here the courses leading to these diplomas, as this would involve the entire history of higher professional teaching. Side by side with these programmes is a series of specialties, the importance of which is indicated by the titles: doctorate in social and political, or political and diplomatic sciences; commercial or colonial sciences; higher philosophy; moral and historical sciences; archaeology; Oriental literature and languages (Semitic or Indo-European). The historical and linguistic doctorates are, as aforementioned, professional also. Further, there is a doctorate in natural sciences, mathematics, and their special branches. Then there are a few free professional diplomas, not regulated by law: agriculture, engineering, architecture, arts and manufactures, electricity, etc.

As will be readily understood, this development of the work has brought about a corresponding increase in the teaching staff and a parcelling out of specialties into a large number of institutes. Doubtless, too, the unification of all branches of study is advantageous in the way of contact and co-operation; and while each of the various branches preserves its autonomy, the work of the university as a whole is also very fruitful. These institutes are quite numerous; it will be sufficient to name a few. The higher philosophical institute (Institut superieur de philosophie), de to the initiative of Pope Leo XIII, is based on the teachings of St. Thomas of Aquin. It was organized by Professor Mercier, head of the school of neo-scholastic philosophy, and now Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin. His works are known the world over, among them "La Revue Néo-Scolastique", of which he is the founder. The schools of political and social sciences (L'Ecole des sciences politiques et sociales) annexed to the faculty of law and due to the initiative of the minister of State, Professor van den Heuvel, has produced an important series of publications, and has added to its courses conferences of a practical character. The institute of agriculture (L'Institut supérieur d'agronomie), as well as the commercial, consular, and colonial school (L'Ecole commerciale, consulaire et coloniale), prepares students for careers in these several lines. The historical and linguistic lectures have grown steadily in importance, thanks to professors such as Jungmann, Moeller, Collard, and Cauchie. The latter is publishing, with the present rector, P. Ladeuze, the well-known "Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique". Particular mention must be made of a branch of teaching which is not organized in a distinct school, but which has here an important development; it is that of the Oriental languages (Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic), distributed in various faculties, and for which there is a special diploma.

The various schools and institutes, provided with libraries, apparatus, etc., familiarize the student with methods of study under the immediate supervision of masters. They are also centres of scientific production; we have already mentioned the importance of the bibliography of the university (Bibliographie des travaux universitaires), the catalogue of which has been published. These publications include a series of periodicals which carry abroad the work of Louvain and bring back in exchange the productions of the outside world. There are about thirty of these periodicals published by the professors of Louvain, and more than one thousand are received in exchange from other sources. Among these reviews may be mentioned: "La Revue Néo-Scholastique" and "La Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique", which have already been noticed; "La Revue Social Catholique" and "La Revue Catholique de Droit" (all four from the philosophical institute); "La Revue Médicale" (Double); "La Cellule" (review of biology, founded by Carnoy); "La Névrose" (review of neurology, founded by Van Gehuchten); the "Bulletins" of the schools of engineering, commerce, agriculture, and electricity; "Le Musée Belge" (pedagogy); "La Muséon" (Philology and Oriental sciences); "Revue des Sociétés Commerciales", etc. To the above might be added collections that do not appear regularly, but which form important series, such as the historical and philological conferences; and the publications of the school of political sciences; the collection of the ancient philosophers of Belgium (M. de Wulf), and that of the old English dramas (Bang). Frequently, too, the professors bring out their students' work in foreign magazines not under their direction, and in the bulletins of various academies. The list of these is to be found in the university bibliography. An idea may thus be formed of the activity of men like Louis Henry (chemistry) and J. Denys (bacteriology), who prefer this mode of publication.

Besides these lines of work, there are others in which professors and students do not work absolutely side by side; others in which the teacher's role ceases to be that of immediate instruction, and becomes one of assistance and supervision. The conferences on history and social economy are really courses of teaching, where the students work under the constant supervision of the professor with an increasing amount of individuality. The "circle" in apologetics created by the present rector comprises expositions by professors, at times by students-along with questions and solutions of the difficulties presented by the study of religious subjects. Elsewhere the student does his work independently, and submits his results for discussion by his comrades. The role of the presiding professor becomes a very uneven one and is, at times, purely external. It then becomes rather a matter of exercises between students, very useful and very commendable, but of quite another kind. There are quite a number of clubs in the various faculties, where the professor plays a very active part as inspirer, guide, adviser. Among the other ones which have rendered great services are: "Le cercle industriel", "L'emulation", "Le cercle d'études sociales", the Flemish society "Tyd en Vlyt", and, more recently, "La société philosophique", "Le cerele agronomique", and various literary and social clubs.

Since Belgium gained its independence, Louvain has almost always been represented in Parliament and very often in the Cabinet Councils. Professor Delcour and Professor Thonissen were ministers of the Interior on which depended the department of Education; and to-day Professor Baron Descamps is minister of science; several had other portfolios; notably Nyssens, who in 1897 established the department of labour. But Louvain does not seek merely to turn out professional men and scientists; it aims at making men and Christians of its students; that is one of its fundamental characteristics. The influence over the spirit and mode of living of its young men is far-reaching. It is exerted through the teaching itself, without departing from scientific accuracy, but on the contrary proving by it the harmony between science and faith. It is extended by the action of different groups and by personal initiative. Furthermore, there are many societies of a distinctly moral and religious nature appealing to the life and character of youth: religious reunions, organizations for instruction, apostleship, pious and charitable enterprises, such as the Eucharistic adoration, Catholic missions, the Christian Press, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, school for adult workingmen. Nor is physical development overlooked, and there are fine equipments for the various sports. The university has a strong bond of unity; its moral force is incontestably the most powerful element of its vitality. The relations between professors and students still continue when the university days are over, and the majority retan their attachment to the Alma Mater. The Alumni associations are one of the outward signs; the permanence of personal relations is even more telling.

To complete this sketch of Louvain something must be said about the student life. Owing to the limited territory of the country, to the many easy and inexpensive means of communication, many students are enabled to return home every day. They are called navettes in the college slang. The others live at Louvain, some (about 200) in the university colleges (convictus), supervised by one of the professors as president, where for a moderate sum (about 700 francs) they are given full board. Others lvie with citizens of the town, usually occupying two rooms. A very large number go away and spend Sunday with their families, and this is encouraged. The academic years allows for quite a number of vacations. It begins about the third week in October with the Mass of the Holy Ghost. There is a fortnight's vacation at Christmas, three weeks at Easter; the lectures cease on 25 June. The month of July and the first part of October are devoted to examinations. During their sojourn at Louvain the students lead a lfie which though serious may be varied and agreeable. There are the numberous clubs previously mentioned; also, friendly societies grouped by cities and provinces, and it is easy for the students to have daily reunions. Notwithstanding all the sources of distraction it seems that the work of the average student is improving. It is quite evident also that the better class of students is becoming more and more select, while social gradations are more clearly and more securely defined.

This sketch of the university life of Louvain would be incomplete if we did not add a few statistical elements. "L'Annuaire", a valuable volume published regularly by the university authorities, records the events and achievements of each year and is indispensable as a means of studying the activity and growth of Louvain. Number of students in 1834, 86; 1854, 600; 1874, 1160; 1894, 1636; 1904, 2148. Distribution in 1908: theology, 125; law, 491; medicine, 475; philosophy, 313; sciences, 286; special schools, 570: total 2260. In this total were 252 foreigners: 29 from the United States, 5 from Canada, 13 from South America, 7 from England, 6 from Ireland. The corps of instructors numbered 120 in active service holding various positions: full professors, associates, lecturers, substitutes. Among the eminent professors of the university since the restoration in 1834 we select for mention the following deceased: In theology: Beelen (Oriental languages, Scripture), Jungmann (ecclesiastical history), Malou (Bishop of Bruges), Lamy (Oriental languages, Syriac, etc., Scripture), Reussens (archaeology, history). In law: de Coux and Périn (political economy), Thonissen (criminal law), Nyssens (commercial law). In philosophy and letters: Arendt, David, Moeller, Poullet (history), Nève, de Harlez (Oriental literature), Willems (philology and history). In physical sciences and mathematics: Gilbert (mathematics), de la Vallée Poussin (geology), Van Beneden (zoology), Carnoy (biology). In medicine: Schwann, Craninex, Michaux, van Kempen, Hubert, Lefébvre. Charles Cartuyvels, vice-rector for over twenty-five years, was far-famed for his pulpit eloquence. The rectors during the modern period were seven in number: P.J. de Ram, a very prolific historian; N.J. Laforet; A.J. Namêche, Belgium's historian; C. Pieraerts; J.B. Abbeloos, orientalist; Ad. Hebbelynk, another orientalist who has recently been succeeded in the rectorate by a colleague of the same department, P. Ladeuze, appointed in July, 1909.

The bibliography of the university is very extensive and it is impossible to quote it in full. There are both ancient sources and recent writings with regard to the old university, among the former being the works of MOLANUS; VALERIUS-ANDREAS; VERNULAEUS; VAN LANGENDONCK; VAN DE VELDE, and numerous manuscript documents, notably a portion of the "Acta of the faculties. These sources are indicated in the modern works mentioned below, although unfortunately a general history of the university has not yet been written. The chief source of the history of the restored university is its own Annuaire; since 1900 there has also been published regularly the Bibliographie de l'Universite, in which there is a sections indicating the contributions to the history of the institution. Universite Catholique de Louvain, Annuaire (73 vols., Louvain, 1837-1909); Universite Catholique de Louvain, Bibliographie de l'Universite (Louvain, 1900-8), L'Universite de Louvain, Coup d'oeil sur son histoire et ses institutions (Brussels, 1900); VERHAEGEN, Les cinquante dernieres annees de l'ancienne universite de Louvain (Ghent, 1884); BRANTS, La faculte de droit a Louvain a travers cinq siecles (Louvain, 1906); NEVE, REUSSENS, and DE RAM numerous works mentioned in the Bibliography of the university under their names; Liber memorialis, or report of the jubilee celebrations of the restoration of the university in 1884 and 1909 (Louvain, 1884, 1909).

V. BRANTS

Love (Theological Virtue)

The third and greatest of the Divine virtues enumerated by St. Paul (1 Cor., xiii, 13), usually called charity, defined: a divinely infused habit, inclining the human will to cherish God for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God.

This definition sets off the main characteristics of charity:

(1) Its origin, by Divine infusion. "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost" (Rom., v, 5). It is, therefore, distinct from, and superior to, the inborn inclination or the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order. Theologians agree in saying that it is infused together with sanctifying grace, to which it is closely related either by way of real identity, as some few hold, or, according to the more common view, by way of connatural emanation.

(2) Its seat, in the human will. Although charity is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue.

(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship. To love God is to wish Him all honour and glory and every good, and to endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain it-for Him. St. John (xiv, 23; xv, 14) emphasizes the feature of reciprocity which makes charity a veritable friendship of man with God.

(4) Its motive, i.e., the Divine goodness or amiability taken absolutely and as made known to us by faith. It matters not whether that goodness be viewed in one, or several, or all of the Divine attributes, but, in all cases, it must be adhered to, not as a source of help, or reward, or happiness for ourselves, but as a good in itself infinitely worthy of our love, in this sense alone is God loved for His own sake. However, the distinction of the two loves: concupiscence, which prompts hope; and benevolence, which animates charity, should not be forced into a sort of mutual exclusion, as the Church has repeatedly condemned any attempts at discrediting the workings of Christian hope.

(5) Its range, i.e., both God and man. While God alone is all lovable, yet, inasmuch as all men, by grace and glory, either actually share or at least are capable of sharing in the Divine goodness, it follows that supernatural love rather includes than excludes them, according to Matt., xxii, 39, and Luke, x, 27. Hence one and the same virtue of charity terminates in both God and man, God primarily and man secondarily.

I. Love of God

Man's paramount duty of loving God is tersely expressed in Deut., vi, 5; Matt., xxii, 37; and Luke, x, 27. Quite obvious is the imperative character of the words "thou shalt". Innocent XI (Denziger, nos. 1155-57) declares that the precept is not fulfilled by an act of charity performed once in a lifetime, or every five years, or on the rather indefinite occasions when justification cannot be otherwise procured.

Moralists urge the obligation at the beginning of the moral life when reason has attained its full de velopment; at the point of death; and from time to time during life, an exact count being neither possible nor necessary since the Christian habit of daily prayer surely covers the obligation.

The violation of the precept is generally negative, i.e., by omission or indirect, i.e., implied in every grievous fault; there are, however, sins directly opposed to the love of God: spiritual sloth, at least when it entails a voluntary loathing of spiritual goods, and the hatred of God, whether it be an abomination of God's restrictive and punitive laws or an aversion for His Sacred Person (see SLOTH; HATRED).

The qualifications, "with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength", do not mean a maximum of intensity, for intensity of action never falls under a command; still less do they imply the necessity of feeling more sensible love for God than for creatures, for visible creatures, howsoever imperfect, appeal to our sensibility much more than the invisible God. Their true significance is that, both in our mental appreciation and in our voluntary resolve, God should stand above all the rest, not excepting father or mother, son or daughter (Matt., x, 37). St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xliv, a. 5) would assign a special meaning to each of the four Biblical phrases; others, with more reason, take the whole sentence in its cumulative sense, and see in it the purpose, not only of raising charity above the low Materialism of the Sadducees or the formal Ritualism of the Pharisees, but also of declaring that "to love God above all things is to insure the sanctity of our whole life" (Le Camus, "Vie de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ", III, 81).

The love of God is even more than a precept binding the human conscience; it is also, as Le Camus observes, "the principle and goal of moral perfection."

As the principle of moral perfection in the supernatural order, with faith as foundation and hope as incentive, the love of God ranks first among the means of salvation styled by theologians necessary, necessitate medii". By stating that "charity never falleth away" (1 Cor xiii, 8), St Paul clearly intimates that there is no difference of kind, but only of degree, between charity here below and glory above; as a consequence Divine love becomes the necessary inception of that God-like life which reaches its fullness in heaven only. The necessity of habitual charity is inferred from its close communion with sanctifying grace. The necessity of actual charity is no less evident. Apart from the cases of the actual reception of baptism, penance, or extreme unction, wherein the love of charity by a special dispensation of God, admits of attrition as a substitute, all adults stand in need of it, according to 1 John, iii, 14: "He that loveth not, abideth in death".

As the goal of moral perfection, always in the supernatural order, the love of God is called "the greatest and the first commandment" (Matt., xxii, 38), "the end of the commandment" (1 Tim., i, 5), " the bond of perfection" (Col., iii, 14). It stands as an all-important factor in the two main phases of our spiritual life, justification and the acquisition of merits. The justifying power of charity, so well expressed in Luke, vii, 47, and 1 Pet., iv, 8, has in no way been abolished or reduced by the institution of the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance as necessary means of moral rehabilitation; it has only been made to include a willingness to receive these sacraments where and when possible. Its meritorious power, emphasized by St. Paul (Rom,.viii, 28), covers both the acts elicited or commanded by charity. St. Augustine (De laudibus quartets) calls charity the "life of virtues" (vita virtutum); and St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xxiii, a. 8), the "form of virtues" (forma virtutum). The meaning is that the other virtues, while possessing a real value of their own, derive a fresh and greater excellence from their union with charity, which, reaching out directly to God, ordains all our virtuous actions to Him.

As to the manner and degree of influence which charity should exercise over our virtuous actions in order to render them meritorious of heaven, theologians are far from being agreed, some requiring only the state of grace, or habitual charity, others insisting upon the more or less frequent renewal of distinct acts of divine love.

Of course, the meritorious power of charity is, like the virtue itself, susceptible of indefinite growth. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xxiv, 24 a. 4 and 8) mentions three principal stages:

1. freedom from mortal sin by strenuous resistance to temptation,
2. avoidance of deliberate venial sins by the assiduous practice of virtue,
3. union with God through the frequent recurrence of acts of love.

To these, ascetic writers like Alvarez de Paz, St. Teresa, St. Francis of Sales, add many more degrees, thus anticipating even in this world the "many mansions in the Father's house". The prerogatives of charity should not, however, be construed so as to include inamissibility. The saying of St. John (1 Ep., iii, 6), "Whosoever abideth in him [God], sinneth not", means indeed the special permanence of charity chiefly in its higher degrees, but it is no absolute guarantee against the possible loss of it; while the infused habit is never diminished by venial sins, a single grievous fault is enough to destroy it and so end man's union and friendship with God.

II. Love of Man

While charity embraces all the children of God in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory (see COMMUNION OF SAINTS), it is taken here as meaning man's supernatural love for man, and that in this world; as such, it includes both love of self and love of neighbour.

(1) Love of Self

St. Gregory the Great (Hom. XIII in Evang.) objects to the expression "charity towards self", on the plea that charity requires two terms, and St. Augustine (De bono viduitatis, xxi) remarks that no command was needed to make man love himself. Obviously, St. Gregory's objection is purely grammatical; St. Augustine's remark applies to natural self-love. As a matter of fact, the precept of supernatural love of self is not only possible or needed, but also clearly implied in Christ's command to love our neighbour as ourselves. Its obligation, however, bears in a vague manner on the salvation of our soul (Matt., xvi, 26), the acquisition of merits (Matt., vi, 19 sqq.), the Christian use of our body (Rom., vi, 13; 1 Cor., vi, 19; Col., iii, 5). and can hardly be brought down to practical points not already covered by more specific precepts.

(2) Love of Neighbour

The Christian idea of brotherly love as compared with the pagan or Jewish concept has been touched upon elsewhere (see CHARITY AND CHARITIES). Briefly, its distinctive feature, and superiority as well, is to be found less in its commands, or prohibitions, or even results, than in the motive which prompts its laws and prepares its achievements. The faithful carrying out of the "new commandment" is called the criterion of true Christian discipleship (John xiii, 34 sq.), the standard by which we shall be judged (Matt., xxv, 34 sqq.), the best proof that we love God Himself (1 John, iii, 10), and the fulfilment of the whole law (Gal., v, 14), because, viewing the neighbour in God and through God, it has the same value as the love of God. The expression "to love the neighbour for the sake of God" means that we rise above the consideration of mere natural solidarity and fellow-feeling to the higher view of our common Divine adoption and heavenly heritage; in that sense only could our brotherly love be brought near to the love which Christ had for us (John, xiii, 35), and a kind of moral identity between Christ and the neighbour (Matt., xxv, 40), become intelligible. From this high motive the universality of fraternal charity follows as a necessary consequence. Whosoever sees in his fellow-men, not the human peculiarities, but the God-given and God-like privileges, can no longer restrict his love to members of the family, or co-religionists, or fellow-citizens, or strangers within the borders (Lev., xix, 34), but must needs extend it, without distinction of Jew or Gentile (Rom., x, 12), to all the units of the human kind, to social outcasts (Luke, x, 33 sqq.), and even to enemies (Matt., v, 23 sq.). Very forcible is the lesson wherein Christ compels His hearers to recognize, in the much despised Samaritan, the true type of the neighbour, and truly new is the commandment whereby He urges us to forgive our enemies, to be reconciled with them, to assist and love them.

The exercise of charity would soon become injudicious and inoperative unless there be in this, as in all the moral virtues, a well-defined order. The ordo caritatis, as theologians a term it, possibly from a wrong rendering into Latin of Cant., ii, 4 (ordinavit in me charitatem), takes into account these different factors:

1. the persons who claim our love,
2. the advantages which we desire to procure for them, and
3. the necessity in which they are placed.

The precedence is plain enough when these factors are viewed separately. Regarding the persons alone, the order is somewhat as follows: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-countrymen, and all others. Considering the goods by themselves, there is a triple order:

1. the most important spiritual goods appertaining to the salvation of the soul should first appeal to our solicitude; then
2. the intrinsic and natural goods of the soul and body, like life, health, knowledge, liberty, etc.;
3. finally, the extrinsic goods of reputation, wealth, etc.

Viewing apart the various kinds of necessity, the following order would obtain:

1. first, extreme necessity, wherein a man is in danger of damnation, or of death, or of the loss of other goods of nearly equal importance and can do nothing to help himself;
2. second, grave necessity, when one placed in similar danger can extricate himself only by heroic efforts;
3. third, common necessity, such as affects ordinary sinners or beggars who can help themselves without great difficulty.

When the three factors are combined, they give rise to complicated rules, the principal of which are these:

1. The love of complacency and the love of benefaction do not follow the same standard, the former being guided by the worthiness, the latter by the nearness and need, of the neighbour.
2. Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else. We are never justified in committing the slightest sin for the love of any one or anything whatsoever, nor should we expose ourselves to spiritual danger except in such cases and with such precautions as would give us a moral right to, and guarantee of, God's protection.
3. We are bound to succour our neighbour in extreme spiritual necessity even at the cost of our own life, an obligation which, however supposes the certainty of the neighbour's need and of the effectiveness of our service to him.
4. Except in the very rare cases described above, we are not bound to risk life or limb for our neighbour, but only to undergo that amount of inconvenience which is justified by the neighbour's need and nearness. Casuists are not agreed as to the right to give one's life for another's life of equal importance.

TANQUEREY, De virtute caritatis in Synopsis Theologiae Moralis, II (New York, 1906), 426; SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology, I (New York, 1909), 179 sqq.; BATIFFOL, L'Enseignement de Jésus (Paris 1905); NORTHCOTE, The Bond of Perfection (London, 1907); GAFFRE, La Loi d'Amour (Paris, 1908); DE SALES, Traité de l'amour de Dieu; PESCH Praelectiones Dogmaticae, VIII (Freiburg im Br., 1898), 226 sqq.; DUBLANCHY in Dict. de Théol. Cath. s. v. Charité, with an exhaustive bibliography of the theologians and mystics who have dealt with this matter.

J.F. SOLLIER

Low Church

The name given to one of the three parties or doctrinal tendencies that prevail in the Established Church of England and its daughter Churches, the correlatives being High Church and Broad Church. The last of these names is not a century old, but the other two came into use simultaneously at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Their invention was due to the controversies stirred up by William III's endeavour to undo the Act of Uniformity of 1662 and concede to the Dissenters all that they had demanded in the Savoy Conference. Quite a war of pamphlets was carried on at the time in which the terms High Church and Low Church were bandied to and fro. To cite one witness out of many, Bishop Burnet, in his "History of his own Time" (VII, 347), writes: "From these disputes in Convocation divisions ran through the whole body of the clergy, and to fix them new names were found out. They were distinguished by the names of High and Low Church. All that treated the Dissenters with temper and moderation, and were for residing constantly at their cures…were represented as secret favourers of presbytery, and as disaffected to the Church, and were called Low Churchmen. It was said that they were in the Church only while the law and preferments were on its side, but that they were ready to give it up as soon as they saw a proper time for declaring themselves."

Naturally the Low Churchmen resented an appellation with which this suggestion of unworthy motives was associated. Still the term has passed into general usage, nor, if we forget, as the world has forgotten, an implication which is by no means essential to it, can it be denied that it and its correlative indicate fairly well a root-difference which throughout their various stages has characterized the two parties. What is the nature of the visible Church? Is it a society whose organization with its threefold ministry has been preordained by Jesus Christ, and is therefore essential, or is it one in which this organization, though of Apostolic precedent, can be departed from without forfeiture of church status? The High Churchmen have always stood for the former of these alternatives, the Low Churchmen for the latter. Moreover, round these central positions more or less consequential convictions have gathered. The High Churchmen, in theory at least, emphasize the principle of church authority as the final court of doctrinal appeal; whilst the Low Churchmen appeal rather to the Bible, privately interpreted, as the decisive judge. The High Churchmen exalt ecclesiastical tradition as the voice of church authority, regard the Holy Eucharist as in some sense a sacrifice and the sacraments as efficacious channels of grace, and they insist on rites and ceremonies as the appropriate expression of external worship. whilst the Low Churchmen are distrustful of what they call human traditions, regard the Holy Eucharist as a symbolic meal only, hold firmly that the grace of justification and sanctification is imparted to the soul independently of visible channels, and dislike all rites and ceremonies, save those of the simplest kind, as tending to substitute an external formalism for true inward devotion. In short, the one party attaches a higher, the other a lower degree of importance to the visible Church and its ordinances; and this may suffice to justify the retention of the names -- though it must always be borne in mind that they state extremes between which many intermediate grades of thought and feeling have always subsisted in the Anglican Church.

Of the pre-Revolution period, although the two names were not as yet coined, it may be said that Low Church ideas were in the ascendant all through the reign of Elizabeth, but that under James I religious opinion began to grow high, until, mainly through the action of Archbishop Laud, it obtained a firm footing in the national Church; and, the lapse of the Rebellion notwithstanding, retained it throughout the Caroline period, and even through the reigns of William and Anne -- although William filled the episcopal sees with Low Church prelates. With the advent of the Hanoverian dynasty a deep spiritual lethargy settled down on the country. The bishoprics were now openly given as rewards for political service, the lesser benefices were mostly filled by pluralists of good family. The chief solicitude of the clergy was to lead comfortable lives, their highest spiritual effort, if such it could be called, taking the form of sermons on the reasonableness of Christianity directed against the Deists, or vapid laudations of moral virtue. Then, in the forties of the eighteenth century, there broke on this season of torpor an intense revival of religious fervour which stirred the country to its foundations, and gave a new and much improved complexion to the belief and spirit of the Low Church party. Now as before the appelation was resented, the adherents of the transformed party claiming to be called, as their descendants do still, Evangelicals. The name, however, has attached to them, and is applicable in so far as they share the doctrine about the Church which has been described.

The Evangelicals of the eighteenth century insisted that they were not introducing any new doctrines into their Church but only calling on people to take its doctrines to heart and apply them seriously to their lives. Still there were points of doctrine to which they gave a construction of their own, and on which they laid special stress. It is by these that their party is characterized. They insisted on the total depravity of human nature in God's eyes as the consequence of the Fall; on the vicarious sacrifice of Christ as the substitute for fallen man; on the imputed righteousness of Christ as the sole formal cause of justification; on the necessity of a conscious conversion to God which must be preceeded by conviction of sin (not of sins only), and which involves a species of faith whereby the hand is, as it were, stretched out with firm assurance to appropriate the justification offered, the witness of the Spirit whereby the soul is interiorly certified that it is in a state of salvation, and the commencement of a process of interior sanctification wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. This doctrine, which in its earliest form is traceable to Luther, is in reality due to a false analysis of some fundamental Catholic truths, and it is this intermixture of truth with error which renders intelligible the rich harvest of edifying conversions and holy lives, chequered, however, by not infrequent instances of regrettable extravagances, which marked the beginnings of the new spiritual movement. The foremost name among its leaders was that of John Wesley, who, it must be remembered, if somewhat restive to its discipline, never himself forsook the Anglican communion, though the main body of his followers did shortly after his death.

But side by side with the Wesleys and Whitefield, the Anglican Church of that time had other leaders in whom the same species of spiritual impulse was active, but in whom it was kept freer from emotional excesses and manifested no tendency to stray off into separatism. It is these who must be recognized as the true Fathers of the modern Low Church or Evangelical party. William Romaine may be regarded as their forefunner, but he was soon followed by Henry Venn of Huddersfield, John Newton of Olney, William Cowper, the poet, with their younger colleagues, Thomas Scott, the commentator, Joseph Milner, their historian, and Isaac Milner his brother, also Richard Cecil, their intellectual chief. These were the leaders in the second half of the eighteenth century. In the nineteenth century Bishop Handley Moule, their most distinguished representative at the present day, assigns three periods of Evangelical history. Of these the first lasted till about the middle of the century. He names it the period of Simeon and Wilberforce, after the cleric and the layman whose influence contributed the most of all to its progress and development. At the commencement of this period one remarkable feature was the gathering round Lord Teignmouth, Henry Thornton, and John Venn of the so­called "Clapham Sect". To this little group belonged also Zachary Macaulay, Josiah Pratt, James Stephen, and Sir Fowell Buxton. Though thus few in number, the effect of their intimate association with one another was seen in the important works to which their zeal gave birth. They founded the "Christian Observer" (for three-quarters of a century, the organ of their party), of which Josiah Pratt and Zachary Macaulay were the first editors. They were mainly instrumental in founding the Church Missionary Society in 1799, had much to do with the founding of the Bible Society in 1804, and collaborated actively, to their eternal credit, with Wilberforce and Henry Thornton in their successful crusade against the slave trade.

His second period Bishop Moule names the Shaftesbury period, after the truly venerable nobleman who devoted his life to the protection and elevation of the poorer classes. He was a fervent Evangelical, and as a great layman bore to the party something of the relation which William Wilberforce had borne to it in the earlier part of the century, its members in their turn co­operating with him energetically in his many charitable undertakings. Through his influence with Lord Palmerston he obtained the promotion of several conspicuous Evangelicals to posts of responsibility. Thus Villiers, Baring, Waldegrave, Wigram, and Pelham were promoted to bishoprics, and Close to the deanery of Carlisle. Other names of note during this period were John Bird Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward Bickersteth, John Charles Ryle, Hugh McNeile, Hugh Stowell. This too was the flourishing period of the May meetings held annually at Exeter Hall, and it was in 1876 that the Keswick conventions, which have since become annual events, were first commenced. His third period, to which he assigns the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Bishop Moule calls the Church Missionary Society period, in view of the immense advances which that pet child of the party had made during recent years. As did Evangelicalism to the old Low Church ideas, so has Tractarianism, which rose up in the middle of the nineteenth century, given a new interpretation to the old High Church views, which since then have been carried in the direction of Catholic doctrine far beyond what the old Caroline divines ever dreamt of. This movement has also struck root in the country, and has so extended itself that of late years people have begun to ask if the Evangelical party is not dying out. There are, indeed, appearances which may seem to point that way, but as an evidence to the contrary the Evangelicals may reasonably point to their Church Missionary Society, which is supported entirely by their contributions. Its annual income of late has fallen little short of £400,000, which is more than double that of the society that comes next to it. Surely it is a fair inference from this impressive fact that Evangelicalism is still a living force of great power; and it must be added that, though this is not by any means its exclusive privilege, it can still as of old point to numberless bright examples of holy living among those who take its teaching to heart.

      Historical. -- The principles of Low-Church-Men fairly represented and defended. By a layman constantly conforming to the Church of England as by law established (London, 1714); Probst, Annals of the Low Church Party down to the death of Archbishop Tait (London, 1888); Overton, The Evangelical Revival in the eighteenth century (1886) in Creighton, Epochs of Engllish Church History; Hunt, Religious Thought in England to the end of the last (18th) century (London, 1881); Tulloch, Movements of Religious Thought in England during the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh, 1885); Handley Moule, The Evangelical School in the Church of England. Its men and work in the dNineteenth Century (London, 1901); Stephen, Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography (London, 1849); Stock, History of the Church Missionary Society (London, 1899); Heath, The Waning of Evangelicalism in Contemporary Review, LXXIII (1898); Guiness Rogers, Is Evangelicalism declining?, ibid.
      Doctrinal and Devotional. -- Venn, The Complete Duty of Men (1763, and many subsequent editions); Wilberforce, A Practical View of the prevailing religious system of professed Christians, in the higher and middle classes in this country, contrasted with real Christianity (1797, and many subsequent editions); Goode, Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (London, 1841); Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, on the basis of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (London, 1883, 1892); Moule, Faith, its Nature and Work (London, New York, 1909).

Sydney F. Smith.

Low Sunday

The first Sunday after Easter. The origin of the name is uncertain, but it is apparently intended to indicate the contrast between it and the great Easter festival immediately preceding, and also, perhaps, to signify that, being the Octave Day of Easter, it was considered part of that feast, though in a lower degree. Its liturgical name is Dominica in albis depositis, derived from the fact that on it the neophytes, who had been baptized on Easter Eve, then for the first time laid aside their white baptismal robes. St. Augustine mentions this custom in a sermon for the day, and it is also alluded to in the Eastertide Vesper hymn, "Ad regias Agni dapes" (or, in its older form, "Ad cœnam Agni providi"), written by an ancient imitator of St. Ambrose. Low Sunday is also called by some liturgical writers Pascha clausum, signifying the close of the Easter Octave, and "Quasimodo Sunday", from the Introit at Mass — "Quasi modo geniti infantes, rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite", — which words are used by the Church with special reference to the newly baptized neophytes, as well as in general allusion to man's renovation through the Resurrection. The latter name is still common in parts of France and Germany.

DURAND, Rationale Divini Officii (Venice, 1568); MARTÈNE, De Antiguis Monachorum Ritibus (Lyons. 1790); GUÉRANGER, L'Année liturgique, tr. SHEPHERD, The Liturgical Year (Dublin, 1867); LEROSEY, Histoire et symbolisme de la Liturgie (Paris, 1889); BATIFFOL, Histoire du Bréviaire Romaine (Paris, 1893).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON.

Lübeck

Lübeck, a free imperial state and one of the Hanse towns, is in area the second smallest and in population the twentieth state in the German Empire. The state, which includes the city of Lübeck and its neighbourhood, has an area of about 115 sq. m. and a population (1905) of 105,857 inhabitants, of whom 101,724 were Lutherans, 2457 Catholics, and 638 Jews. Of the three Hanse towns which still remain — Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck — Lübeck was the last founded. It was first established in the eleventh century, below the site of the present town, and in the midst of the Slavic tribes dwelling on the coast of the Baltic, and a church was erected there under the protection of Henry the Proud. This settlement, however, proved too weak to withstand the attack of the pagan Slavs, and was destroyed early in the twelfth century. In 1143 Count Adolf II of Holstein founded a new colony above the site of the former, at the junction of the Trave and the Wakenitz, and introduced settlers from Flanders, Holland, Westphalia, and Friesland. The rapid development of the town awakened at first the envy of Duke Henry the Lion, and he only began to favour it after its submission to him in 1157. He gave the town a municipal constitution, established a mint there, and made Bishop Gerold transfer to Lübeck the seat of the Bishopric of Oldenburg, founded by Otto I for Wagria. In 1173 Henry himself laid the foundation-stone of the Romanesque cathedral, which was completed in 1210. To the east of the town the Johanneskloster was founded in 1177, and occupied by Benedictines from Brunswick.

On the downfall of Henry, the bishopric became immediately subject to the Holy See, while the town itself voluntarily submitted to Frederick Barbarossa, who, in 1188, confirmed its liberties and its territorial boundaries. The commerce of the town developed rapidly, and its ships traversed the whole Baltic Sea. This prosperity by no means diminished with the advent of the Danes, who, under Cnut VI, brought Holstein and Lübeck into subjection in 1201. The victory of the Holsteiners over the Danes at Yornhöod, in 1227, restored to Lübeck its complete independence. In 1226 it had been already raised by Frederick II to the rank of a free city of the empire, although the emperor had not availed himself of his authority to appoint a protector for its territories. Even the bishop, who resided at first in the area capituli (the Thum or Domhof) --but after the middle of the thirteenth century in Eutin, while his chapter remained in the cathedral area--had no secular jurisdiction over the town, whose privileges were ratified by Popes Innocent IV and Alexander IV. What great prestige Lübeck acquired throughout Northern Germany by its vigorous preservation of its independence, may be inferred from the fact that numerous North German towns adopted the municipal law of Lübeck as the model for their own. The prominent position which Lübeck held in Baltic commerce from the thirteenth century resulted naturally in her taking the leading part in the Hansa, or great confederacy of Low German cities, formed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. As head of the Hansa, the importance of Lübeck increased enormously in Northern Europe, until finally it stood at the head of over 100 towns and cities which had adopted its statutes. At times, however, it had to bear the burden of defending the Hansa unassisted, especially against its hereditary foe, Denmark.

In the war of 1362-70, Lübeck captured Copenhagen (1368), and, by the Peace of Stralsund, was appointed arbitrator of the dispute concerning the Danish Crown. The following decades constitute the era of Lübeck's greatest prosperity. In 1372 its burgomaster was appointed by the emperor. Domestic strife between the patricians and the guilds broke out in Lübeck as elsewhere, but resulted in its case in the maintenance of the rule of the merchant patricians, from whose families were chosen throughout the Middle Ages the four burgomasters and the twenty councillors. The power of Lübeck in the fifteenth century is shown by the emperor's request, in 1464, that it should arrange peace between the Teutonic Order and the Poles, although the mission of the burgomaster, Castorp, was none too successful. He met with greater success in preventing his city from being drawn into the disputes of the neighbouring Scandinavian lands. In the war between Christian I of Denmark and Sweden (1499—), however, Lübeck could not remain neutral; it afforded protection and shelter to the exiled Gustavus Vasa, formed the confederacy of the Wendish towns and Danzig against Christian, in 1521, asserted once more the might of the Hansa in the Baltic, and dispatched with Gustavus Vasa a fleet to blockade Stockholm in 1522. In 1523 Stockholm had to surrender to the Lübeck admirals, and from their hands the newly elected King Vasa of Sweden received the keys of his capital.

The Reformation found a later entrance into Lübeck than into other North-German towns. The initiative in introducing the new doctrine was taken by the middle classes, while the municipal authorities, on account of their friendship for the emperor and the bishop, strongly opposed the innovation. After 1529, however, in consequence of the pecuniary demands of the council, a citizens' committee of forty-eight members was formed to enquire into the finances of the town. This committee procured a petition of the citizens for the introduction of Lutheran preachers. On 5 June, 1530, pursuant to a decree of the citizens which the council could not oppose, Lutheran services were introduced into all the churches of Lübeck except the cathedral, which was under the territorial jurisdiction of the chapter, and all clergymen were forbidden to celebrate Mass until further notice. In consequence of the supineness of the chapter, Lutheran services were held even in the cathedral in July, and it was only in the choir, and at certain hours that Catholic worship was tolerated. The reigning bishop, Heinrich III Bockholt (1523-35), could offer no effective resistance to the Reformation in the town, but he exerted himself to the utmost. After his death, the cathedral chapter, desiring the friendship of the neighbouring Protestant princes lest their property should be confiscated, elected bishops of Lutheran views--Detlef von Reventlow (1535) and Daithasar von Rantzow (1536-47). These were succeeded by four Catholic bishops: Jodokus Hodfilter (1547-53), who, however, lived away from his diocese; Theodorich von Reden, who resigned in 1555; Andreas von Barby (1557-79), who did not obtain papal confirmation; and the deterniined Catholic, Johann Tiedemann (d. 1561). Eberhard von Holle (1564-86) openly espoused Protestantism in 1565, introduced the Reformation almost completely into the cathedral chapter, and, in 1571, surrendered even the choir of the cathedral to the preachers.

With the eleven-year-old Johann Adolf, who was the first bishop to marry (1596), began the succession of bishops from the House of Holstein-Gottorp, in whose possession this bishopric--the only Lutheran bishopric of Germany--remained, even after the Peace of Westphalia, until the secularization of 1803. Most of the canonries also fell into the hands of the Protestants: on 1 Jan., 1624, the Catholics still occupied 6 canonries, 13 vicarships, and 4 prebends in the cathedral; at the end of the seventeenth century they held only four canonries. It was owing to the continued existence of a remnant of Catholic property within the city that Catholicism did not utterly perish in Lübeck. The care of the few Catholics there (in 1709, fourteen families with sixty members within the city and about forty outside) was entrusted to a missionary paid by the canons. This missionary was, as a rule, one of the Jesuits who, from 1651, were permanently established within the cathedral domain, or area. The Catholics of Lübeck repeatedly received imperial letters of protection in favour of the free practice of their religion. In 1683 the Catholic clergy were granted the right of holding service within the cathedral area and administering the sacraments, and the right of the Catholics of the city to attend these services and receive the sacraments was never afterwards disputed. Concerning the right to administer the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony, disputes afterwards arose, and for the periods 1705-14 and 1775-1805, the Catholic priests did not dare to baptize or marry in public. The Jesuits resided with the canons until 1702, when they founded a separate establishment in which they held Catholic worship until 1773. On the suppression of their order, the fathers at first continued their pastoral duties as secular priests, but other secular priests succeeded them in course of time. It was the French domination, in 1811, which first brought an extension of religious freedom for Catholics.

In the sixteenth century the political importance of Lübeck declined. The rash efforts of Burgomaster Jürgen Wullenweber (1533-35) to oust Dutch trade from the Baltic, to revive Lübeck's hegemony there, and, in union with Count Christopher of Oldenburg, to restore the exiled Christian II of Denmark to his throne, ended, after some initial successes, unfortunately, and led to the decay of Lubeck. Once more did it appear as an important political factor, when war broke out between Denmark and Sweden in 1563, and Lübeck sustained, in union with the former, a vigorous and successful naval conflict against Sweden. The Peace of Stettin, in 1570, guaranteed the town many of its claims, but the heavy cost of the war had imposed such a burden on it that it was henceforth without the resources for carrying on war. With the diminution, through various causes, of the power and influence of the whole Hansa, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, that of Lübeck also declined, especially as Hamburg and Bremen were now gradually outstripping it in commerce. The town finally sank into the position of a port of call between the transatlantic and northern commerce. The Thirty Years' War imposed grievous burdens on the defenceless citizens in consequence of the repeated quartering of soldiers in the town. When, after its last diets in 1630 and 1669, the Hansa was finally dissolved and there was formed a defensive alliance-- Lübeck, Hamburg, and Bremen, the Council of Lübeck still retained the directorship as the sole remnant of its former position of eminence.

During the long period of peace, following the confusion of the Northern War which crippled Baltic trade for the first two decades of the eighteenth century, the prosperity of Lübeck gradually increased, although the town was far removed from the great trade-routes of the world. The Imperial Delegates' Enactment of 1803 (see Germany) brought it a small increase of territory by assigning to it the portion of that diocese (the area capituli) which lay within its boundaries; the remainder fell to the Duchy of Oldenburg, to which the episcopal line of the House of Gottorp had succeeded in 1773, and forms to-day the Oldenburg principality of Lübeck. As the imperial delegates had also guaranteed Lübeck perpetual neutrality, and the citizens had begun to level the fortifications, they were unable to offer any resistance to the French, who, after the Battle of Jena, in 1806, pursued Blücher northwards. Occupied by the French on 5 November, the town was pillaged for three days and remained in their possession until 1813. For the Catholics, who then numbered between 500 and 600 the foreign occupation brought, in some measure, an equality of rights with the Protestants, and the liberty--never since contested--of baptizing and marrying, their co-religionists according to Catholic rites, without outside interference. The Congress of Vienna recognized Lübeck as a free member of the German League. Subsequently the town devoted itself with great energy to removing all the obstacles impeding the development of its commerce and navigation. These were due principally to the opposition of Denmark, which still occupied Holstein.

The Liberal Constitution of 1848, which guaranteed to the middle classes a great measure of influence in the government of the city side by side with the Senate, contributed very greatly to foster the public spirit of the citizens and initiated a new period of prosperity for the old Hanse town. Its inclusion in the German Customs Union (Zollverein) opened to Lübeck, in 1868, a great field of commercial activity. In 1866 Lübeck had unhesitatingly taken the side of Prussia. In the new German Empire its position as a free city is unimpaired: under the protection of the Empire, and during the long epoch of peace since1871, it has developed, not precipitately, but steadily and surely, and its population has more than doubled (1871: in the city, 39,743, and within the state boundaries, 52,158; 1905: in the city, 91,541, and in the state, 105,857).

The Catholics of Lübeck, whom immigration has increased almost threefold since 1871, are subject to the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions. The priests of the parish of Lübeck (1 pastor and 3 assistants minister to all the Catholics of the free state, the Catholics of the Principality of Lübeck, who live nearer Lübeck than to Eutin, and a portion of the Catholics of Ratzeburg, Lauenberg, Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Schwerin. The Catholic soldiers are spiritually subject to the army provost at Berlin, who entrusts them to the care of the pastor at Lübeck.

By the Regulation of 18 March, 1904, which determines its relations towards the Catholic Church, the state has reserved to itself the jus circa sacra. The names of the clergy appointed by the Bishop of Osnabrück must be submitted to the Senate with copies of all their certificates of studies. Religious orders and congregations may at any time be excluded by the Senate. Catholic citizens, who are taxed on an income of more than 1000 marks, must pay a church tax; otherwise, the ecclesiastical revenue is derived from the general church and school funds, and-- since this is insufficient to meet the expenditure--from the voluntary contributions of the Catholics, who are mostly poor, and from the Bonifatiusverein. To the assistance of this association is also due the erection of the parish church of the Sacred Heart in the town (1888-91) and of the chapel-of-ease in the industrial district of Kucknitz (1909-10). Since 1850 there has been a Catholic school, which is conducted by a religious director, and has received since 1905 a grant from the state. In 1874 an establishment of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, from the mother-house at Breslau, was founded to teach and to care for the sick. The Catholic associations of Lübeck include those of the Christian Family, the Holy Childhood, Guardian Angels, St. Elizabeth, St. Charles Borromeo and one for the adornment of poor churches, an association for Catholic business men and officials, a men's association; an association for journeymen, one for youths, and a Sodality of Mary for unmarried women. The Catholic press is represented by the "Nordische Volkszeitung".

Becker, Umstsändliche Geschichte der kaiserlichen und des Heiligen Römischen Reiches freyen Stadt Lübeck (3 vols., Lübeck, 1782-1805); Petersen, Ausführliche Geschicte der Lübeckischen Kirchenreformation 1529-31 (Lübeck, 1830); Diecke, Die Freie und Hansestadt Lübeck (4th ed., Lübeck, 1881); Urkendenbuch der Stadt Lübeck (11 vols., Lubeck, 1843-1904); Urkedenbuch des Bistums Lübeck (Oldenburg, 1856); Die Freie und Hansestadt Lübeck (Lübeck, 1890); Hoffman, Geschichte der Freien und Hansestadt Lübeck (Lübeck, 1889-92); Illigens, Der Glaube der Väter dargestellt in den kirchlichen Altertümern Lübecks (Paderborn, 1895); Idem, Geschichte der Lübeckischen Kirche von 1530-1896, Geschichte des ehemaligen Katholischen Bistums, der nunmehrigen katholischen Gemeinde (Paderborn, 1896); Lübeck, seine Bauten und Kunstwerke (Lübeck, 1897); Holm, Lübeck, die Freie und Hansestadt (Bielefeld, 1900); Die Bau- und Kunstdenkmäler der Freien und Hansestadt Lübeck (2 vols., Lübeck, 1906); Koster, Nachrichten uber die römische-katholische Pfarrgemeinde Lübeck (Lübeck, 1908); Zeitschrift des Vereins für lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde (11 vols., Lübeck, 1860-1910); Hansische Geschichts-blätter (1871--); Hansische Geschichtsquellen (1875--), Hanserecesse (1876--), Hansisches Urkundenbuch (1876--), Hansische Inventare (1876).

JOSEPH LINS

Lublin

DIOCESE OF LUBLIN (LUBLINENSIS).

The city of Lublin is in Russian Poland, capital of the Government of Lublin, lies on the Bistrzyca, a tributary of the Vistula, and in 1897 had a population of 50,152, of whom 30,914 were Catholics. It is the seat of a Catholic bishop, a governor, and an army corps. Conspicuous among the eleven Catholic churches of the town are the cathedral, dedicated to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, which was built by Bernhard Maciejowski (afterwards cardinal) between 1582 and 1600, remained till 1722 in the possession of the Jesuits, and since 1832 has been the cathedral; also the church of St. Stanislaus, erected in 1342 by King Casimir for the Dominicans; the church of the Assumption of Mary "de triumphis", built during 1412 and 1426 by King Wladislaw Jagello, in memory of the victory gained over the Teutonic Order; the parish church of the Conversion of St. Paul, erected in 1461, and till 1864 the church of the Franciscans, etc.

Lublin was founded in the eleventh century, and soon began to flourish. In the events arising out of the relations between Poles and Lithuanians, the town on various occasions played an important role. From the diets which assembled there, the so-called union of diets of 1569 came to be of decisive importance to the fortunes of both kingdoms. The alliance between Lithuanians and Poles was always more or less loose (see LITHUANIA); only the hostility, common to both of them against the Teutonic Order, obviated a separation more than once. Following the downfall of the order, a much more dangerous enemy arose in the East in the upward-struggling empire of the Muscovites under Ivan III. When he had got rid of the Tatars he set about building up a centralized state. And as he had designs on Polish territory, he sought to rouse up enemies against the Poles. His successor followed a like policy. It became obvious that there would have to be a fight with Russia over the supremacy in the East. That could only be done with any success if, in place of the looser alliance, a uniform incorporation of the states took place. King Sigismund (1548-1572) showed himself strenuously in favour of a closer union. Nevertheless when the united diets finally met at Lublin in 1569, the Lithuanians, although their Greek Orthodox nobles had in 1563 by royal decree become possessed of the same rights as the Catholic nobility of Poland, stoutly opposed a closer union between Lithuania and Poland. Their representatives demanded absolute independence in all home questions, and the maintenance of their own constitution and administration. Only in the case of war were Lithuanians and Poles to meet in diet, while the monarch was not to be common to both, but to be separated from both countries, and to be freely elected. A passionate conflict ensued with the Polish nobility. These latter were so much the stronger that they had the king on their side, and could also reckon on the lower Lithuanian nobles, who were much oppressed by princes and senators, and were not possessed of the same independence as the higher nobility. The king cleared away the last legal obstacle by renouncing his hereditary rights as Grand Duke of Lithuania, and thus placed both divisions in the same relation to his person. When, then, Sigismund Augustus by virtue of his royal authority commanded the Lithuanians to consent to the union, they left the diet, in order to prevent the union, and made every preparation to defend their independence by the sword. The Poles, however, broke the opposition by inducing the king to unite one by one to the Polish crown the Lithuanian territories, such as Podlachia, Volhynia and others, in which his authority remained unshaken. Only the use of the Russian language in the courts was guaranteed to them. The few who refused to submit to this arrangement were declared to have forfeited their lands and dignities, and thus Lithuania was robbed of its richest province. The Lithuanian magnates, who had also the smaller nobility opposed to them, had nothing to do but submit. They joined the diet at Lublin again, and on 27 June, 1569, announced their willingness to acknowledge the union. On 1 July the union was solemnly proclaimed. Lithuania thus ceased to be a self-dependent state. It retained however at least some marks of independence: Lithuanian offices, its own seal, and the title of grand duchy.

Under King Stephen Báthori (1576-86) Lublin became the seat of five of the highest law courts, which the king, under the renunciation of his old right, established to pronounce judgment as courts of appeal for the several combined territories. King John Sobieski, the conqueror of the Turks at Vienna (1680), summoned a synod at Lublin, to put an end to the controversies among Roman Catholics and those of other confessions and to win over the small number of schismatics, who after the Union of Brest remained in Lithuania; but the synod had no success. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Lublin still remained one of the most important towns in Poland. At the Partition of Poland the town went first to Austria; in 1809, after the victory of Napoleon, to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, on the disruption of which by the Congress of Vienna Russia obtained it. During the period of Austrian rule Pius VII, on the petition of Emperor Francis II, established at Lublin a separate bishopric. Adalbert Skarszewski was appointed first bishop in 1807. When, during the reorganization of the Catholic Church in Russia, Pius VII, by the Bull "Militantis Ecclesiæ", of 12 March, 1817, elevated the Bishopric of Warsaw into an archbishopric, Lublin with other dioceses was placed under it as suffragan and at the same time a bishopric was instituted for Podlachia, with the seat in Janow. In 1868 both dioceses were in a way united, the Bishop of Lublin being likewise permanent Vicar Apostolic of Podlachia. Josephus Marcellinus Dziecielski (1828-39) succeeded the first bishop, who was elevated in 1825 to the Archbishopric of Warsaw, then, after a long vacancy, Vincentius a Paulo Pienkowski (1853-63), Valentinus Barenowski (1871-79), Casimirus Josephus Joannes Wnorowski (1883-85), and the present bishop, Franciscus Jaczewski (since 1889). The brief history of the bishopric exhibits many vicissitudes, particularly since Tsar Nicholas I took up the plans of Catharine II, to bring over to the Orthodox Church those who were in communion with Rome, and carried them through by the most violent methods. Thousands of Catholics in communion with the Church in the Diocese of Lublin were "converted" by force to Orthodoxy, and a great number of religious buildings were taken from them. The appointment of an auxiliary bishop for this large diocese has for a long time been consistently frustrated by the Russian Government, and the long-continued oppression in many parishes hinders the care of souls and does great injury to the Church. Since the issue of the edict allowing religious toleration, in 1905, the conditions have somewhat improved, though the officials put all the obstacles they can in the way of a return to Catholicism by those who were formerly compelled to join the Orthodox Church. In spite of everything, many thousands have returned to the Catholic Church since 1906.

The diocese includes the greater part of the Governments of Lublin and Siedlec, and numbers 19 deaneries, 427 parishes, 403 secular priests (205 administrators, 28 curates, 145 vicars, and 25 other priests), and 1,532,300 Catholics. The cathedral chapter has 4 prelacies and 8 canonries; there is also a collegiate chapter with 3 prelacies and 4 canonries at Zamosc. The diocesan seminary for priests at Lublin has 1 regent, 1 viceregent, 6 professors, and 108 students. The Sisters of Charity have 6 establishments with 29 sisters.

Tagebuch des Unionsreichstags zu Lublin (St. Petersburg, 1869); Catalogus Ecclesiarum et utriusque Cleri tam sæcularis quam regularis Dioeceseos Lublinensis pro anno Domini 1909 (Lublin, 1909).

JOSEPH LINS

Giovanni Battista de Luca

A Cardinal and Italian canonist of the seventeenth century, b. at Venusia, Southern Italy, in 1614; d. at Rome, on 5 February, 1683. Born of humble parentage, he studied at Naples, but owing to ill-health he had to return to his native place. In 1645 he went to Rome, where he soon won a high reputation for his legal ability, thereby stirring up much enmity and jealousy. At an advanced age he became a priest and enjoyed the patronage of Innocent XI, who made him successively referendary Utriusque Signaturae, auditor of the Sacred Palace and finally in 1681 raised him to the cardinalate. His writings, which are eminently practical in character, are most important for proper understanding of the jurisprudence of the Roman Court and especially of the Rota in his time. We may mention his "Relatio Curiae Romanae" (Cologne, 1683), "Sacrae Rotae decisiones" (Lyons, 1700); "Annotationes praticae ad S. Conciluim Tridentinum" (Cologne, 1684). His complete works were published under the title "Theatrum veritatis et justitiae (19 vols., 1669-77; 12 vols., Cologne, 1689-99).

SHERER in Kirchenlex., s.v.; SCHULTE. Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts, III (Stuttgart, 1875-80), 487; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, 1 (Rome, 1898), 415; HURTER, Nomenclator litterarius, II, 364.

A. VAN HOVE

Frederick Lucas

A member of Parliament and journalist, b. in Westminster, 30 March, 1812, d. at Staines, Middlesex, 22 Oct., 1855. He was the second son of Samuel Hayhurst Lucas, a London corn-merchant who was a member of the Society of Friends. Educated first at a Quaker school in Darlington, then at University College, London, he gave early proof of his abilities, particularly in essay-writing and as a speaker in the college debating society. Even at this time he was an ardent supporter of Catholic Emancipation, which was then being much discussed. On leaving college he began to study for the law at the Middle Temple, and was called to the bar in 1835. Staines in 1838 showed that he felt that attraction to the Christianity of the Middle Ages which was then influencing so many minds. Yet ruled by the prejudices of his early education it was to the Oxford School rather than to the Catholic Church that he was first led. But early in 1839 an end was put to his doubts and difficulties: his intimate friend Thomas Chisholm Anstey (q. v.), himself a recent convert, persuaded him to examine the Catholic claims, and the perusal of Milner's "End of Controversy" convinced him of their truth. He was received into the Church by Father Lythgoe, S. J. In a letter to the Kington monthly meeting of Friends he resigned his membership of the Society and announced his conversion (18 Feb., 1839). In 1840 he married Miss Elizabeth Ashby of Staines, who, like two of his brothers, followed him into the Catholic Church.

In the same year he determined to start a weekly Catholic paper, "The Tablet", the first number of which appeared on 16 Mays 1840. After two years his original supporters, Messrs. Keasley, failed in business, and he was left without the resources necessary for continuing the paper. But he had many Catholic friends who put great confidence in his courage, ability and broad scholarship, and they came to his assistance. A claim on the part of the printers, which he regarded as unjust, led to a struggle between him and them for the possession of the premises, and during the year 1842 rival publications were issued — the "Tablet" by the printers, and the "True Tablet" by Lucas. By the end of the year he was victorius, and in January, 1843, he was able to begin the fourth volume of the "Tablet" without a rival. He conducted the paper on such fearless lines that he alarmed some of the old English Catholics, who had been trained in a school of the utmost prudence and circumspection, and who looked askance at the uncompromising boldness with which he asserted Catholic rights and defended the Catholic position. He received, however, the hearty support of many Irish priests with whose political aspirations he was thoroughly in sympathy. This led him in 1849 to transfer the publishing offices of the "Tablet" from London to Dublin, and from this time forward he took a keen interest in Irish politics.

Returned to Parliament in 1852 as one of the members for Meath, he quickly won for himself a position in the House of Commons, and was recognized as one of the leading Catholic politicians. Questioning the sincerity of some of the Irish Nationalist members he did not shrink from denouncing them, and before long he became involved in a conflict with the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Cullen, who prohibited his priests from interference in politics. Lucas attacked this action of the archbishop in the "Tablet", and in 1854 he went to Rome to lay his case before the pope. Pius IX received him kindly, and requested him to draw up a memorial on Irish affairs and the differences between himself and the archbishop. Though in failing health he set about this task, which occupied him through the winter. In May, 1855, he returned to England hoping after a few weeks to go back to Rome, but his health grew worse and he died on 22 October in the house of his brother-in-law at Staines. His death was regarded as a public loss by Catholics both in England and Ireland, who realized that he had breathed a new spirit of independence into Catholic journalism and set an example of high principle in political life. "As a father, a husband, a journalist and member of Parliament he had a high ideal of duty — an ideal such as rarely, if ever enters into the minds of ordinary men" (Life, II, 468).

LUCAS, The Life of Frederick Lucas, M. P. (London, 1886); ANON, A Memoir of Frederick Lucas (Derby, 1857); RIETHMULLER, Frederick Lucas: A Biography (London, 1862); Tablet, 27 Oct., 3 Nov., 10 Nov., 1855, GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat, Biob., s. v.

EDWIN BURTON

Lucca

ARCHDIOCESE OF LUCCA (LUCENSIS).

Lucca, the capital of the like named province in Tuscany, Central Italy, is situated on the River Serchio in a fertile cultivated plain. Its chief industries are the quarrying and dressing of marble, and the production of silk, wool, flax, and hemp. Its olive oil enjoys a world-wide fame. Noteworthy among the church buildings is the cathedral, which dates back to the sixth century; it was rebuilt in the Roman style in the eleventh century, consecrated by Alexander II (1070), and again restored in the quattrocento, when the beautiful columns of the upper arches were added. In the apse are three large windows painted by Ugolino da Pisa. Of the sculptural adornments we may mention Civitali's equestrian statue of St. Martin dividing his cloak with the beggar; the Deposition by Nicolò Pisano, and the Adoration of the Magi by Giovanni da Pisa - all three on the façade. Within are pictures by Tintoretto and Parmigianino, and a Madonna by Frà Bartolommeo. But the most celebrated work is the Volto Santo, an ancient crucifix carved in wood, with Christ clothed in the "colobium", a long sleeveless garment. Throughout the Middle Ages this image was regarded as a palladium by the Lucchesi, who, on their journeys to every country, distributed facsimiles, thus giving rise to the legends of St. Liberata and St. Wilgefortis, of the "heilige Kummernis" of the Germans and the "Ontkommer" of the Dutch; Professor Schnürer of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland), has in preparation a study on this subject. San Frediano is the only example of Lombard architecture preserved without notable alteration, excepting the façade, which is of the year 1200. S. Maria foris Portam, S. Michele, S. Romano, and the other churches (fully eighty in number), all possess valuable works of art. In the church of S. Francesco (quattrocento) is the tomb of the Lucchese poet, Guidiccioni. Among the profane edifices is the Palazzo Pubblico, formerly the ducal palace, begun by Ammanati in 1578, continued by Pini in 1729, and further enlarged by Prince Bacciochi in the nineteenth century; adjoining are the library, with many valuable manuscripts, and a picture gallery. The Manzi palace also contains a collection of paintings. There is a magnificent aqueduct of 459 arches, constructed by Nattolini (1823-32). The archives of the capitol and the archiepiscopal palace are important for their many private documents of the early Middle Ages. Ruins of a Roman amphitheatre of imperial times still exist. The territory of Lucca is rich in mineral and thermal springs. The celebrated baths of Lucca are about fifteen miles from the city.

Lucca was a city of the Ligurians, and is first mentioned in 218 B.C., when the Roman general Sempronius retired thither after an unsuccessful battle with Hannibal. In 177 B.C. a Roman colony was established there. In 56 B.C. Cæsar, Pompey, and Crassus renewed the triumvirate at Lucca. During the Gothic wars the city was besieged and taken by Totila (550). Hoping for assistance from the Franks, the Lucchesi obstinately resisted the attack of Narses, surrendering only after a siege of seven months (553). It later fell into the hands of the Lombards, was thenceforward a place of great importance, and became the favourite seat of the Marquesses of Tuscany. In 981 Otto bestowed on its bishop civil jurisdiction over the entire diocesan territory; but in 1081 Henry IV made it a free city and conferred other favours upon it, especially in the way of trade. This was the origin of the Republic of Lucca, which lasted until 1799. From 1088 to 1144 Lucca was continually at war with her rival Pisa, and either by conquest or purchase increased her possessions. In 1160 the Guelph marquess finally surrendered all right of jurisdiction. Lucca was generally on the side of the pope against the emperor, and hence joined the League of S. Ginesio (1197). In the thirteenth century, despite her wars with Pisa, Florence, and the imperial cities, Lucca increased her power and commerce. But in 1313 the city was taken by Uguccione della Faggiuola, Lord of Pisa. The Lucchesi, however, under the most dramatic circumstances, freed themselves and chose for captain their fellow-citizen, Castruccio degli Antelminelli, known as Castracane (1316), the restorer of the military art, who had been imprisoned by Uguccione. Castruccio drove out the Pisans, obtained for life the title of Defender of the People, and received from Louis the Bavarian the hereditary title of Duke of Lucca. His descendants, however, were deprived of the title by the same prince (1328-9). Castruccio adorned and fortified the city whose territory now extended from the Magra to Pistoia and Volterra.

On the death of Castruccio, Louis conferred Lucca on Francesco, a relative and enemy of Castruccio. The Lucchesi, however, placed themselves under John of Bohemia; the latter, in 1333, pawned the city to the Rossi of Parma, who ceded it to Mastino della Scala (1335), by whom it was sold to the Florentines for 100,000 florins (1341). This displeased the Pisans, who occupied the city (1342). It was liberated by Charles IV (1360), who gave it an imperial vicar. From 1370 it was free. In 1400 Paolo Guinigi obtained the chief power, which he exercised with moderation and justice. At the instigation of the Florentines, who sought possession of the city, Guinigi was betrayed into the hands of Filippo Maria Visconti (1430), who caused him to be murdered at Pavia. With the aid of Piccinino, Lucca maintained her freedom against the Florentines. After that the security of this little state, governed by the people, was undisturbed except by the revolt of the straccioni (the lowest class) in 1521, and the conspiracy of Pietro Fatinelli (1542), who aspired to power. But in 1556 the Martinian law (Martino Bernardini) restricted participation in the government to the sons of citizens, and in 1628 this limitation was further accentuated, until in 1787 only eighty families enjoyed the right to public office. Among the institutions of this republic the discolato deserves mention. It was similar to the ostracism of the Athenians. If a citizen, either through wealth or merit, obtained excessive favour among the people, twenty-five signatures were sufficient to banish him. In 1799 Lucca was joined to the Cisalpine Republic. In 1805 Napoleon made it a dukedom for his cousin Felice Bacciochi. In 1814 it was occupied by the Neapolitans, and later by the Austrians. In 1817 it was given to Maria Luisa, widow of the King of Etruria, whose son Carlo Ludovico ceded it to Tuscany in 1847. Illustrious citizens of Lucca were Pope Lucius III (Allucingoli); the jurist, Bonagiunta Urbiciani (thirteenth century); the physician, Teodoro Borgognoni; the historian, Tolomeo de' Fiadoni; the women poets, Laura Guidiccioni and Chiara Matraini; the philologist, L. Fornaciari (nineteenth century); the painters, Berlinghieri and Orlandi (thirteenth century); the sculptor, Matteo Civitali (first half of the fifteenth century).

There is a legend that the Gospel was preached at Lucca by St. Paulinus, a disciple of St. Peter, and the discovery in 1197 of a stone, recording the deposition of the relics of Paulinus, a holy martyr, apparently confirmed this pious belief. On the stone, however, St. Paulinus is not called Bishop of Lucca, nor is there any allusion to his having lived in Apostolic times ("Analecta Bollandiana", 1904, p. 491; 1905, p. 502). The first bishop of certain date is Maximus, present at the Council of Sardica (343). At the Council of Rimini (359), Paulinus, Bishop of Lucca, was present. Perhaps the above-mentioned legend arose through a repetition of this Paulinus. Remarkable for sanctity and miracles was St. Fridianus (560-88), son of Ultonius, King of Ireland, or perhaps of a king of Ulster (Ultonia), of whom in his "Dialogues" (III, 10) St. Gregory the Great relates a miracle. On St. Fridianus see Colgan, "Acta Sanct. Scot.", I (1645), 633-51; "Dict. Christ. Biog.", s. v.; Fanucchi, "Vita di San Frediano" (Lucca, 1870); O'Hanlon, "Lives of Irish Saints", under 18 Nov.; "Analecta Bolland.", XI (1892), 262-3, and "Bolland. Bibl. hagiogr. lat." (1899), 476. In 739, during the episcopate of Walprandus, Richard, King of the Angles and father of Saints Willibald, Wunibald, and Walburga, died at Lucca and was buried in the church of S. Frediano. Under Blessed Giovanni (787) it is said the Volto Santo was brought to Lucca. Other bishops were Anselmo Badagio (1073), later Pope Alexander II, who was succeeded as bishop by his nephew Anselm of Lucca, a noted write; Apizio (1227), under whom Lucca was deprived of its episcopal see for six years by Gregory IX; the Franciscan Giovanni Salvuzzi (1383), who built the episcopal palace; Nicolò Guinigi (1394), exiled by his relative Paolo Guinigi, Lord of Lucca. In 1408 Gregory XII went to Lucca to come to a personal agreement with the antipope, Benedict XIII, and was there abandoned by his cardinals. Worthy of mention also are the writer, Felino Maria Sandeo (1499), nephew of Ariosto; Cardinals Sisto della Rovere (1508), Francesco Sforza Riario (1517), and Bartolommeo Guidiccioni (1605), under the last-named of whom the Diocese of San Miniato was formed and separated from Lucca; Cardinal Girolamo Bonvisi (1657); Bernardino Guinigi (1723), the first archbishop (1726); the learned Gian Domenico Mansi (1764-9); and finally the present cardinal archbishop, Benedetto Lorenzelli (1904), last nuncio to Paris before the separation. The Archdiocese of Lucca has no suffragans; it has 246 parishes with 230,000 souls.

MANSI, Diario sacro della Chiesa di Lucca (Venice, 1753); TOMMASI, Sommario della storia di Lucca (1847); CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XV (Venice, 1857). See, for further bibliography, CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., s.v. Lucques.

U. BENIGNI

Lucera

DIOCESE OF LUCERA (LUCERINENSIS).

Lucera is a very ancient city in the province of Foggia in Apulia, Southern Italy. It originally belonged to Daunia. In 320 B.C. it was taken by the Romans, a Roman colony being established there in 314. The Samnites defeated the Romans near Lucera in 294. During the war between Caesar and Pompey it was an important point of defence for the latter. In A.D. 663 it was captured from the Lombards and destroyed by Constantius II. Lucera attained great importance when Frederick II transferred thither the Saracens of Sicily whom he had shortly before subjugated, and who from enemies became his most faithful and trusted supporters in his wars against the popes and the great barons of the Kingdom of Naples. The royal treasury was also located at Lucera. During the invasion of Charles of Anjou Lucera made the longest resistance. The remaining Saracens were converted en masse in 1300; their mosque was destroyed by Charles II, and upon its ruins arose the present cathedral, S. Maria della Vittoria. Local tradition traces the origin of the episcopal see to the third century (St. Bassus). The first historically certain bishop is Marcus (c. 743). Among other noteworthy bishops were Nicolò, papal legate at Constantinople in 1261; the Dominican Agostino Gasotti (1318), formerly Archbishop of Zagabria; Tommaso de Acerno (1378), author of "De creatione Urbani VI opusculum"; Scipione Bozzuti (1582), killed in a sack of the city by some exiles in 1591. In 1391 the Diocese of Lucera was increased by the addition of that of Farentino, or Castelfiorentino, a city founded in 1015 by the Byzantine catapan, Basileios. It was the place of Frederick II's death. After 1409 the See of Tortiboli (Tortibulum) created before 1236, was united to Lucera. Finally in 1818, the united Diocese of Montecorvino and Vulturaria were added to Lucera. Montecorvino became an episcopal see in the tenth century, and among its bishops was St. Albert (d. 5 April, 1037). Its union with Vulturaria, a town now almost deserted, took place in 1433. Noteworthy among the later bishops was Alessandro Gerardini d'Amelia (1496), a Latin poet, author of many historical educational, and moral works, and one of the chief supporters of the expedition of Columbus; in 1515 he was transferred to San Domingo in America, where he died in 1521. The Diocese of Lucera has 17 parishes with 75,000 souls; 4 religious houses of men and 6 of women; 1 school for boys and 3 for girls. In March, 1908, the Diocese of Troia was united with Lucera. It was established in the eleventh century, and has 9 parishes with 26,200 souls, one Franciscan convent, and three houses of monks.

U. BENIGNI

Lucerne

Chief town of the Canton of Lucerne in Switzerland. The beginnings of the town, as well as the derivation of its name, are obscure; the supposition of Ægidius Tschudi, that Lucerne was once the chief town of the Burgundian kings in Aargau, is legendary. It is safer to assert that, in the eighth century, there stood at the place where the Reuss flows out of the Lake of the Four Cantons a small Benedictine monastery dedicated to St. Leodegar, which, as early as the reign of King Pepin, belonged to the abbey of Murbach in Alsace. It is doubtful whether there was a previous settlement here, or whether the place was only an accretion of the monastery. The earliest mention of Lucerne is in a charter of Emperor Lothair I, 25 July, 840. With the flourishing church community a civil community also developed, and the buildings of the two gradually combined to make a small town, which appears in German documents of the thirteenth century as Lucerren, or Luzzernon. The Abbot of Murbach exercised feudal fiscal rights through a steward or bailiff; twice a year the abbot himself administered justice from the steps in front of the Hofkirche, with twelve free men beside him as aldermen. Each newly elected Abbot of Murbach had to promise fidelity to the law in Lucerne. The paramount jurisdiction over the settlement belonged to the Landgrave of the Aargau (after 1230, the Count of Habsburg), who exercised it through juniores, or bailiffs. The rapid rise of the town in the thirteenth century was chiefly due to the opening of the road over the St. Gothard, and the consequent increase of traffic between Italy and Western Germany. Lucerne thus became an important mart, and the citizens aspired to make themselves entirely independent of any overlord. To this end they exploited the financial embarrassments of the abbots to purchase one privilege after another. In the so-called Geschworenen Brief of 1252, the council and the citizens of the town already appear as quite independent of the abbot, who was theoretically their feudal lord, and as a community possessing a seal and its own tribunals.

As the abbots of Murbach were often at odds with the Counts of Habsburg, who were also Landgraves in Alsace, in regard to their estates in Upper Alsace, Rudolf of Habsburg, after his election as emperor, confirmed all the privileges of the town, and declared that the citizens of Lucerne were received as a fief of the Empire. In order to conciliate the town, he bought, in 1291, from the Abbot of Murbach the estates of the abbey in Lucerne and in the Forest Cantons (Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden) for 2000 silver marks and five villages in Alsace. Although the town looked unfavourably on this change of ownership, it was nevertheless obliged to swear allegiance to Rudolf's son Albrecht for the confirmation of its liberties. But the Habsburg supremacy did not last long. By the renewal of the league of the above three Forest Cantons, which has revolted from Austria, the foundation of a Swiss nationality was laid. In the wars which now broke out, Lucerne had to fight against its own countrymen; still it was faithful to its Austrian suzerain until after the Battle of Morgarten (1315). The victory gained there by the Swiss encouraged the friends of liberty, and two parties were formed in Lucerne, an Austrian and a Swiss. When the town was transferred, in 1228, from the jurisdiction of Rothenburg to that of Baden, twenty-six citizens formed an association for five years to maintain the city's privileges; in 1330 this association was joined by the burgomaster and the council, and on 7 November, 1332, Lucerne entered into a perpetual league with the three Forest Cantons. Although this alliance did not contemplate complete independence, still the struggle with the House of Habsburg could not be long delayed.

After 1336 several campaigns were carried on, and the city's liberties were sometimes increased, sometimes curtailed; but Lucerne was still Austrian. In 1361 it obtained exemption from the St. Gothard toll; in 1379 Wenceslaus granted it the judicial jurisdiction of first instance over property, and in 1381 penal jurisdiction was also granted. While the Austrian supremacy was thus dwindling, the city's territory was augmented by the accession of Krienz, Horw, and other neighboring towns. In consequence of a dispute about tolls, the Lucerners stormed Rothenburg, on 23 Dec., 1385, destroyed the castle, took Entlebuch, and assisted in the destruction of the castle of Wolhusen. The war with Austria ended with the Battle of Sempach (9 July, 1368), in which the burgomaster of Lucerne, Peter von Gunoldigen, met a hero's death, and the city was rid of the Austrian yoke. Lucerne henceforward had free scope for development. In 1394 it acquired the lordships of Wolhusen, Rothenburg, and Sempach; in 1406 of Habsburg, in 1407 the countship of Willisau. The village of Merenschwand voluntarily placed itself under the protection of Lucerne in 1397. About this time, the city was encircled with strong fortifications, of which the "Musegg", to the north, with its nine towers, still exists.

When the Austrian Frederick "Empty-purse" was put under the ban of the Empire at the Council of Constance (1415), by the Emperor Sigismund, on account of his relations with Pope John XXIII, and the Swiss, allied with the emperor, prepared to conquer the Aargau, Lucerne conquered Sursee and occupied the Cistercian monastery of St. Urban at Bonnwalde, the monastery at Beromünster, and other places. The whole territory was now divided into thirteen bailiwicks. Lucerne took a considerable part in the numerous Italian campaigns of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, especially in the victorious campaigns of the Swiss against Charles the Bold of Burgundy, which brought rich spoils to the city. By the war of the Swiss against Maximilian in 1499, known as the Swabian War, the bond between Lucerne and the German Empire was entirely severed in fact, though this fact was finally recognized only in 1648, by the Peace of Westphalia.

The fifteenth century brought important internal changes: the Council, which had governed somewhat arbitrarily, was forced to stipulate that, without the consent of the entire community, it would begin no war, enter into no alliance, purchase no lordships, and impose no new taxes. As in politics, so also in learning, Lucerne took a leading part in Switzerland; in the Hofschule, dating from 1290, it possessed the oldest teaching institution of Switzerland; in addition, there was a school at the Minorite convent. The latter was famous for the production of religious dramas, which reached their zenith in the second half of the fifteenth century and attracted audiences numbering as many as 30,000. The Benedictine foundation, which had fallen into decay, was in 1456 changed into a foundation of canons, which exists to this day. In the course of the sixteenth century an aristocratic constitution was formed, which survived every political storm and lasted till the dissolution of the canton.

The Reformation divided Switzerland into two camps. Besides the four Forest Cantons (Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden, and Lucerne), Fribourg and Soleure formed the Catholic part. The new teaching did not find great following in the city, although a few scholars like Myconius and Textorius, tried at first to obtain admission. A zealous defender of the Faith arose in the Franciscan Thomas Murner, who came to Lucerne in 1524. The authorities also actively interposed against the followers of the new teaching. As the most important of the Catholic cities, Lucerne took the leading part in the conflict, notably at the Battle of Kappel, which strengthened the position of the Catholic Church in Switzerland, under her burgomasters, Hug and Golder. Also it was at the head of all the alliances which the Catholic cantons made with France or with the pope. St. Charles Borromeo, who visited Lucerne in 1570, rendered great services to the Catholic Church in Switzerland. At his suggestion on 7 Aug., 1574, the first Jesuits entered Lucerne, two fathers and a lay brother; in 1577 they received the Rittersche palace for a college. Their special protector was the burgomaster, the famous Swiss soldier, Ludwig Pfyffer, who had fought at Jarnac and Montcontour against the Huguenots, and who, from 1571 to his death in 1594, as "King of the Swiss", was the principal leader of Catholic opinion in Switzerland. His assistant for many years was the learned town clerk Renward Cysat, who collected valuable materials for the history of his native city.

In 1538 the Capuchins obtained an establishment in the city, and a permanent papal nunciature was erected there, Giovanni Francesco Bonhomini, Archbishop of Vercelli, being the first nuncio. The alliances of the Swiss with warlike popes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had resulted in active intercourse with Rome. At the instance, and in the presence, of the third nuncio, Battista Santorio, there was concluded (15 Oct., 1586), in the Hofkirche of Lucerne, the so-called Borromean, or Golden, Alliance, in which the four Forest Cantons, together with Zug, Fribourg, and Soleure, swore to be faithful to the Catholic Church, to strive for the conversion of any of their number who might fall away, and to protect the Faith to the best of their ability. As the capital of Catholic Switzerland, Lucerne made many sacrifices, and rendered great services, at the beginning of the seventeenth century to maintain the Faith in the Canton of Valais. At the same time the Council strongly insisted upon its ancient spiritual rights, in opposition to the nuncio, and this led to the sharp disputes which eventually, in 1725, caused the nuncio, Passionei, to abandon Lucerne for many years. In domestic affairs the ascendancy of the patricians increased; eligibility to office was limited to a few families, and the hereditary principle even invaded the Council. Trials for witchcraft cast a deep shadow on this period, and corruption was rife among public officials and members of the Government.

The eighteenth century wore on in a general peaceful course, after its stormy beginning in the unfortunate participation (1712) of Lucerne in the quarrel of the Abbot of St. Gall with the rebellious Toggenburg. Signs of decay showed themselves little by little in the body politic. The embezzlement of state funds and the wrangles of certain families, who dragged the state into their private feuds, added to the unpopularity of the twenty-nine "ruling families". The ideas of "enlightenment", emanating from France in the eighteenth century, found in Lucerne zealous literary champions in Councillor Felix Balthassar, whose work "De Helvetiorum juribus circa sacra", appeared in 1768, and in councillor Valentin Meyer. Thus the Revolution found a well-prepared soil at Lucerne. After the entry of the French into the Waadtland (Vaud), and the Revolution at Basle in 1798, Lucerne could no longer remain unaffected: without any popular upheaval, the high Council, quite unexpectedly, on 31 Jan., 1798, promulgated the abolition of aristocratic government, and ordered the convocation of delegates from the country, to consider a new constitution founded upon the principle of legal equality. Before this project could be realized, the entry of the French into Bern, in March 1798, ended the old confederation. Under orders from France the "Helvetian Republic" was formed, and territory of the confederation was divided into uniformly administered subordinate provinces. The Act of Mediation of Napoleon (19 Feb., 1803), which restored the old federal constitution of the republic, also brought to the people of Lucerne a larger share of self-government. With the fall of Napoleon and the entry of the allies into Lucerne, the old constitution was reestablished there (Feb., 1814), with the patrician regime. At the same time Lucerne became, alternately with Berne and Zurich, the seat of the National Diet.

In the following twenty years much feeling was aroused by the question arising out of the secularization of the Bishopric of Constance. A vicar-generalship, under the Provost Göldlin von Beromünster, was created for the part of Switzerland that had belonged to Constance. In 1821 the Bishopric of Constance was entirely abolished, and it being left to Lucerne to decide what should take its place, the city wished itself to be the new see. After years of negotiation, however, the Diocese of Basle was erected (1828), with the see at Soleure. The Liberal Democratic movement, which began in that year, destroyed the Conservative Government. The Revolution of July in France helped on the radical victory, and at the end of March, 1831, a Liberal Government came into power, whose leaders were the Burgomaster Amrhyn and the brothers Pfyffer. Josephinism thereupon became dominant in the relations of Church and State. On the advice of the burgomaster, Edward Pfyffer, the Government called a conference, on 2 0 Jan., 1834, at Baden, which agreed upon a number of articles defining the State's rights over the Church, and to inaugurate certain ecclesiastical reforms. After the High Council had adopted these Baden articles (which the pope condemned by the Bull of 18 May, 1835) the Government began to carry them out; the schools were laicized; the Franciscan monastery at Lucerne and others were abolished; property of foundations considered superfluous was inventoried; obnoxious clergy were called to account. The Government even considered the idea of expelling the nuncio, but he forestalled them, and transferred his residence to Schwyz. Those of the people who remained faithful to the Church organized themselves under the leadership of the worthy peasant Joseph Leu of Ebersoll. Their first steps, such as the proposal to recall the Jesuits, were indeed without result. But when the High Council of the Canton of Aargau, on 20 Jan., 1841, on the proposal of Augustin Keller, director of seminaries, had suppressed all the monasteries of the canton, and the Liberal party at Lucerne had openly expressed their sympathy with these hostile measures, the Liberal regime was overturned by the Conservatives in the elections of 1 May, 1841, and a new constitution was formed, which safeguarded the Church's rights. Under Joseph Leu, Siegwart Müller, and Bernard Meyer, Lucerne was again at the head of the Catholic cantons, the Baden Articles were declared null and void, and the nuncio reinstated at Lucerne.

In 1844 the recall of the Jesuits was decided upon by 70 votes to 24, an act which caused much bitterness of feeling and loud protests among the Liberals. The more thoughtless of them even had some idea of obtaining their ends by force; guerilla warfare was organized in the Cantons of Basle, Soleure, and Aargau, which in 1844 and 1845, united with their Lucerne sympathizers, to the number of 3600, and marched against the city of Lucerne, but were easily vanquished by the city's forces. The victories of the Radicals in several cantons and the murder of Leu (20 July, 1845) caused Lucerne to conclude a separate alliance (Sonderbund, 11 Dec., 1845) with Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Fribourg, Zug, and Valais, in opposition to the alliance of the Liberal cantons of 1832. Civil war was now almost inevitable. On 20 July the Swiss Diet decided on the dissolution of the Sonderbund, and on 16 Aug. accepted a revision of the alliance; on 2 Sept., the expulsion of the Jesuits was decided on. When, on 29 Sept., a proposal of the seven cantons for an arrangement was refused by the Liberal majority, who wished to ensure an extension of the federal power and a curtailment of the sovereignty of the individual cantons, the delegates of the Sonderbund left the Diet, and the war desired by the Liberal majority broke out. With the superiority of the alliance, the result could scarcely be in doubt. On 13 Nov., Fribourg was conquered; on 23 Nov., the Sonderbund troops were beaten in the Battle of Gislikon; on 24 Nov., Lucerne was forced to surrender, whereupon the other Sonderbund cantons also surrendered one by one. The campaign was decided in twenty days. Under the protection of the troops of the Confederation, a Liberal Government was elected at Lucerne, the Jesuits expelled, a few monasteries suppressed, notably the rich foundation of St. Urban, and the remaining ones burdened with levies. The new constitution (1848) of the Confederation substantially curtailed the rights of the cantons, as also did the Revision of 1874.

After several decades of religious peace, the Old-Catholic movement brought fresh discord into the canton. The reckless proceedings of the Confederation in favour of the Old Catholics, the deposition of Bishop Lachat of Basle by the diocesan conference of 29 Jan., 1873, the bigoted suppression of the nunciature by the national Government, which had the approval of the Lucerne Liberals, goaded the Catholics. Their victory at the election of 1871 led to the establishment of the Conservative Government (then headed by Philipp A. von Segesser) which since then has held its own at every election. Under it Lucerne afforded a refuge to the exiled bishop, Lachat, until the dispute was settled after protracted negotiations in which Lucerne took a considerable part. Since the opening of the St. Gothard railway, the town, owing to its noble situation on the lake, and as the gateway opening into the heart of Switzerland has rapidly developed and has become one of the centres of Swiss travel.

The canton of Lucerne, at the census of 1900, numbered 146,519 inhabitants, 134,020 of whom were Catholics, 12,085 were Protestants, and 414 of other denominations; the city, 29,255 inhabitants (23,955 Catholics, 4933 Protestants, 299 Jews). Of the eight Catholic churches and seven chapels, the most important is the collegiate church called the Hofkirche, which was rebuilt after the fire of 1633; the two towers of the old Gothic building still remain. The former church of the Jesuits was built in 1667-73. The earlier Franciscan church has one of the oldest architectural monuments of the city in its thirteenth-century Gothic choir. Lucerne is the seat of the seminary for the Diocese of Basle, with six professors. Besides the collegiate foundation in the city of Lucerne, with eleven canons and four chaplains, there has existed since the end of the tenth century the foundation of Beromünster, with a provost, eighteen canons, and ten chaplains. Of religious establishments there are at present three Capuchin houses (Lucerne, Sursee, and Schüpfheim), a house of Capuchinesses at Gerlisheim, one of Cistercianesses at Eschenbach, whose abbess has the right of bearing the crosier; the Sisterhood of St. Martha in the hospital at Lucerne and the society of Baldegger Sisters, with a branch house and a seminary for governesses. The "Vaterland", the most important Catholic newspaper in Switzerland, appears at Lucerne, also the excellent "Schweizerichsche Katholische Kirchenzeitung".

PFYFFER, Geschichte der Stadt und des Kantons Luzern (2 vols., Zurich, 1850-52); IDEM, Historisch-geographisch-statistiches Gemälde des Kantons Luzern (2 vols., Lucerne, 1851-58); VON SEGESSER, Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Republik Luzern (4 vols., Lucerne, 1851-58); IDEM, 45 Jahre in luzernischen Staatsdienst (Bern, 1887); MEYER, Erlebnisse (Vienna, 1875); VON LIEBENAU, Das alte Luzern (Lucerne, 1881); FLEISCHLIN, Die Stifts-und Pfarrkirche zu Sankt Leodegarius und Mauritius in Hof zu Luzern (Lucerne, 1908); KESSER, Luzern und der Vierwaldstättersee (Leipzig, 1908); Nuntiatuberichte aus der Schweiz seit dem Konzil von Trient, I (Solothurn, 1906); HENGGELLER, Aus Recht und Geschichte der kath. Kirche in der Innerschweiz, I (Lucerne, 1909); Der Geschichtsfreund. Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins der 5 Orte Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden und Zug (Einsiedeln and Stans, 1843--).

JOSEPH LINS

Lucian of Antioch

A priest of the Church of Antioch who suffered martyrdom (7 January, 312), during the reign of Maximinus Daza. According to a tradition preserved by Suidas (s.v.), Lucian was born at Samosata, of pious parents, and was educated in the neighbouring city of Edessa at the school of a certain Macarius. Not much faith can be attached to these statements, which are not corroborated by any other author; Suidas very probably confounded the history of Lucian with that of his famous namesake, the pagan satirist of a century earlier. The confusion is easily pardoned, however, as both exhibited the same intellectual traits and the same love for cold literalism.

Early in life Lucian took up his residence at Antioch, where he was ordained presbyter, and where he soon attained a commanding position as head of the theological school in that city. Though he cannot be accused of having shared the theological views of Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion at the time of Paul's condemnation, and was compelled to sever his communion with the Church. This breach with the orthodox party lasted during the episcopates of three bishops, Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyril, whose administration extended from 268 to 303. It seems more likely that Lucian was reconciled with the Church early in the episcopate of Cyril (perhaps about 285) than in that of his successor; otherwise it is hard to understand how bishops in the Orient could have received his pupils. Very little is known about the life of Lucian, though few men have left such a deep print on the history of Christianity. The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation which dominated the Eastern Church for a long period. In the field of theology, in the minds of practically all writers (the most notable modern exception being Gwatkin, in his "Studies of Arianism", London, 1900), he has the unenviable reputation of being the real author of the opinions which afterwards found expression in the heresy of Arius. In his Christological system — a compromise between Modalism and Subordinationism — the Word, though Himself the Creator of all subsequent beings was a creature, though superior to all other created things by the wide gulf between Creator and creature. The great leaders in the Arian movement (Arius himself, Eusebius, the court bishop of Nicomedia, Maris, and Theognis) received their training under him and always venerated him as their master and the founder of their system.

Despite his heterodoxy, Lucian was a man of the most unexceptionable virtue (Eusebius, H. E., VIII, xiii, 2); at the height of the Arian controversy his fame for sanctity was not less than his reputation as a scholar. During the persecution of Maximinus Daza he was arrested at Antioch and sent to Nicomedia, where he endured many tortures and, after delivering a long oration in defence of his faith, was finally put to death. The most enduring memorial of the life of Lucian, next to the Christological controversy which his teachings aroused was his influence on Biblical study. Receiving the literal sense alone he laid stress on the need of textual accuracy and himself undertook to revise the Septuagint on the original Hebrew. His edition was widely used in the fourth century (Jerome, De Vir. III. Ixxvii Praef. ad Paralip.; Adv. Rufium xxvi, Epis., 106). He also published a recession of the New Testament. St. Jerome (De Vir. Ill, 77), in addition to the recension of the Bible, speaks of "Lebelli de Fide", none of which are extant. He is also credited with the composition of a Creed, presented to the Council of Antioch in 341 (Athan., "Ep. de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc". xxiii), but his authorship is doubtful; in fact it is certain he did not compose it in its present form. Rufinus (H. E., IX, vi) has preserved a translation of his apologetic oration. There are epistles mentioned by Suidas; a fragment of one announces the death of Anthimus, a bishop ("Chronicon Paschale in P.G. XCII, 689).

ROUTH, Reliquiae Sacrae, IV, i, 17; Acta SS. Jan. I, 357, 365; BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, II, 235, 241; HARNACK, Die Chronologie der alchristlichen Litteratur, II, 138-146; BATIFOL, Etude d'hagiographie arienne;La Passion Saint Lucien d'Antioche, compte-rendu au congris scientifique international des Catholiques (Paris, 1891), sect. 11, 181, 186; WESTCOTT, History of the New Testament Canon, 392 sq.; NEWMAN, Arians of the Fourth Century; BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN, (St. Louis, 1908).

PATRICK J. HEALY

John Lucic

(Or LUCIUS)

Croatian historian, b. early in the seventeenth century, at Trojir, or Tragurion, in Dalmatia; d. at Rome, 11 January, 1679. He was descended from an ancient and noble Croatian family. After making his college course at his birthplace, he took up the study of law, first at Padua (1620) and later at Rome, where he received the degree of Doctor Utriusque Juris. Returning to Trojir in 1633, he resided there until 1654, and there discovered the manuscript of the "Coena Trimalchionis", known as the "Traguriensis", which was afterwards published by Statilic at Padua, 1664. At Trojir he began his researches into the history of his native country, to which he chiefly devoted the rest of his life, and which gained for him the title of "Father of Croatian History". When, in 1654, he returned to Rome to continue his historical studies, he gained the friendship and protection of many men of eminence, among them several cardinals. To Ughelli, the author of "Italia Sacra", he furnished much of the material relating to Croatian history. In April, 1663, he was named president of the "Congregatio S. Hieronymi nationis Illricorum de Urbe", by Cardinal Julius Sacchetti. Lucic also wrote various works on ecclesiastical history, most of which are lost. A few of them are still preserved in the Vatican Library.

Lucic was never married. He resided at Rome until his death, and was buried there, in the church of St. Jerome, where a monument was erected to his memory in 1740. The following are his principal published works: "De Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex" (6 vols., Venice, 1673); "Inscriptiones Dalmaticae, notae ad memoriale Pauli de Paulo, notae ad Palladium Fuscum, addenda vel corrigenda in opere de regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, variae lectiones Chronici Ungarici manuscripti cum editis" (Venis, 1673).

ANTHONY-LAWRENCE GANCEVIC

Lucifer

(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (II Petr. 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life. The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

A.J. MAAS

Lucifer of Cagliari

(LUCIFER CALARITANUS)

A bishop, who must have been born in the early years of the fourth century; died in 371. His birthplace and the circumstances of his youth are unknown. He first appears in ecclesiastical history, in full maturity of strength and abilities, in 354 when he was deputed by Pope Liberius, with the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilary, to request the Emperor Constantius to convene a council, to deal with the accusations directed against St. Athanasius and his previous condemnation. This council was convened at Milan. Lucifer there defended the Bishop of Alexandria with much passion and in very violent language, thus furnishing the adversaries of the great Alexandrian with a pretext for resentment and further violence, and causing a new condemnation of Athanasius. Constantius, unaccustomed to independence on the part of the bishops, grievously maltreated Lucifer and his colleague, Eusebius of Vercelli. Both were exiled, Lucifer being sent to Germanica, in Syria, and thence to Eleutheropolis in Palestine; he was finally relegated to the Thebaid.

In the course of this exile Lucifer wrote an extremely virulent pamphlet entitled "Ad Constantium Augustum pro sancto Athanasio libri II", an eloquent defence of Catholic orthodoxy, but in such exaggerated language that it overshot the mark and injured the cause it was meant to serve. Lucifer boasted of his work, and Constantius, tyrant that he was, refrained from further revenge. After the death of Constantius, Julian allowed all the exiles to return to their cities. Lucifer went to Antioch, and at once meddled in the dissensions which divided the Catholic party. He prolonged and embittered them by consecrating a bishop who appeared to him capable of continuing the opposition to the bishop and party which he judged the weaker under the circumstances. Incapable of tact, he aggravated the dissenters, instead of dealing cautiously with them in order to win them, and displayed special severity towards those Catholics who had wavered in their adherence to the Nicene Creed. About this time a Council of Alexandria presided over by St. Athanasius decreed that Arians renouncing their heresy should be pardoned and that bishops who, by compulsion, had temporized with heretics should not be disturbed. Against this indulgence Lucifer protested, and went so far as to anathematize his former friend, Eusebius of Vercelli, who carried out the decrees of the Council of Alexandria. Seeing that his extreme opinions won partisans neither West nor East, he withdrew to Sardinia, resumed his see, and formed a small sect called the Luciferians. These sectaries pretended that all priests who had participated in Arianism should be deprived of their dignity, and that bishops who recognized the rights of even repentant heretics should be excommunicated. The Luciferians, being earnestly opposed, commissioned two priests, Marcellinus and Faustinus, to present a petition, the wellknown "Libellus precum", to the Emperor Theodosius, explaining their grievances and claiming protection. The emperor forbade further pursuit of them, and their schism seems not to have lasted beyond this first generation.

HARTEL in Corp. script. eccles, lat., XIV (1886); USENER, Lucifer von Cagliari und sein Latein in Archiv für latein. Lexikogr. und Gramm., III (1886), 1-58; KRÜGER, Lucifer Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer (Leipzig, 1886); TILLEMONT, Mém. hist. ecclés, VII (1700), 514-24, 763-66; DAVIES in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.

H. LECLERCQ.

Crypt of Lucina

The traditional title of the most ancient section of the catacomb of St. Callistus. According to the theory of De Rossi, St. Lucina (honoured at Rome on 30 June), after whom this portion of the cemetery is called, was the original donor of the area, and at the same time identical with the noble Roman matron, Pomponia Graecina, wife of the conqueror of Britain, Aulus Plautius. Lucina is believed to have been the baptismal name of Pomponia Graecina. De Rossi's hypothesis, which is generally accepted, rests on a passage of the "Annals" of Tacitus (XIII, xxxii), and on certain inscriptions discovered in the Crypt of Lucina. According to Tacitus, "Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished lady, wife of the Plautius who on his return from Britain received an ovation, was accused of some foreign superstition, and handed over to her husband's judicial decision. Following ancient precedent, he heard his wife's cause in the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, her legal status and character, and he reported that she was innocent. This Pomponia lived a long life of unbroken melancholy. After the murder of Julia, Drusus's daughter, by Messalina's treachery, for forty years she wore only the attire of a mourner with her heart ever sorrowful. For this, during the reign of Claudius, she escaped unpunished, and it was afterwards counted a glory to her." The "foreign superstition" of the Roman historian is now generally regarded as probably identical with the Christian religion. When de Rossi first conjectured that this might be the case, he announced his view merely as a more or less remote probability, but subsequent discoveries in the cemetery of St. Callistus confirmed his supposition in the happiest manner. The first of these discoveries was the tomb of a Pomponius Grekeinos, evidently a member of the family of Pomponia, and possibly her descendant; the inscription dates from about the beginning of the third century. A short distance from this, the tomb of a Pomponius Bassus was also found — another member of the family to which belonged the mysterious lady of the reign of Claudius. Thus the conversion to Christianity of this noble lady is established with a degree of probability that approaches certainty.

NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea, I (2nd ed., London, 1879), 82-3, 279-81; STOKES in SMITH AND WACE, Dict. Christ. Biog., IV (London, 1887), s.v. Pomponia Graecina.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Pope St. Lucius I

(253-254); d. at Rome, 5 March, 254. After the death of St. Cornelius, who died in exile in the summer of 253, Lucius was chosen to fill his place, and consecrated Bishop of Rome. Nothing is known of the early life of this pope before his elevation. According to the "Liber Pontificalis", he was Roman born, and his father's name was Porphyrius. Where the author obtained this information is not known. The persecution of the Church under the Emperor Gallus, during which Cornelius had been banished, still went on. Lucius also was sent into exile soon after his consecration, but in a short time, presumably when Valerian was made emperor, he was allowed to return to his flock. The Felician Catalogue, whose information is found in the "Liber Pontificalis", informs us of the banishment and the miraculous return of Lucius: "Hic exul fuit et postea nutu Dei incolumis ad ecclesiam reversus est." St. Cyprian, who wrote a (lost) letter of congratulation to Lucius on his elevation to the Roman See and on his banishment, sent a second letter of congratulation to him and his companions in exile, as well as to the whole Roman Church (ep. lxi, ed. Hartel, II, 695 sqq.).

The letter begins:

Beloved Brother, only a short time ago we offered you our congratulations, when in exalting you to govern His Church God graciously bestowed upon you the twofold glory of confessor and bishop. Again we congratulate you, your companions, and the whole congregation, in that, owing to the kind and mighty protection of our Lord, He has led you back with praise and glory to His own, so that the flock can again receive its shepherd, the ship her pilot, and the people a director to govern them and to show openly that it was God's disposition that He permitted your banishment, not that the bishop who had been expelled should be deprived of his Church, but rather that he might return to his Church with greater authority.

Cyprian continues, alluding to the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace, that the return from exile did not lessen the glory of the confession, and that the persecution, which was directed only against the confessors of the true Church, proved which was the Church of Christ. In conclusion he describes the joy of Christian Rome on the return of its shepherd. When Cyprian asserts that the Lord by means of persecution sought "to bring the heretics to shame and to silence them," and thus to prove where the Church was, who was her one bishop chosen by God's dispensation, who were her presbyters bound up with the bishop in the glory of the priesthood, who were the real people of Christ, united to His flock by a peculiar love, who were those who were oppressed by their enemies, and at the same time who those were whom the Devil protects as his own, he obviously means the Novatians. The schism of Novatian, through which he was brought forward as antipope, in opposition to Cornelius, still continued in Rome under Lucius.

In the matter of confession and the restoration of the "Lapsi" (fallen) Lucius adhered to the principles of Cornelius and Cyprian. According to the testimony of the latter, contained in a letter to Pope Stephen (ep. lxviii, 5, ed. Hartel, II, 748), Lucius, like Cornelius, had expressed his opinions in writing: "Illi enim pleni spiritu Domini et in glorioso martyrio constituti dandam esse lapsis pacem censuerunt et poenitentia acta fructum communicationis et pacis negandum non esse litteris suis signaverunt." (For they, filled with the spirit of the Lord and confirmed in glorious martyrdom, judged that pardon ought to be given to the Lapsi, and signified in their letters that, when these had done penance, they were not to be denied the enjoyment of communion and reconciliation.) Lucius died in the beginning of March, 254. In the "Depositio episcoporum" the "Chronograph of 354" gives the date of his death as 5 March, the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" as 4 March. The first date is probably right. Perhaps Lucius died on 4 March and was buried 5 March. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" this pope was beheaded in the time of Valerian, but this testimony cannot be admitted. It is true that Cyprian in the letter to Stephen above mentioned (ep. lxviii, 5) gives him, as well as Cornelius, the honorary title of martyr: "servandus est enim antecessorum nostrorum beatorum martyrum Cornelii et Lucii honor gloriosus" (for the glorious memory of our predecessors the blessed martyrs Cornelius and Lucius is to be preserved); but probably this was on account of Lucius's short banishment. Cornelius, who died in exile, was honoured as a martyr by the Romans after his death; but not Lucius. In the Roman calendar of feasts of the "Chronograph of 354" he is mentioned in the "Depositio episcoporum", and not under the head of "Depositio martyrum". His memory was, nevertheless, particularly honoured, as is clear from the appearance of his name in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum". Eusebius, it is true, maintains (Hist. Eccl., VII, 10) that Valerian was favourable to the Christians in the early part of his reign. The emperor's first persecution edict appeared only in 257.

Lucius was buried in a compartment of the papal vault in the catacombs of St. Callistus. On the excavation of the vault, de Rossi found a large fragment of the original epitaph, which only gives the pope's name in Greek: LOUKIS. The slab is broken off just behind the word, so that in all probability there was nothing else on it except the title EPISKOPOS (bishop). The relics of the saint were transferred by Pope Paul I (757-767) to the church of San Silvestro in Capite, or by Pope Paschal I (817-824) to the Basilica of St. Praxedes [Marucchi, "Basiliques et eglises de Rome", Rome, 1902, 399 (inscription in San Silvestro), 325 (inscription in S. Praxedes)]. The author of the "Liber Pontificalis" has unauthorizedly ascribed to St. Lucius a decretal, according to which two priests and three deacons must always accompany the bishop to bear witness to his virtuous life: "Hic praecepit, ut duo presbyteri et tres diaconi in omni loco episcopum non desererent propter testimonium ecclesiasticum." Such a measure might have been necessary under certain conditions at a later period; but in Lucius's time it was incredible. This alleged decree induced a later forger to invent another apocryphal decretal, and attribute it to Lucius. The story in the "Liber Pontificalis" that Lucius, as he was being led to death, gave the archdeacon Stephen power over the Church, is also a fabrication. The feast of St. Lucius is held on 4 March.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, XCVII, 153; ALLARD, Histoire des persecutions, III (Paris, 1887), 27 sq.; DE ROSSI, Roma sotterranea, II (Rome, 1867), 62-70; JAFFE, Regesta Rom. Pont., 2nd ed., I, 19-20; WILPERT, Die Papstgraber und die Caciliengruft (Freiburg im Br., 1909), 19.

J.P. KIRSCH

Pope Lucius II

(Gherardo Caccianemici dal Orso)

Born at Bologna, unknown date, died at Rome, 15 February, 1145. Before entering the Roman Curia he was a canon regular in Bologna. In 1124 Honorius II created him Cardinal-Priest of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. From 1125-1126 he was papal legate in Germany where he took part in the election of King Lothair III in 1125, was instrumental in the appointment of St. Norbert as Bishop of Magdeburg in July, 1126, and helped settle the quarrel concerning the filling of the See of Wurzburg, after Bishop Gebhard had been deposed by papal authority in 1126. During the pontificate of Innocent II (1130-43) we find him three times as legate in Germany, viz., in the years 1130-1, 1133-4, and 1136. In all these legations he loyally supported the interests of Innocent II, and it must be ascribed chiefly to his exertions that Lothair III made two expeditions to Italy for the purpose of protecting Innocent II against the antipope, Anacletus II. Towards the end of the pontificate of Innocent II he was appointed papal chancellor and librarian. He was elected and consecrated pope at Rome on 12 March, 1144, to succeed Celestine II who had reigned only five months and twelve days.

The new pope took the name of Lucius II; shortly after his accession he had a conference with King Roger of Sicily at Ceperano early in June, 1144, for the purpose of reaching an understanding with the king regarding his duties as a vassal of the Apostolic See. Roger's demands, however, were so extravagant that Lucius on the advice of his cardinals rejected them. The king now had recourse to arms and Lucius was forced to conclude a truce on terms that were dictated by Roger. In Rome affairs were even less promising. Lucius, indeed, had succeeded in dissolving the senate which had been reluctantly established by Innocent II and which had practically wrested the temporal power from the pope, but encouraged by the success of King Roger of Sicily, the republican faction now elected Pierleoni, a brother of the antipope Anacletus, as senator and demanded that the pope should relinquish all temporal matters into his hands. After vainly calling upon Emperor Conrad for protection, Lucius II marched upon the Capitol at the head of a small army but suffered defeat. If we may believe the statement of Godfrey of Viterbo in his "Pantheon" (Muratori, "Script. rer. Ital.", VII, 461; and P.L., CXCVIII, 988) Lucius II was severely injured by stones that were thrown upon him on this occasion and died a few days later. At a synod held in Rome during May, 1144, he settled the prolonged dispute between the Metropolitan of Tours and the Bishop of Dol by making the latter suffragan of the former. He requested Abbot Peter of Cluny to send thirteen of his monks to Rome and upon their arrival gave them the monastery of St. Sabas on the Aventine on 19 January, 1145. He founded a few other monasteries in Italy and Germany and was especially well disposed towards the recently instituted Order of the Premonstratensians. His epistles and privileges are printed in P.L., CLXXIX, 823-936.

JAFFE, Regesta pontificum Romanorum (Leipzig, 1885-8); WATTERICH, Pontificum Romanorum vitae (Leipzig, 1862), 278-281; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, V (Freiburg, 1886), 492 sq.; GRISAR in Kirchenlex., also the histories of the city of Rome by GREGOROVIUS and VON REUMONT.

MICHAEL OTT

Pope Lucius III

(Ubaldo Allucingoli)

Born at Lucca, unknown date; died at Verona, 25 Notaember, 1185. Innocent II created him Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prassede on 23 February, 1141, and afterwards sent him as legate to France. Under Eugene III he was sent as legate to Sicily and on 1 January, 1159, he became Bishop of Ostia and Velletri. In 1177 he was commissioned by Alexander III to take part in the famous peace congress of Venice, where an amicable settlement was reached between Alexander III and Emperor Frederick I. Hereupon he was appointed a member of the court of arbitration which was instituted to investigate the validity of the donation of Countess Matilda, but which arrived at no definite conclusion. On 1 September, 1181, a day after the death of Alexander III, he was elected pope at Velletri where he was also crowned on the following Sunday, 6 September. In the beginning of November he came to Rome, but there the revolutionary party soon became so incensed against him because he refused to grant them certain privileges which his predecessors had granted, that he was compelled to leave Rome in the middle of March, 1182. He went to Velletri where he received the ambassadors whom King William of Scotland had sent to obtain absolution from the ban which he had incurred under Alexander III. He freed the king from all ecclesiastical censures and as a sign of good will sent him the Golden Rose on 17 March, 1183. From Velletri the pope proceeded to Segni where on 5 September, 1183, he canonized St. Bruno, who had been bishop of that place. He again returned to Rome endeavouring to put an end to the continual intestine dissensions of the Romans, but they made life so unbearable to him that he left the city a second time.

After spending a short time in Southern Italy Lucius III went to Bologna where he consecrated the cathedral on 8 July, 1184. The remainder of his pontificate he spent at Verona, where, with the cooperation of Emperor Frederick I, he convened a synod from October to November, 1184, at which severe measures were taken against the prevalent heresies of those days, especially against the Cathari, the Waldenses, and the Arnoldists. At this synod the emperor promised to make preparations for a crusade to the Holy Land. Though the relations between Lucius III and Emperor Frederick I were not openly hostile, still they were always strained. When after the death of Bishop Arnold of Trier a double election ensued, the pope firmly refused to give his approbation to Volkmar, the candidate of the minority, although the emperor had already invested him at Constance. Neither did Lucius III yield to the emperor who demanded that the German bishops, unlawfully appointed by the antipopes during the pontificate of Alexander III, should be reconsecrated and retain their sees. He also refused to grant Frederick's request to crown his son Henry IV emperor. On the other hand, Frederick would not acknowledge the validity of the Matildan donations to the Holy See, and did not assist Lucius against the Roman barons. The letters and decrees of Lucius III are printed in P.L., CCI, 1071-1376.

JAFFE, Regesta pontificum Romanorum (Leipzig, 1885-8); Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1886-92), 450; WATTERICH, Pontificum Romanorum vitae, II (Leipzig, 1862), 650-62; PIGHI, Centenario di Lucio III e Urbano III in Verona (Verona, 1886); GRISAR in Kirchenlex; SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, Kaiser Friedrichs letzer Streit mit der Kurie (1866); GREGOROVIUS, Gesch. der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1859-72); VON REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867-70).

MICHAEL OTT

Luçon

Diocese of Luçon (Lucionensis).

Embraces the Department of La Vendée. It was suppressed by the Concordat of 1801 and annexed to the Diocese of La Rochelle; however, its re-establishment was urged upon in the Concordat of 1817 and came into effect in 1821. The new Diocese of Luçon comprised the territory of the ancient diocese (minus a few parishes incorporated in the Diocese of Nantes) and almost all the former Diocese of Maillezais.

DIOCESE OF LUÇON

The monastery of Luçon was founded in 682 by Ansoald, Bishop of Poitiers, who placed it under the government of St. Philbert (616-684). The latter, being expelled from Jumièges, established the monastery of the Black Benedictines on the Isle of Her (Noirmoutiers), of which Luçon was at first a dependency, probably as a priory. The list of the abbots of Luçon begins about the middle of the eleventh century. In 1317 John XXII erected the Bishopric of Luçon and among the occupants of the see were Nicolas Cœur (1441-51), brother of the celebrated financier Jacques Cœur; Cardinal Jean de Lorraine (1523-4); Cardinal Louis de Bourbon (1524-7); Jacques Duplessis-Richelieu (1584-92); and Armand Duplessis-Richelieu, the famous cardinal (1606-23); Nicolas Colbert, brother of the great minister (1661-71); De Mercy (1775-90), who emigrated during the Revolution and became illustrious through the excellent instructions sent to his priests; and René-François Soyer (1821-45), famed for the activity with which, even as a young priest, he had assumed various disguises and, during the most perilous hours of the Revolution exercised his ecclesiastical functions in the suburbs of Poitiers. Bishop Soyer had for a very short time as his vicar-general the Abbé Affre, who subsequently, as Archbishop of Paris, fell in 1848 on the barricades in an effort to make peace.

DIOCESE OF MAILLEZAIS

The Benedictine monastery of Maillezais was founded about 989 by Gauzbert, Abbot of St-Julien de Tours, urged thereto by William IV, Duke of Aquitaine, and his wife Emma. Abbot Pierre (about 1100), who followed Richard Cœur de Lion to the crusade, composed two books on the construction and transfer of the Abbey of Maillezais. In 1317 John XXII erected the Bishopric of Maillezais and among its bishops were Guillaume de Lucé (1421-38) and Thibaud de Lucé (1438-55), political counsellors of Charles VII, King of France. In 1631 Urban VIII, with a view to a more active struggle against Protestantism, transferred the residence of the Bishop of Maillezais to Fontenay-le-Comte; in 1648 the see itself was suppressed by Innocent X and its territory annexed to the Aunis district and the Isle of Ré, both of which had been detached from the Diocese of Saintes in order to form that of La Rochelle; this condition lasted until 1821. Besides St. Philbert the principal saints honoured in the Diocese of Luçon are: St. Benedict of Aizenay, a contemporary of St. Hilary, the apostle of Bas Poitou (fourth century); St. Macarius, disciple of St. Martin, apostle of the land of the Mauges (fourth century); St. Viventianus (d. 413); and St. Martin of Vertou (d. 601), apostle of the country of the Herbauges; St. Florent, of the Isle of Yeu, disciple of St. Martin and founder of the monastery of St. Hilaire on the Isle of Yeu (fourth century); St. Lienne, disciple of St. Hilary, Abbot of St. Hilaire le Grand of Poitiers, in whose honour a monastery was erected at La-Roche-sur-Yon (fourth century); St. Senoch of Tiffauges, hermit and miracle-worker (sixth century); St. Amandus, of the Isle of Yeu (d. 675), monk at St. Hilaire on the Isle of Yeu and later Bishop of Maastricht; St. Vitalis or Viaud, hermit (seventh or eighth century); St. Adalard who died at Noirmoutiers and, because of his virtue, was called by his contemporaries "Antoine des Gaules"; and Blessed Louis-Marie-Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716).

Rabelais was a Franciscan at Fontenay-le-Comte and a monk in the monastery of Maillezais and was honoured with the friendship of Geoffroy d'Estissac (1518-43), Bishop of Maillezais. The Diocese of Luçon was violently disturbed at the time of the Reformation. In 1568 a canon who fortified himself in the cathedral and sustained a long siege against the Protestants, was captured and hanged, and the Catholics who had shut themselves up in the church with him were massacred. During the Revolution this diocese was the centre of the War of La Vendée. The chief places of pilgrimage are: Notre-Dame de Garreau in the Hermier chapel, visited probably by Louis XIII at the time of his wars against the Huguenots; La Sainte Famille du Chêne at La Rabatelière (since 1874); since the beatification of Grignion de Montfort (22 January, 1888) his tomb and the calvary that he established at Saint-Laurent sur Sèvre, attract over 20,000 pilgrims yearly.

The Diocese of Luçon was the nursery of very important congregations; among the congregations of men dispersed by the Association law of 1901, the following merit mention: the Missionary Priests of the Society of Mary (Compagnie de Marie); and the Christian Brothers of St. Gabriel (Frères de l'instruction chrétienne de Saint Gabriel) founded in 1705 at Saint-Laurent-sur-Sèvre by Blessed Louis-Marie-Grignion de Montfort and whose numbers increased greatly since 1820 under the direction of Père Gabriel Deshayes. In 1901 the Missionary Priests had establishments in ten French dioceses, also in England, Canada, Holland, and Haiti, while the brothers, devoted to teaching, had a membership of 1420 and 165 establishments, some of them in Canada, England, Belgium, and the French Congo. There were also the Sons of Mary Immaculate (Enfants de Marie Immaculée), missionaries and teachers, founded early in the nineteenth century at Chavagnes en Paillers by Venerable Louis-Marie Baudouin, with missionary houses in the English Antilles. Among the congregations of women we must mention: Sisters of Christian Union (Sœurs de l'Union chrétienne), a teaching order founded in 1630 by Marie Lumague with a mother-house at Fontenay-le-Comte; Daughters of Wisdom (Filles de la Sagesse), devoted to nursing and teaching, founded in 1703 by Blessed Grignion de Montfort and having in 1901 a membership of 4800, with 360 establishments in France and 43 in Haiti; Ursulines of Jesus (Ursulines de Jésus), a teaching order founded in 1802 at Chavagnes en Paillers by Venerable Louis-Marie Baudouin with houses in England; Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and of Mary (Sœurs du Sacré Cœur de Jésus et de Marie), teachers, founded by the Abbé Moreau in 1818, with mother-house at Mormaison to which in 1900 were subject over 1033 members in 154 institutions.

At the end of 1907 there remained in the diocese eleven religious communities of women. At the close of the nineteenth century the diocese could boast of the following establishments conducted by religious: 42 infant schools, 1 boys' orphanage, 5 girls' orphanages, 1 alms-house, 15 hospitals or hospices, and 13 communities for the care of the sick in their homes. At the end of 1907 the Diocese of Luçon had a population of 441,311, 36 canonical parishes, 262 "succursales" parishes, 154 curacies, 12 chapels-of-ease, and 633 priests.

      Gallia christiana, nova, II (1720), 1404-19, and instrumenta, 389-428; nova, II (1720), 1362-79, and instrumenta, 379-90; La Fontenelle de VaudorÉ, Histoire du Monastére et des Evêques de Luçon (Fontenay-le-Comte, 1847); du Tressay, Histoire des Moines et des Evêques de Luçon, I (Paris, 1868); Barbier de Montault, L'Office de la Conception à Luçon au XV ^e siècle (Vannes, 1888); Boutin, Légendes des saints du propre de l'église de Luçon (Fontenay-le-Comte, 1892); LabaulÈre; Recherches historiques sur Luçon (Luçon, 1907); Lacroix, Richelieu à Luçon (Paris, 1890); Lacurie, Histoire de l'abbaye de Maillezais (Fontenay-le-Comte, 1852); Chevalier, Topobibl., s. v.